Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NicholasTurnbull: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:07, 9 January 2006

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: 19:36, 16 November 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)

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 ~~~~)

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 perform 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

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

Central, the accusations made by yourself and Tommstein are frankly beyond rationality. 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)[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]

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]

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]

Response 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 ~~~~:)

--NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 19:07, 9 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.

@@ Line 118: / Line 118: @@
 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.--[[User:Jeffro77|Jeffro77]] 08:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
+=== Response 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. --[[User:NicholasTurnbull|Nicholas'''Turnbull''']] | [[User_talk:NicholasTurnbull|(talk)]] 19:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
+Users who endorse this summary (sign with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>:)
+# --[[User:NicholasTurnbull|Nicholas'''Turnbull''']] | [[User_talk:NicholasTurnbull|(talk)]] 19:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 == Discussion ==