::: I have not remarked on the RfAr, have had nothing to do with the JW thing since I blocked you, and the only thing I apparently had to do with this dispute was a single 24hr block for civility. Actually, I think that does it; I've tried to be reasonable with you, engaged in discussion on what was essentially a spurious RfC, carefully enumerated my rationale etc. and you continue to behave in an utterly obnoxious manner towards me and other Wikipedians. I'm indefinitely blocking you. Best regards, --[[User:NicholasTurnbull|Nicholas'''Turnbull''']] | [[User_talk:NicholasTurnbull|(talk)]] 22:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
::: I have not remarked on the RfAr, have had nothing to do with the JW thing since I blocked you, and the only thing I apparently had to do with this dispute was a single 24hr block for civility. Actually, I think that does it; I've tried to be reasonable with you, engaged in discussion on what was essentially a spurious RfC, carefully enumerated my rationale etc. and you continue to behave in an utterly obnoxious manner towards me and other Wikipedians. I'm indefinitely blocking you. Best regards, --[[User:NicholasTurnbull|Nicholas'''Turnbull''']] | [[User_talk:NicholasTurnbull|(talk)]] 22:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
::::See, you bring up his bias and standing up for another cult, and the little underaged asshole responds straight from mommy's basement by completely ignoring what you said and indefinitely blocking you. Aren't underaged cult members grand? I definitely see the wisdom in putting one over hundreds of thousands of people.[[User:Tommstein|Tommstein]] 22:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey, it's Tommstein. Get it right. I kid, I kid. Thanks for the welcome. I'm currently finishing an explanation for why I'm about to reinsert a paragraph in an article, and then I have to join that WikiProject thing.Tommstein05:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I had responded to you on DannyMuse's Talk page, but, being a Jehovah's Witness that refuses to hear any inconvenient facts he doesn't want to hear, he deleted it. It's not the most important thing in the world, but here it is, since I refuse to let ignorant bozos silence me:
"That's exactly right. In fact, the first time he removed my paragraph, he claimed it was because it "does not reflect current Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses." Now, he wants to claim "that it doesn't say anything any different that [sic] what the article states." That's the Jehovah's Witness game, play every side of the fence and point you to whichever statement is useful at any particular time. If you look at his latest revert(s), he's currently playing on the 'we don't do that' side of the fence. Your characterization is clearly correct per direct quotes.Tommstein06:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)"[reply]
Your guess about what his problem is is as good as mine, seeing as he never responded to anything we said on the Talk page and just continued reverting with dumbass edit summaries (and has now moved on to not even providing summaries beyond "rv"). Maybe he's not used to non-Jehovah's Witnesses whipping out quotes from his own literature demonstrating him to be full of crap, or even doing research and busting him fudging his own quotes, which in their unfudged state show the opposite of what he wants. He learns from the best; the Watchtower Society is (in)famous for screwing around with quotations, to the point that I think some authors have protested to them for quoting them so wildly out of context. Considering that they don't actually cite the vast majority of their sources, one would not doubt for an instant that they just make up a lot of stuff. The modus operandi of Jehovah's Witnesses is 'our way or the highway,' so it probably aggravates him greatly to not be able to either kick me out and/or go off like a peacock pretending to himself that I'm not actually here. In their own little world, anyone that thinks differently from the latest thing that the Watchtower Society has told them they are to think is just some stupid dumbass to be ignored or, if they're lucky, convinced of the approved "rightthink." He undoubtedly considers me an "apostate" and thus the lowest form of scum on the earth, and would refuse to speak a word to the 'living dead' while convinced of his superiority if he could, but here I am regardless, and I ain't going anywhere (until he buys the Internet and can kick people out like they do in their little religion). Most people that track the Jehovah's Witness articles here are probably Jehovah's Witnesses, so he's undoubtedly not used to being shot down while trying to use Wikipedia for "theocratic warfare," or just spreading the standard BS, whatever the case may be. You know, there have been studies done about Jehovah's Witnesses and mental health (sponsored by Satan to discredit them, undoubtedly), which, from skimming through, aren't exactly good news for them. He's probably waiting for God to kill us two evil "opposers" and tools of Satan, not that he would ever tell us publicly. He's gonna be waiting for a long time.Tommstein06:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't continue to revert User:DannyMuse. It clogs up the edit history and isn't productive. Please discuss the issue on the Talk page and come to an agreement on what to do before further edits. Thanks! --K. AKA Konrad WestTALK02:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
JW Project
Just wanted to say thanks for helping with putting the {{JWProject}} tag on the talk pages. I'm working on fixing stub articles and categories and it's nice to have some help. Strange that most of the active JWs aren't that active on the project! Thanks again. --K. AKA Konrad WestTALK08:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No sweat. Most actual Jehovah's Witnesses probably aren't that active at least in part because of the fact that being in that religion is like being in a well-greased hamster wheel, or on a treadmill jammed on level 20 out of 20, in addition to all the other non-religious things they do. At least the devout ones, since if you have much spare time at all you're supposed to be using it on 'spiritual' things. Not to mention that spending much time around us "bad associations" that "spoil useful habits" is almost certainly considered not only a waste of time, but otherwise harmful and a show of disregard for Bible counsel. Heck, I can guarantee you that if any of them started spending a lot of time here, and their elders found out about it, they would be having a little meeting with the elders about it.
I should also mention, I didn't put the tag on a handful or so of pages that I figured weren't necessarily only about Jehovah's Witnesses. For example, I left it off of Charles Taze Russell's page, since there are a lot of other religions and groups that trace their roots back to him, and Jehovah's Witnesses are just one of many; his beliefs were so different from the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses today that if he were alive they would consider him a fruity apostate anyway. I didn't put it on the pages of former Witnesses, like Raymond Franz, since they're not Jehovah's Witnesses, although, in hindsight, I'm not so sure that that reason is valid (it's not like those people are there because they're just some random bozo whose dealings with Jehovah's Witnesses had nothing to do with anything, they're there because their history with Jehovah's Witnesses was/is presumably important). But in any case, I tagged the vast majority of the articles listed on the project page.Tommstein09:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Impartial people on JW
Hello and thanks for your contributions. Just to clarify, by "impartial people" I meant to say that I, as a Jehovah's witness, am not impartial. And former JWs can be considered biased too. So the impartial people to me are those who are neither. Of course, nobody here is obliged to say who he or she is. I guess I could have put it more accurately as "I will leave the decision to others, as I am a JW". In the end, it is probably the best to put aside who is who and decide just by the facts. So, this is my explanation, I did not want to clutter the talk page anymore. Take care! Soukie11:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Tommstein! Regardless of whether DannyMuse and his anonymous supporter are right or not, please don't revert the Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses and Jehovah's Witnesses pages anymore. Both of those will largely be rewritten to remove the unsourced statements once the proposed structure is approved, so even if it's wrong, it won't stay that way for long. In the mean time, it doesn't help the situation, and will look bad on you if this situation goes any further as per Wikipedia's dispute resolution policies. Thanks! --K. AKA Konrad WestTALK10:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What say you about the new anonymous guy who, among his 15,000 changes to the article, many of which Evident had to fix, was included the deletion of the two paragraphs talking about this disfellowshipping stuff? Not a reversion to DannyMuse's story, just flat out deletion of unflattering paragraphs along with all the other changes that had to be reverted. Should I add them back, or do we officially not care any more how anyone from anywhere screws this article up until it's rewritten?Tommstein08:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I definitely don't mean to let people run free with the articles; the process of getting the new structure up and running could take a while, and we want people reading the articles to be as best informed as we can. It's just not worth fighting over some minor details.
If the changes are wrong or go against the consensus of editors on the page, then they should be reverted. However, if it goes on, a Request for Comment can be done, which asks outsiders to have a look at what is happening. It often helps stop things going further. --K. AKA Konrad WestTALK11:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The wrong changes/going against consensus part sounds exactly like what DannyMuse was doing, incidentally. But back on topic, I'll reinsert the two deleted paragraphs then. Thanks for the advice.Tommstein11:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You really need to hold back on the sarcasm in your posts and edit summaries. Out of context it looks bad, as seen in DannyMuse's RfC, and you will get less respect on Wikipedia if you use it. Part of why Brandon39's response was moderately in favour of DannyMuse is that your comments can be construed as personal attacks. Try easing up on it, and then the matter of DannyMuse going against consensus will be more apparent. Thanks! --K. AKA Konrad WestTALK02:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The sarcasm usually comes out when I've said something 100 times and I don't know how to say it yet again. But I see what you mean, and I'll start trying to provide dry statements that say the exact same thing as the previous 99 (no, that wasn't sarcasm there, just an accurate description of what's left).Tommstein02:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this is the appropriate place to jot this message. Hi, Tommstein. I hope you will forgive me for archiving your comment at my user talk page. I do my very best to keep the atmosphere at my user pages uplifting and positve, with the very best of language. That aside, I do wish for you to find a hospitable environment at Wikipedia. Is there anything I might do to help you achieve better understanding of your concerns? Tom Haws03:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words. Archiving the stuff from your Talk page is nothing. My main intention was to give you the other side of DannyMuse's victim story, lest you only hear him say everyone else was messing the pages up and believe him, but that's done now. A secondary purpose was so that, if he continues trying to make himself look like a poor victim in the dispute resolution process, and people actually go back and see him lamenting that everyone else was messing the pages up, that they would also see the other side of the story right there. The last time he made a request for comment, he saw that as an opportunity for a wildly-out-of-context quote festival, so I'd prefer to have everything documented and out there, and posting that rebuttal, including mentions of his various behaviors, right after his victim story helped serve that purpose.
Things have been going pretty well on Wikipedia otherwise though. There's no real problem going on at the moment. I've taken an interest in helping with some quality control all over the place, reverting vandalism and copyediting a little and all that, in addition to the Jehovah's Witness stuff. I've got 550 edits since I joined last month, but on 202 different articles, so I've been all over the place. I see the wildest stuff pop up on my watchlist all the time, because I once reverted some vandalism or fixed a typo or something and I don't have the heart to remove it from my watchlist.Tommstein05:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, kind sir. I actually gathered that theory from seeing how the New World Translation handles quoting what, say, Jeremiah said that Jehovah said that Assyria said that the king said that Satan said that .... You end up with like 10 levels of quotes sometimes it seems (and '"'"'"'"'" action sometimes at the ends of paragraphs when all the quotes end at the same time).Tommstein23:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Signature on warnings...
Thanks for the great work on reverting vandalism and warning vandals. Please remember, though, to sign your warnings with ~~~~ so others can tell what's going on. Thanks. --Nlu07:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. I just figured that it might be more of a deterrent to see a nameless warning from 'Wikipedia' than a warning from User:Tommstein, but I'll start signing those.Tommstein07:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Personal Attacks
It would be advisable to not label individuals "degenerate" or label items as "spam". The former is a personal attack, the latter is a misrepresentation. Retcon22:38, 07 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The link in question apparently wasn't working, must have been cookie enabled on my end. Fair enough. It isn't spam however, as you'll note by informing yourself on what precisely "spam" denotes. In addition, personal attacks are against Wikipedia policy and yet you persist simply because that webpage didn't meet your criteria. So at least be cordial enough to apologize for the verbal labeling. Even if two parties do not agree, there can still be some civility maintained. Retcon01:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've already told you that I'm not going to sit here and argue over the definition of spam with you. Spammers aren't a part of the Wikipedia community, they're an undesired pimple on Wikipedia's rear end. There's no agreement to be achieved regarding spam, it doesn't belong here, period.Tommstein01:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So then who defines what is irrelevant or inappropriate, according to the above definition of the term spam? However I do know the policy here onno personal attacks specifically "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Yet when you use terms labeling myself as "spammer" and "degenerate" you in fact violate this policy. You request I not spam...which was not an intent in that link whatsoever...yet you hold yourself above the community practices relating to attacks. A simple apology would rectify this matter. Retcon01:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, no one determines what is spam and what isn't, Wikipedia is now open for anyone to insert anything they want, lest we hurt anyone's feelings by telling them that they're adding crap. Calling something spam is a comment on the content, not the contributor. By definition, someone that is spamming is a spammer. Not that I called you a spammer anyway, I just made a comment about them. Although if you're taking generic statements about spammers personally, that tells us something. About your "degenerate" whining, again, don't spam Wikipedia and there's nothing to worry about. Not that I called you "degenerate" either, I simply stated a rhetorical question about whether they've all found Wikipedia, without naming anyone or anything. Now, if you're again deciding that that's about you personally, that tells us something too. Although you weren't even logged in when you were spamming the article, so if you want to present yourself as an anonymous hit-and-run vandalizing spammer, you'll be treated like anonymous hit-and-run vandalizing spammers. Yes, vandalizing too, because the link presented no evidence of having absolutely anything to do with the subject of the article, unlike normal spam, which would at least have something to do with the subject of the article. There's still no certainty that it was even you spamming the article (although it would be an interesting argument to hear someone demand credit for spamming a Wikipedia article).Tommstein02:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Incredible the circular logic employed above to try and support your contention. Your two personal attacks were direct responses to an action which only you support as being "spam". An anoyomous individual adding the link, sorry you are getting your facts wrong once more. And the party whining is the one who tries to spin articles in a POV perspective wherein there is extreme obsession against all things JW. Still no answer to the query of why exactly you devote so much time to this pursuit rather towards a cause you advocate that will enrich lives. You've clouded your biases though it appears they are becoming more evident day by day. Retcon06:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as fun as it is wasting my time arguing with someone that can't/doesn't want to read and has now branched out into blatant lying that I'm apparently supposed to waste yet more time responding to, I'm done with you.Tommstein06:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do you promise ;) I mean really, it has been such a joy having you call me names and such...so reminiscent of school age hijinks and all. It might be advantageous to focus on something positive rather than commisserating over a belief system that you personally dislike. It makes me wonder why apostates can never move on when they say they've been held in an "oppressive" system? Isn't there something better for them to fill their lives with than simply tearing down with irroneous facts and suppositions based on taking quotations out of context. Retcon21:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Future idiotic, factless, rambling personal attack stupidity on my Talk page will be deleted. Go find some old lady to preach to that you can try to abuse into submission like a good Jehovah's Witness, or kick your dog, or beat your wife or kids or something, because it ain't happening here.Tommstein22:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just wish to clarify I'm not one who'll abuse any individual into submission, nor kick dogs, nor beat women and children, fear not. Retcon04:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note to all future posterity: In checking up on stuff, it seems that Retcon was in fact logged in when he made the above changes, but they were his first edits to the page since I've been on Wikipedia. So he was technically logged in, but still as anonymous to me as someone that wasn't (which is probably why I remember him as anonymous, since, to me, he was). Doesn't change any of the facts regarding the edits, but I just felt compelled to clarify this irrelevant detail now for when I'm reminiscing over my Talk page in 50 years.Tommstein08:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tomm, okay let's cease going back and forth. We both have our own views and we both got off on the wrong foot. Let's stick to the articles at hand and work towards making them balanced. I for my part shall do this, okay? Thx. Retcon01:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I simply reinserted my answer to your statement on 22:11, 11 December 2005 as per your statement in history, your wish is for all your discussions to be perserved on your talk page. That wasn't vandalism, that was restoring what I had written so your talk history is complete, nothing more. Retcon01:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments about my edits. I wasn't really sure whether I should add such comments within articles, but the only people who have complained are those who don't know how to write, so I think I'll continue.--Jeffro7711:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've enjoyed them from the beginning. I'm not exactly an English professor, so at worst, they confirm that something that I do is an actual grammar rule and not just my invention, and at best, I learn something new.Tommstein12:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I upset you on the JW talk pages. I was simply employing a cliché. It was intended humorously. To illustrate, Homer Simpson is a cliché about Americans by an American. It doesn't mean that Matt Groening doesn't like Americans, nor that he thinks they are all fat and lazy.--Jeffro7712:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's cool man. It's just that at first I was like, 'what the crap,' but I'm not mad or anything. I knew that Americans were considered fat, but I didn't know anything about that lazy thing too. Are they really generally considered lazy?Tommstein03:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I don't like to get the reasonable people offside. Yes, the preconception that Americans are lazy does exist. With approximately 60% of Americans being overweight, it is not a far stretch of the imagination for people to assume that laziness is a factor.--Jeffro7710:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I prefer to use my powers for good instead of evil, and generally only make comments about such things either in jest or in reply.--Jeffro7714:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, on the Jehovah's Witnesses article you said (in your comment), "jeffro's gonna want to slap me around for this, but we've talked about the use of american spellings on the talk page". Actually I won't slap you around for that one. In Australian English, "practises" is a verb, whereas "practices" is a noun, as is now properly reflected in the article (even for us Aussies). (The same rule applies to "licence"/"license" in Australian English.)--Jeffro7712:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely meant nothing by the comment, it was just joking (I don't think you took it wrong anyway, but just in case). I'm non-American English illiterate, so when I see something that looks 'foreign', I don't actually know whether it's a proper spelling somewhere, a typo, or what. Now that you brought up "licence"/"license", it occurs to me that I have no idea what each is used for in American English, although both are apparently correct spellings ("practise" doesn't seem to be though).Tommstein21:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In American English, "licence" is not a word, which is confusing because "practise" is also not a word, and consistency seems to be lacking.--Jeffro7723:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought licence looked weird, but for some reason my spellchecker insists that it is in fact correct. It usually flags British/etc. spellings as misspellings, so I know it's not that.Tommstein22:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if you would consider undoing your alphabetization of the list. I think there is a certain flavor of order that was nice. Tom Haws20:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it doesn't have to be alphabetized. I think that when I joined, it was alphabetized (which is unlikely to occur at random), so I assumed that was the way it was supposed to be. Do you want me to go back and put names in order of joining (as far as I can), or just start leaving new ones wherever they are put (or moving them to the end)? Or continue alphabetizing?Tommstein01:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw that. Think of what I could do with one-click reverts like I hear administrators have. Or if you had one-click warnings. We'd be invincible. A regular Batman and Robin or something.Tommstein08:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Myspace.com
I noticed that you deleted a whole paragraph about people sending out messages and trying to sell drugs on myspace. i just wanted to let you know that i plan on probably putting that back up because its true. if you'd like proof, i can send it to you. Leo Collin 13 december 2005
well, i though you did. i'm not sure. i'm new here, so i'm still getting used to stuff. someone or something deleted it. anyway, i'm gonna put it back up now. you can check the diff history and i think you'll see what i'm talking about, it was at 9:27 december 12th that someone deleted it. ...Leo Collin06:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It was actually deleted by 139.55.121.13 in the edit immediately after my last one. The edit is dated 06:01, December 12, 2005 with my time settings.Tommstein09:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Missionary08:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed, in depth, on the Talk page. That you weren't here and now have a severe case of I'll-do-whatever-I-want doesn't matter. I wish, however, to see your detailed explanation of how I'm reverting your edits without you doing likewise. As a famous man once said, "If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule." Maybe the page has come alive and is changing itself....Tommstein08:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Civility
Civility is a rule for the conduct of edits, comments, and talk page discussions on all Wikipedias. Whereas incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress, our rule of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another.
Our Wikipedia community has by experience developed an informal hierarchy of core principles —the most important being that articles be written with a neutral point of view. After that we request a reasonable degree of civility towards others. Even if "civility" is just an informal rule, it's the only principle that we can apply to online conduct, and it's the only reasonable way to delimit acceptable conduct from the unacceptable. We cannot always expect people to love, honor, obey, or even respect another. But we have every right to demand civility.
You seem to think it doesn't apply to you. This is precisely the kind of behavior which detracts from any measure of academic/scholarly legitimacy your edits might otherwise possess. Civility isn't just when it's convenient or easy to do so; it's much more civilized to maintain your composure amidst strongly divergent viewpoints or even insults. - CobaltBlueTony16:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When you're ready to present the whole story instead of the Jehovah's Witness one-tenth truth "theocratic warfare" bullshit, let me know. Until then, get the hell off my talk page and take your propaganda elsewhere.Tommstein23:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is for your enduring integrity on Wikipedia in the face of overwhelming odds and opposers, well done for your clear discernment and fearless refutations, especially against those who have to hide under multiple forms
Yep, it was beautiful. Then he tries to vandalize my evidence page, and makes up a load of complete BS excusing his actions and trying to put the blame on you and me. In a completely 'unrelated' coincidence, Duffer1 is all of a sudden back and going to town on the article.
Thank you for my first star. Do you think you could also put that on my user page, seeing as that's where people normally go when they look someone up? Speaking of which, I need to put something more useful on my user page than the crap I left on there since my first registered edit.Tommstein06:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did notice that Mr Matthew McGhee (Duffer1), suddenly appeared on queue, it's all getting very suspicious. I can imagine them setting up sentinel duty on the main page and taking their "We must defend Jeboba" from some other site where they can bad mouth anyone (mainly you and I) who dares to challenge them. I notice Danny Muse has disappeared, I wonder who he is posting as now? At least we have demonstrated to all the readers how low and deceitful JWs are willing to go, even when caught by their own stupidity they deny it in public. Not a very good advertisement for their religion! I hope the public take note: "And, really, would you want to be even associated with a religion that had not been honest with you?"—JW book Is This Life All There Is? 1974 p.46 Central19:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, now we've got a record not only of them cheating, but also blatantly lying about it repeatedly and trying to 'prove' that they weren't and then trying to destroy the evidence. And a (the?) major Witness contributor going to stupidly ridiculous lengths to defend him, even after he was busted and forced to confess. You can't buy that kind of stuff. Yeah, we must be so crazy to not trust the Witnesses, or even imply that they might lie and deceive, I mean engage in "theocratic warfare," in public. They've been caught bare-assed at it and can't delete the history pages now. And for every thing we catch, who knows how many things we don't.
About that barnstar though, it occurred to me that this page will also probably be archived eventually, which is another reason to have it on the user page; I only mention this because when I replayed my request to myself it sounded vain. I thank you for putting it there, not that I mind a second copy on the Talk page so it can be seen where they came from. I saw that you have one on your Talk page too, which you may want to request being put on your user page. Given our apparent clairvoyance when it comes to reading Witnesses, watch how they now start congratulating themselves left and right with stars. Remember, you heard it here first. Put me down for 20.Tommstein05:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Matt had PC issues for almost 3 weeks, Danny has gotten tired of the endless bickering and left Wikipedia, (fairly recently, mind you) and the Yahoo group has been deleted per the comments by Konrad West. - CobaltBlueTony19:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't hold it against me for commenting on the group. I just didn't think it was in the spirit of WP, nor conducive to improving the largely non-existent relations between JWs and ex-JWs here. --K. AKA Konrad WestTALK01:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So this is where the backbiting takes place. I stopped posting because my internet got shut off. I started posting again because my internet got turned back on. Do you see how that works? I have never posted under any other name than Duffer1 (or just "Duffer" on other sites), not only on this website but also at Beliefnet (don't participate anymore), CARM (don't participate anymore), Touchstone (rarely), and Rob Bowmans "Evangelicals_and_JWs" yahoo group (lurk but don't participate). I'll hold my breath for an apology. Duffer10:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be best for all involved to give Missionary/Retcon (I will use Retcon because it is the oldest of the accounts) a chance to redeem himself, and for all parties to terminate the inquisition against him. Using a sockpuppet or changing to a different account to escape unwanted criticism is permitted at Wikipedia. If his actions had been limited to that, I would not have responded to Tommstein's request at all as an ill-founded request. However, what led me to respond were two factors: one, that Retcon had fraudulently attempted to mislead people into believing he and Missionary were different people, and two, that he created at least one impersonation account, impersonating a person who he was clearly at odds with.
In any case, Retcon has acknowledged and apologized for his inappropriate acts; Wikipedia's "assume good faith" policy all but requires to accept his apology and move on. So let's please do so. I'd especially call on Tommstein and Central to lay off the rhetoric; it will not help defuse the situation. Personal attacks (such as Central calling Retcon a "compulsive liar") are neither helpful nor welcomed. There is bad blood on both sides of this issue, and frankly I'd like to see y'all work this out on your own with civility, rather than escalating the situation to the point that intervention by the Arbitration Committee is required. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What is the standard necessary to usually get CheckUser requests honored? Would, say, asking Retcon and Missionary if they were the same person and having them deny it have been enough to qualify as 'fraudulently attempting to mislead people into believing he and Missionary were different people,' or was it necessary for him to go through that whole extra charade as well? What if he had ignored such a question? Is the policy such that you can get away with illegal uses of sockpuppets unless you mess up big time?Tommstein17:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The standard required is that there must be evidence that the subject of the checkuser request be vandalizing or otherwise disrupting Wikipedia. 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. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So now I'm a witchhunting stalker, nevermind the fact that my inquiry actually revealed a dude with an army of sockpuppets the size of the Mexican army, and who was already actually known to be a sockpuppeteer? Alrighty then. About my question again, would the actions that Retcon/Missionary was engaging in (engaging in the same argument(s) with both accounts, thus making it seem like there was more support for his position than there actually was) normally be enough to warrant a sockpuppet check? If it's not, I don't exactly see the disincentive to everyone creating 80 accounts and using them like they're all independent people agreeing with each other. I need to know all this kind of stuff now, lest I be accused of being a witchhunting stalker again by the pro-jackass Wikipedia system the next time sockpuppets come around.Tommstein18:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked User:Tomnstein since as well as being a sockpuppet that user was also an impersonation (of you). I don't know enough of the case to know if the other socks are blockable, since using multiple accounts is permitted IF it is not done to disrupt. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 11:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Man, when I saw your edit summary, you almost gave me a heart attack, so good is the impersonation in this case. Thanks for blocking that impersonator. About the other sockpuppets, from what I understand, only one was blatantly engaging in disallowed behavior, Missionary, while the rest just made a few edits and didn't generally team up with the sockpuppeteer otherwise to cause pain. But Missionary, that one was pretty flagrant about its violations, to the point where the sockpuppet check was only run because Retcon and Missionary were busted providing fake 'proof' that they were different people, after the two had caused all kinds of chaos. The archived discussions can be found at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/archive 19 and Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/archive 20. Retcon was clearly using Missionary to try to make it appear that there was more consensus for his point of view than there was, in clear violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppet#Deception and impersonation (and who knows what else). That one should pretty clearly be blocked (I'm not sure about the other ones, since an argument could be made that they also did the same thing, but to a much lesser degree, sticking solely to edit summaries and looking like 'new' people supporting the position).
As to the other ones, they have Sockpuppet tags on their pages, but the SockpuppetProven tag seems more appropriate. The problem is, the former says that they're only suspected, while the latter says that they have "been blocked indefinitely." Which do you think would be more appropriate (if these others aren't blocked), seeing as they both have inaccuracies as pertains to this specific situation? Maybe we need a new intermediate 'proven but not blocked' tag.Tommstein07:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's no problem. At this point, the specific sockpuppeteer has has been revealed through CheckUser to have had a decent sized army of sockpuppets, which they then stopped using, not without the guilty first being turned into the victim and vice versa (stuff like me being turned into the bad guy for reporting them by people including the person that confirmed with CheckUser that they were actually sockpuppetting and such) somehow. At this moment all that's left is to see if anyone will block at least the sockpuppet named Missionary (see above), which was by far the most flagrant violator of them all. It's hard getting people to do anything around here. I'm finding out real quickly that being made an administrator seems to have a lot more to do with people having their egos stroked than actually doing any hard work.Tommstein21:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. When it comes to suckpuppetry, there isn't any real structure to handle it and most admins wouldn't care about it. I brought a case a few months ago and it died out well before any checkup was made. Really frustrating. Good to see that you made more progress than me. __earth03:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Admins probably don't care because most seem more concerned with trying to boss people fighting in the trenches around as a substitute for any real-life power than actually sticking their own noses in there and doing any real work themselves.Tommstein12:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks - please stop
Dear Tommstein: After having noticed a series of personal attacks made by you, notably relating to Jehovah's Witness related pages, I would like to please ask you to refrain from making personal attacks on Wikipedia. I notice you have already been warned about this once more; I would be most grateful if you would please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility for information on how to contribute in a civil manner. Should you persist in making such personal attacks, I shall be forced to block you from editing Wikipedia. I would also like you to ensure your contributions to Jehovah's Witness pages fall within WP:NPOV. Thank you for your cooperation. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk)06:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You mean 'after Retcon, a known sockpuppeteer/vandal/evidence forger/provoker/stater-of-untruths (since calling such "lies" would somehow be wrong here) posted his list of crap to every other talk page on Wikipedia trying to get Tommstein blocked, and was ignored, and posted said list again, and got ignored again, and then emailed the list to a load of administrators to find one that would actually take him seriously, there was bound to be one....' Did you bother to actually do any research to see what I could have ever possibly been responding to before busting over here like cyber-Barney Fife, in the cases that aren't completely out of context to start with, or did you just see a list of words and see fit to start threatening editors? Nevertheless, I have composed the following list of WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:AGF, and probably WP:OtherStuff violations. Please do also warn these users with equal vehemence, threaten to block them, add them to your little now-hidden worklist, etc., lest we have a clear case of administrator favoritism on our hands. Stuff like POV was left out, lest there be the need for actual research and since Wikipedia's available space to store the list is finite, and vandalism was just left out period, partly for the same reasons. Among other things, there's enough 'commenting on the editor, not the edit' to go around, and then back around again numerous times. I make no representation that every single one of these is necessarily a clearcut case of anything in particular (although WP:CIV seems to be a pretty big catch-all), especially since people's standards vary (for example, note that I didn't run crying to administrators that people were being mean to me and digging up people's entire edit histories as a glorified form of dispute resolution when my untenable arguments got shot down by other editors), but there should be more than enough good stuff here to make the entire nuclear family unit happy:
Damn right. I'm tired of their games. If they want to press the issue, let's press. Let's see how they try to play the stereotypical poor, innocent, unprovoking, picked-on victim now. Extrapolating from previous excuse-making, I'm guessing that all 30 kB of their actions will be everyone else's but their fault. Put me down for $5 on that right now.Tommstein16:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kind sir, I think you are mistaken. Mr Tommstein is described on his user page as a nice user who opposes personal attacks, so the definition on the page you referred to must not apply to this individual. ;) - 72.232.20.146 (talk·contribs) at 18:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Tommstein: Regretfully, I have been forced to give you a cautionary 24-hour block on the basis of your continued actions and reply to my warning to desist. I would please urge you to read Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Personal attacks carefully, and to follow them in future once the block has expired. I also request that you refrain from editing articles or talk pages relating to Jehovah's Witness articles, or other related subjects, because it appears clear that you are incapable of maintaining common standards of neutrality and courtesy in dealing with such topics, and it would be in your best interests to avoid continuing to violate Wikipedia policy. Once the block has expired, please do feel free to edit Wikipedia again, bearing in mind the above. I thank you for your assistance, and look forward to working with you in the future. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk)01:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nicholas, this is a highly inappropriate reaction to a complex situation. Tommstein has clearly showed that the problem is not one sided, and that he has been subject to significant provocation. Why have you not warned those who have provoked Tomm? In addition, you have no right to ask him to refrain from editing JW articles, and implying that you will enforce it. I request for you to revert the block, and if not, at a minimum warn the other sides of the dispute. --K. AKA Konrad WestTALK02:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Without making any judgement about the contents of the case, I'd like to offer some advice. Go back and brutally edit your statement. See if you can get it down to a third of what it is now, this will improve your chances. - brenneman(t)(c)06:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've never done this before, as if it weren't obvious. What happens if the description of the problem is too long, people will just ignore it? Would it be kosher to leave a brutally shorter version on that page and provide a link to a page with the current 'full' version?Tommstein06:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Another thing that happens is that this will make you think more clearly about what happened. Ideally, minimal commentary, but links that should speak for themselves. There would be no problem with linking in that regard, but this would probably make you work a bit less hard on making the actual one as tight as possible. Have a go, ping my talk page, and if I'm still around I'll look over your re-write. Please note that I'm still taking no stance as to the merit of this, but I like to see anything that is done, done well. - brenneman(t)(c)08:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, let me see what I can whip out that is considerably shorter than the present version. Thanks for the help. Too bad it's 3:19 in the morning and I haven't eaten yet. I think I'll eat first.Tommstein08:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I read your request and tried to understand the issue. I know from the german wikipedia it is sometimes a heated debate with JWs (to be honest: sometimes ignorance on both sides). Due to lack of language and therefore not getting always 'emotions behind postings' i would like to take no stance in this. In fact i still could not make out the reason for the block.--Mini13:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It probably doesn't help that the page has like 83 different places to sign. 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. In fact, reporting troublemakers seems to get the reporter in more 'reactionary' trouble than the troublemaker. This is probably one of the main reasons people leave Wikipedia, since I was just reading about it elsewhere the other night.Tommstein03:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amen! In fact I have pretty much left myself. I have done my damage Jehovah's Witnesses: Controversial Issues I'll check to make sure it doesn't come undone but other than that I'm thru. Amazing how our so called brothers don't look in the mirror when they say we have a problem with our pride. It was pride keeping me blind for so long and against people like you. --Greyfox05:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pride is a byproduct of a religious system where members are constantly told that they're the most special people on earth, that they're the only 'tight' people with God, that only they know the answers to life's important questions, that everyone else in the world is ignorant of these 'answers' that only they have, that everyone else besides them is going to be killed for their ignorance and stupidity any day now, that God has specially chosen them out of everyone alive to be the only people that will be protected from dying and granted everlasting life, that they're so less prideful than everyone else in the world, etc.Tommstein04:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of everyone else. I hate to be a moderator on a catholic or muslim page if this page get so much flak from the faithful. I wonder what they go through. Yikes!!! I won't be seeing you for a while I think either I've kicked the wiki addiction or I just don't care if six million fools find the truth, and I mean the real truth anymore. I quess we'll just have to wait for the wiki addiction to bite again. oh and I dragged two elders in the back and asked questions about jesus's real name (yeshua)and about how if eve was perfect when she sinned why didn't god make a redeemer for her. I got the biggest run around you ever seen so much for the holy spirit leading them to the right answers. I had more for them but seeing the side stepped answering those I didn't try to show them the mistake in matt 27:9 ( the misquote of of jeremiah when the scripture was in zechariah 11:12 ) god I hoped they would say leave it to god but they tried for an hour to answer the questions in the in the end I lied and said I saw it their way. It was bad I almost felt guilty about asking the questions. I'm glad I don't!!!--Greyfox05:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention unwise, considering these are the people you want to impress/convince you that you're a rational person... Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 02:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
to your comment here, thought you might like to know someone had finally replied ;)...although I'm not quite sure what to do about it now. Cheers!--ViolinGirl♪15:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm not concerned with the quality of the encyclopedia any more, however, due to the fact that I'm about to get banned because a bunch of Jehovah's Witnesses didn't want the seedy underbelly of their cult exposed (here, not that they can stop it on the other 2,370,000 sites that appear when you do a Google search for the cult's name) and decided to attack me and try to just have me banned, which worked per the fact that the Arbitration Committee isn't actually qualified to arbitrate their heads out of their own asses. Thank you for the notification nevertheless.Tommstein20:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please leave me alone
Maybe having warned you peckers about your bad behavior and the consequences thereof like I told him to (especially when the other specific person that was supposedly named from the outset was Retcon himself) instead of siding with a fellow cult and just warning me might have nipped this in the bud. See the consequences of fruity-cult-standing-up-for-fruity-cult bias?Tommstein21:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Note: This was copied here by NicholasTurnbull from his Talk page. Go there to see its context and whatnot.[reply]
Tommstein: Frankly, I really couldn't care less about all this JW business. I want nothing to do with it at all, ever again. And yet you still accuse me of being biased towards Jehovah's Witnesses, and malign my beliefs in the process of doing so. I am not going to bother you in future so please leave me alone, and stay off my talk page. Thanks. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk)21:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the same problem that I just described, again, hasn't been addressed. Your not doing anything besides messing with only me is exactly the problem. Saying that you won't unjustly block me again when I'm about to get banned because of being painted as a bad guy and the only bad guy by your bias for a fellow cult is a real noble and bold thing to do.Tommstein22:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have not remarked on the RfAr, have had nothing to do with the JW thing since I blocked you, and the only thing I apparently had to do with this dispute was a single 24hr block for civility. Actually, I think that does it; I've tried to be reasonable with you, engaged in discussion on what was essentially a spurious RfC, carefully enumerated my rationale etc. and you continue to behave in an utterly obnoxious manner towards me and other Wikipedians. I'm indefinitely blocking you. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk)22:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See, you bring up his bias and standing up for another cult, and the little underaged asshole responds straight from mommy's basement by completely ignoring what you said and indefinitely blocking you. Aren't underaged cult members grand? I definitely see the wisdom in putting one over hundreds of thousands of people.Tommstein22:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
