Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Tommstein

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 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.

Addendum to my statement
Since posting this RFA Tommstein has taken to revenge/hostile edits, and page vandalism (revenge/vandalism in response to my deletion of an unsourced and questionable edit; hostile, off-topic, and inaccurate edit). I will refrain from reverting these remarks, for now, so as to not further exacerbate the situation. Please accept my request for arbitration. Duffer 06:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Tommstein has done nothing except follow Duffer1's own policy of removing unsourced assertions. The edit summary itself talks about reinserting after documentation with verifiable sources. Tommstein is further unaware of editor Duffer1's permission being required in order to remove unsourced material from the encyclopedia, superceding the official Verifiability policy that states that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit. Editors should therefore provide references. Any edit lacking a source may be removed" and the Citing sources style guide that states "that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor" and that "Disputed edits can be removed immediately". I further note Duffer1's inability to state his concern without engaging in WP:NPA, WP:CIV, and WP:AGF violations and attacking his fellow editors.Tommstein 07:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Another Addendum 1/24/06
Apparently user:Tommstein has been indefinately banned by wiki Admin User:NicholasTurnbull. While I agree with this ban, I recommend that this arbration continue, with Tomm's involvement, as it is not his behavior alone that is noted in the above RFA. I find it odd that user:Central has failed to give any statement beyond his malicious comments found below in Krich's statement  .Additionally I think that ArbCom support, or denyal, of Administrator Turnbull's actions would be in order so that there can be no question in Tomm's, or anyone elses, minds as to exactly why disciplinary action is taken (if it comes to further (or affirmation of) disciplinary action). Duffer 01:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

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))

Addendum to reinforce the need for arbitration
Since the addition of this case on 06:19, January 18, 2006 and Tommstein's subsequent receival of notification at 11:22 on the same date, he has managed to demonstrate so eloquently Duffer's reasons for bringing this case to this committee, with the following items visible on this page as of this edit (foulest language edited out):
 * Response to impartial view, which could have helped him:
 * "Thank you for the impartial view, but expecting any of these god d**ned a**holes that somehow rise to the level of administrator or arbitrator on Wikipedia
 * to actually do any f**king research is apparently asking too much from whatever limited capacities they may have.
 * It is in vain, because we already have some dickfaced f**ktards here who have not only started cussing at me, but have decided both that I am guilty and that they personally want to ban me
 * without having bothered to look at the other god d**ned side, having done a personal trial and verdict...
 * which means that I'm going to get banned soon no matter what I say or do, so f**k them
 * I'm not kissing their stupid, sorry antisocial a**es.
 * After all my dealings with the stupid lazya** f**kers that rise to positions of power on Wikipedia..."
 * '''his response to admonitions that he compose himself for the time being: on his own talk page.

I would like to reiterate that I offered my own opinion that only a limited ban be imposed, but with Tommstein's inability grasp the authority structure here, or at the very least attempt to appease it, I would suggest at this time that the committee honor his attempts to get himself banned more severely, though hopefully with more civility than he has used in condemning them. - CobaltBlueTony 17:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for quoting my edits found three inches down this very page. I don't think anyone would have found them without your guiding hand.Tommstein 15:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "Repetition for emphasis." - CobaltBlueTony 15:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. 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)

Statement by uninvolved party, Krich
I have been reading and observing several of the articles regarding Jehovah\'s Witnesses for a while, and have spent a long time reading through the long histories. I have to agree that Tommstein can often be very aggressive when arguing his points, and has often crossed over to incivility. He is tenatious when defending each and every edit he disputes, but that itself is of course not a bad thing. I agree that he needs to be made to understand that he must dial things back a lot if he wishes to keep editing.

I also note that articles regarding this religious subject are often very contentious, and Tommstein is not the only editor (on either \"side\" of the issues) to have often been uncivil, or to have refused to assume good faith at times. That\'s not an excuse for Tommstein, but there is context, and he\'s not alone in misbehavior there.

I believe, from my observations, that Tommstein has been more resistant to the good-faith efforts Kelly and Nicholas have made to get him to tone it down because of a perception he has that he is being singled out among all editors in these article disputes. No matter if he is right or wrong, it appears to me that his perception has been a factor in his not being very responsive to date. Perhaps an RfC where the concerns of all parties could be aired, and more outside input from other editors might help convince all involved to pull back the hostility and unacceptable uncivil language.

I would suggest to Aribitors considering whether to accept this to consider that it might be better to exhaust other avenues first. At least one of the mediations that have recently been entered into by these parties has bourne fruit, with progress (often slow, but real) made.

I haven\'t seen an RfC filed yet, unless I\'ve missed it. Tommstein contributes a lot of good information along with the heat. I honestly think that given a wider group of people viewing some of these behaviors and commenting on them, Tommstein might be able to see where he must dial back the attitude to be able to continue to make his positive contributions. I\'d like to see an RfC filed first, and the outcome of mediation that\'s still going on and making progress, before going all the way to an ArbCom. I recommend Arbitors decline to hear this at this time, pending those other remedies working their course a bit further. Thanks, --Krich (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You didn't miss the RFC, I just apparently wasn't worthy of one. Thank you for the impartial view, but expecting any of these god damned assholes that somehow rise to the level of administrator or arbitrator on Wikipedia to actually do any fucking research is apparently asking too much from whatever limited capacities they may have. It is in vain, because we already have some dickfaced fucktards here who have not only started cussing at me, but have decided both that I am guilty and that they personally want to ban me, without having bothered to look at the other god damned side, having done a personal trial and verdict, and stated their intents for the execution, after only bothering to listen to the prosecution. They've already decided that I'm guilty before the matter has even been accepted or evidence from more than one side has been reviewed, which means that I'm going to get banned soon no matter what I say or do, so fuck them, I'm not kissing their stupid, sorry antisocial asses. After all my dealings with the stupid lazyass fuckers that rise to positions of power on Wikipedia, I don't expect any brain stems to miraculously spark to life now.Tommstein 10:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Erm, ok. I feel like rather an idiot now for having written my statement above, given this diatribe filled with personal attacks. --Krich (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone regretting an attempt to inject a little unbiased sense into the ongoing bullshit. Only on Wikipedia. Add another member to Wikipedia's roll of heroes.Tommstein 06:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Since the prosecution, as was so stated above, saw fit to present a thorough case...and the defense responded with a terse rebuttal with a link towards which the subject in question deems is an adequate defense...both sides had in fact presented their case prior to the two arbitrators comments below (check the history for confirmation of this fact). So, the assertion that they have done no research seems to indicate that the subject in question may not be in full possession of his mental and/or emotional facilities.


 * I have attempted unsuccessfully to ascertain the etymology for some of the above obscene terminology, which seems to confirm the above supposition of instability. It also seems to solidify the prosecutions case with an admission of tacit guilt for the subject in question.  Additionally, when in a court of law the defense they made me do it generally solicits an apathetic response. Rockumsockum 08:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I was about to respond to this bullshit troll, when I realized it's a(nother) sockpuppet. The fact that even Duffer1 realized this should speak volumes, but nevertheless, note how, immediately after joining Wikipedia, he came directly to the arbitration page, straight to my comments, and proceeded to leave the bullshit found above, and then tried to make their user and talk pages not look 'new'. Also note that we have had enormous sockpuppet problems here before, with Retcon having created a fleet of sockpuppets and then lying his ass off about it and forging evidence to 'prove' otherwise. I also note that our sockpuppeteer/liar has recently become active again, using multiple login names again and posting straight from his IP address (not that I would expect anyone to have noticed any of this, given the high quality research that goes on here before deciding that people should be banned). Just like our known sockpuppeteer, this user has a penchant for deleting anything that might cast him in the slightest negative light from his Talk pages (yes, plural). Lastly, note that our new friendly neighborhood sockpuppet seems to have problems posting without backslashes appearing before single quotes . Maybe this is a problem due to trying to access Wikipedia through some kind of remote system so that he's not detected again, who knows. What I do know is that reexamine.org, a website the Witnesses dislike, just had a new user last night impersonating Wikipedia user Central (our friendly sockpuppeteer also engaged in multiple counts of user impersonation here, including an account impersonating yours truly), and engaging in vandalism, much of which has been permanently deleted already, and this user already having been permanently banned there. Note, however, this user's also having a problem with single quotes being preceded by backslashes (there was another edit summary displaying the same problem, but it has since been deleted with the vandalized page; having just been made an administrator there, I can confirm that the text of the edit summary was "Placing one\'s own information on one\'s own user page does not constitute vandalism"). What is included in this idiot's list of turnoffs? I... despise apostates in every shape and form, which would be considered to be all ex-Witnesses posting here. Impartial third-party observer indeed. I wonder how it would go if I made such an edit here, explicitly saying I despise Jehovah's Witnesses in so many words. When someone can't get through their first edit without giving away that they're a sockpuppet, they should probably be kept in a padded room. Naturally, this will all probably fly over the heads of our local Mensa club here, and Cobaltbluetony will undoubtedly come to this latest sockpuppet's fervent defense, as he did to great lengths when this sockpuppeteer was originally lying, forging evidence, etc. This is just a small, fresh-off-the-presses sample of the bullshit shenanigans non-Witnesses face from Witnesses here.Tommstein 15:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've just read your post Tom and I'm in shock! All I can say is what the hell is this religion doing to its members? I never seem to stop being amazed at the outrageous activity of some Jehovah's Witnesses who totally lose the plot. This JW person is one hardcore stalker. This impostor must be the same hate filled poster who was the Jehovah's Witness Retcon|Missionary and all the others fake IDs he used. He is seriously in need of some professional psychiatric help, if not sectioning immediately, and is this not a perfect example of what that religion can do to someone's mind? It all becomes clear when you see the nasty, vindictive, fundamentalist, neurotically obsessing JW's behaviour, it must be the same, Retcon|Missionary, who was here causing as much disruption as possible. I have also seen a mass of new posters here in Wikipedia in the past two weeks; I'm sure most of them are him also, and the same Jehovah's Witness who was faking me on http://www.reexamine.org


 * Mind you, what do the moderators do here when they see all these sock puppets? Very little, and that just compounds the problems, animosity and edits wars on these boards. If the moderators cut out these JW fundamentalist cancerous growths when they were reported, things would not get anywhere as heated in people's posts. Well at least he is a good advertisement for not joining the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses; if this is the kind of reaction we get from fundamentalist members when they are caught lying, manipulating and stalking. It would not surprise me one bit if he's making letter/parcel bombs as we speak, trying to find some "apostate" to send them to and kill them "for Jehovah". This nut is a perfect example of how terrorists are made. I can imagine someone like him at the Jonestown mass suicide, grabbing little kids by the neck saying: "Drink your damn cool aid you little shit, I don't give a damn if it tastes funny, drink it for God NOW!!!!" Central 01:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, no, you've got it all wrong, I'm the stalker and witchhunter here for reporting, and being massively right about, our sockpuppeteer being a sockpuppeteer. Kelly Martin said so, and has even decided that expressing happiness that the sockpuppetting bullshit was finally over (or so we thought, although it seems that we grossly underestimated how little shame some people have) is worthy of arbitration and banning, and even stuck NicholasTurnbull on me to get me in trouble for making said correct report, so it must be true (not to give her too much blame for NicholasTurnbull's stupidity, just for sicking him on me). Let's just be glad that her insightful arbitration skills were deemed by the community to no longer be required, for completely different onerous behavior. Not that I give a shit any more; maybe she should have been retained. I've made proposals regarding how sockpuppet checks could be facilitated, and got an endorsement from the only dude that cared enough to respond, but that would make the super-duper-ultra-extra-special CheckUser users less super-duper-ultra-extra-special, so one can see why precisely those with the power to get something more useful rolling refuse to. The cream truly rises to the top on Wikipedia.


 * About the behavior of Witnesses, you're exactly right. The only difference between them and the terrorists and other distasteful groups you mentioned is what they are currently asked and not asked to do, nothing more, certainly not mindset; they have superabundantly demonstrated their willingness to die for whatever their religion demands, and then defend it when it changes its mind and says 'oops, sorry you're dead for listening to us,' in their happiness at dying for all the stupid things their religion has demanded that they die for over time, stuff like refusing vaccines, refusing organ transplants, refusing parts of blood that have now suddenly been declared to be OK, their continued happiness to die instead of having blood-based medical treatment that hasn't yet been OK'ed by their senile geezers in Brooklyn, refusal to buy a 25 cent card in Malawi to avoid torture and death (at the same time Mexican Witnesses were given permission to bribe officials into falsely declaring that they had performed military service), etc. Maybe their connection with God had too much static. We both know full well that their publications (and thus they) giggle with glee like little girls anticipating the deaths of all of us and birds and other wildlife eating our dead bodies. They have previously expressed some shame that they can't outright kill apostates like, say, all ex-Witnesses that edit here, as was just highlighted here. These are some sick bastards. Maybe they'll turn even more radical and hardcore to keep members as passing decade after decade reveals that the end of the world was not, in fact, right around the corner (how many corners does the end of the world have?). It's probably not coincidental that studies have shown that Witnesses have higher rates of mental illness, as amply demonstrated by these fucknuts that edit on Wikipedia. You know as well as I do that these people, far from being considered the fucknuts that they in fact are, are probably held to be superplusgood Witnesses by other Witnesses.Tommstein 15:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Mediation Cabalist, Steven McCrary
Greetings, I am the mediator of the information mediation occuring at Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2005-12-27_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses. The mediation is ongoing, and has not failed, although it is very slow. There is a great deal of emotion from both sides of this dispute; I am unsure where or when it started. I have set some ground rules on that page about how to interact during this dispute, it took a while, but both sides, including Tommstein, are generally acting relatively civil and under control (with occasional lapses). --SteveMc 04:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I must point out that Tommstein has completely ignored the guideline to only address you. Also Tommsteins' relative civility on this mediation's page is in no way indicitive of amiableness as evidenced by the list of unprovoked attacks that I have already provided above, he has also ignored your request to remove inflammatory language, and indeed has persisted in fomenting with his inexcusably hostile reply to user:Cobaltbluetony (seen here) just yesterday.  Duffer 04:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Greetings once again. Duffer raises a valid point, though I disagree with Duffer's assessment of Tom's incivility and lack of amiableness.  As I stated above, all parties on the Cabal Mediation page have not constrained themselves to the original "ground rules." If anyone should take offense it is me (the mediator) only.  This is not a reigning endorsement of Tommstein's behavior; just an honest assessment of that behavior on that page. Yes, Tom's most recent edit is a lapse, but I am dealing with it there; however, most of Tom's posts are pleasant and helpful. Sincerely, SteveMc 06:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Steve, I thank you for trying to insert some facts into this mess, but the decision has apparently already been made that I should be banned and that there is not in fact more than one side to every story, screw actual facts. My recent actions on the mediation page (and elsewhere) are a direct result of this. Note that our whole contingent of friendly neighborhood Witnesses has spent far more time recently trying to get me banned than trying to actually do anything useful, including on the Mediation page. It's pitiful that Wikipedia allows argumentum ad bullshit bans, but there's nothing we can personally do to fix it, just leave it to wallow in its filth. If I'm gonna do the time, I might as well do the crime.Tommstein 16:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I cannot speak for my brothers but personally I have significantly curbed my Wiki editing during this RFA in order to not further provoke the situation as you have seen fit to take to vandalism and general page disruption whenever any Witness makes an edit (shown above in my Addendum). I'm simply not going to endure further harassment by you.  One of the mainstays of Wiki's conflict resolution is: "avoidance", I have been holding faithful to this guideline since the RFa.  I have only come forward to directly speak to you now in order to address your false portrayal of Witness intent.  Indeed I have specifically stated that I want to help you see your actions by: "peer review".  If they see fit to ban you then so be it, I just want you to see that it is your behavior that is causing all of this.  Even user:Cobaltbluetony specifically stated that he recommends you be disciplined UNTIL you can demonstrate amiableness.  Your behavior is egregious by any moral standard, as a result, consequences may ensue, executed by a committee of uninvolved persons who have an obligation to review ALL sides of an issue.  Duffer 20:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, so what you are so intelligently saying is that you've been acting differently during this process, to give arbitrators a different impression of you than they would otherwise get, with the obvious corollary that you'll revert to your standard behavior and cease putting on a show once you're no longer trying to get people you can't factually argue with banned? Gotcha. By the way, my file tracking your bad behavior increased in length by about 60% from the beginning of the year to January 17, and your personal share has increased by about 148%, meaning (for the slow) that you engaged in 148% as much bullshit in these two and a half weeks as you had in your entire previous Wikipedia history. Yeah, I don't see why anyone would think that you're not only still the same asshole, but that your rate of assholiness has increased dramatically once you decided that provoking people for an extensive period of time and getting them banned was easier than not being wrong.Tommstein 14:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Tom I think it's time to get a lawyer
This smacks of religious persocution from toms enemies which is against wikipedia policy.--Greyfox 15:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)