Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:07, 22 March 2006

/Sandbox /Archive 1 - Misc. - Discussion with Central

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tommstein case. Raul654 13:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Replied to you on JW talk

Hey duffer, I wrote a reply to you on JW talk. Please understand... I don't 'hate' you or 'hate' your religion. I simply want what's best for the article. I look forward to your reply. Best wishes. :) joshbuddy 02:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

No worries, I understand :) Duffer 02:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Imposter

I invite you to make your objections about User:DufferI on the relevant linked pages ASAP. - CobaltBlueTony 18:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted all except the last version of the page and blocked the impersonator. Please let me know of further ones - David Gerard 19:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you David. Duffer 19:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism

Fine let's take it to mediation. This article should not be vetted by the WT. I gave even your official sources. The only reason you don't want it there is because it is controversial. Well hey, that's what the article is for...controversial issues. Your actions reinforce my convictions about JW's and how sneaky they can be. It is impossible to argue the JW's are not anti-Catholic anymore then you can argue the KKK is not racist. We both know that. So please spare the us the falsehoods and put the section back or take it to mediation.Cestusdei 23:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see my response. I'm sorry you feel that way about the consensus of Witness and non-Witness editors. I know we can resolve this issue, and I will gladly participate in any mediation you choose to initiate. I hope you stick around Misplaced Pages, I really do. Duffer 10:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

JWs and Satanism

Mr McGhee, are you aware of the links with Scientology and Satanism, and that fact that two of the admin you keep appealing to on Misplaced Pages are Scientologists? It’s very revealing that your religion states it has nothing to do with such demonic things, and here you are a Jehovahs appealing to Satanists for their help in public. Maybe this is something you need to address before your church pastors find out. Though I think you will have a harder time trying to hide your spiritual adultery from God.

It is obvious that you are unfamiliar with the situation you are speaking about and the bible. I never initially contacted either of the two "scientologist" administrators (one of whom (Wiki Administrator User:NicholasTurnbull is, thank Jehovah, a former scientologist. He was initially contacted by user:Retcon in regards to the behavior of Tommstein). Scientologist Administrator user:David Gerard became involved in the user:Tommstein/user:Central dispute by being the first admin to accept my Request for Arbitration (RFA) in regards to users Tommstein and Central's behavior. A RFA is a request to Misplaced Pages's community elected WP:ARBCOM for dispute resolution; it cannot be helped that one of the members is a Scientologist; though it hardly matters as the topic of discussion was not spiritually related. The apostle Paul appealed to his Roman citizenship for a fair hearing (Acts 22:25) and they were pagan.

Tommstein was indefinately banned by admin disgust on January 24 2006 by administrator N. Turnbull before my RFA even had enough admin votes to proceed. The RFA did eventually proceed. Tommstein's indefinate ban was unanimously upheld by EIGHT, community elected, Arbitration Committee Administrators. That same committee unanimously determined that user:Central be placed on "Personal Attack Parole" and "Probation" both for the period of one year. Central subsequently violated wiki policy several times and was given increasingly lengthy user blocks, until he was indefinately blocked by the scientologist Administrator D. Gerard (it must be noted that Central was to be indefinately blocked regardless of who did it as he had violated his "Personal Attack Parole" the allotted 5 times).

Just recently someone registered an account: user:DufferI, and attempted to impersonate me with a mix of my very real personal information mixed with assorted lies about my associations and a certain website I participate on. I only found out about the imposter because the individual had unwisely tried to register the account with MY e-mail address. Misplaced Pages automatically generated a "confirmation" e-mail and sent it to me. Under Wiki policy I am not allowed to just go around removing information off of people's user pages regardless if they are imposters or not. I submitted a personal request to D. Gerard (as I suspected the imposter was one of the recently banned though I have no proof) because he is very familiar with the situation regarding the recently banned. In the above section "Imposter", D. Gerard requests that I notify him of further imposters. I will gladly do so without regret.

I normally wouldn't waste my time on such accusations but in this instance I feel it's important that you KNOW that whoever said the things you state happened is lying to you (as documented above). Duffer 13:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I find it quite offensive that you misuse the apostle Paul's life trials as some kind of comparison of your own minor issues with posters on an internet website. You are not on trial before the United States government, and if you were you would get standard legal representation, and none of that would be appealing to active Satanists for their help in quelling your objectors. I will ignore your lengthy diversion on to other posters and your gripes with them, as that is no excuse, especially if you have used Satanists to shut-up your opponents online. How you can say that "the topic of discussion is not spiritually related" is beyond the pale, as the disputes you have are all religion related, and doctrinal disagreements with others, what is the Jehovah witness main page if it is not "spiritual"?! Regardless, if you are a Christian you would have nothing to do with Satanism what-so-ever, irrelevant of whether you deem it 'spiritual' talk or not. Do you appeals to online 'psychics' for their help? Or spiritualist mediums? Then why even talk with ones who are ever worse! I will not discuss this more, as it's your life, but please don't fool yourself by trying to justify such association with the total enemy of everything Jesus stood and died for. 2 Peter 3:14; 2 Corinthians 6:14-18

You brought up several serious accusation, I responded with a biblical precedent for my actions and a documentary of what really happened. Ignore it if you like, but know that had you actually read what I wrote you would see that the indefinately banned "objectors" "quelled" themselves without any help from me. One of the "quelled", Tommstein, quelled himself by being profoundly rude to a Wiki admin that happened to be a former scientologist, a quelling that was unanimously upheld by the wiki-community elected Arbitration Committee. I had nothing to do with his initial quelling, though the unanimous agreement to uphold the quelling was a product of my RFA. The other "quelled", "Central", likewise quelled himself by being extremely rude to a yound Wiki admin of unknown religious affiliation (among various other personal attack parolle violations). As a result of my RFA Central was given a lenient 5 chances to curb his pervasively rude behavior, he burned through the alloted 5 in a matter of days. The last person to block him was a scientologist administrator, though that means little as Central was on "Personal Attack Parole", when a person is on "PAP" it is no longer a matter of notifying an admin when the user has violated PAP as the admins are reading his every post already. When a PAP violation occurs it becomes a matter of which admin hits the "block user" button first.

As for the third "quelling" incident, someone registered a Wiki account impersonating me. Yes I did appeal to D. Gerard for his familiarity with the situation. Those are the only instances of "objector quelling". Their circumstances and issues were unanimously deemed significant enough to merit indefinate user blocks for all three. How can you claim this issue is spiritually related when the three "quelled" "objectors" were unanimously, indefinately, blocked for their pervasively un-Christian, and un-spiritual behavior. Is it so wrong that the impartial, community elected, Arbitration Committee upholds standards of decency and netiquette on an ENCYCLOPAEDIC website that gets 36,000,000 hits a DAY?!

Why are you so adamant about tying a non existant "association with Satanists" to me? Why do you choose to perpetuate rumors that I have above shown to be lies? If you feel that you absolutely must contact me again then please do so via e-mail (Matt_McGhee@comcast.net). Duffer 02:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

+++Turns out that user:David Gerard is not only NOT a scientologist but an outspoken critic with his own website. So there you have it, no scientologist was involved in the "quelling" of anyone. You should be more carefull when listening to rumors. Duffer 18:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Three-revert Rule

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Stifle 14:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Duffer1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=original unblock reason |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

++Admins, I know this block was only ten hours, but please review the situation++ Duffer 01:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

This is nonsense. The vandal user:82.88.103.38 has been warned several times. The past few days has seen a concerted effort by several anonymous vandals trying to disrupt Wikiproject:Jehovah's Witnesses articles (which I think is a direct result of the situation outlined directly above in the "JWs and Satanism" section. These vandals include the above IP address as well as: user:217.219.155.216; user:72.19.136.116; and user:205.188.116.199. They have even taken to harassing me by setting up the imposter account user:DufferI along with allegations that I associate with "satanists" in the above section User talk:Duffer1#JWs and Satanism by the above listed vandal user:72.19.136.116. Just look at their edit histories, they're new accounts that target Jehovah's Witness articles specifically, they're edit summaries are most often completely blank or mocking "RV-vandalism" tags. user:Stifle I strongly disagree with your block, reversion of vandalism is not blockable under WP:3RR. Duffer 16:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

As someone on the butt end of this user's lies and libel, as he tries to blame everyone else but himself for his own bad behavior, I'll just quote the policy he just referenced, WP:3RR: "Simple vandalism is indisputable; don't confuse it with edits which you simply disagree with."82.88.103.38 17:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Am I not to blame the vandal? You were warned several times, given a courteous 'welcome' on your talk page that pointed you to wikipedia's proper editing. You were invited several times by me and another non-Jehovah's Witness editor to discuss your changes on the talk page. Then in a profound act of unreasonableness and malice you reported me for 3RR then came to my talk page and said "he tries to blame everyone else but himself for his own bad behavior". Who are you and where did you vandals come from? I recommend that any admin reviewing this should run check-users on the above listed IPs to see if any are related to the imposter user:DufferI (for questions regarding that one please refer to admin user:David Gerard) or the two recently indefinately banned users who harbor much malice against me user:Tommstein and/or user:Central. The 3RR policy: "The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Misplaced Pages article within a 24 hour period. This rule does not apply to: -self-reverts - correction of simple vandalism". Duffer 17:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I have made an appeal to both Stifle AND David Gerard. If this doesn't work, I'll press for more attentive and perceptive admins to get involved. - CobaltBlueTony 18:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Tony. Duffer 03:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What 82.88.103.38 said is 100% correct. The edits were not vandalism, they were edits you did not agree with. The 3RR is a hard rule to prevent people enforcing their own version of an article, and I stand over my block 100%.

As for the content dispute, I am not taking a part in it because my own personal views are too deep to be able to mediate it successfully. I would urge you to use WP:RFC to resolve the issue.

As a personal note to Duffer1: I completely respect your right to choose your religion, practice your religion, preach, go around to people's houses, not receive blood transfusions, etc., etc. However, this does come under WP:AUTO and I suggest you take a step back from articles related to your faith for a while, as your own point of view may be too coloured to see a neutral one. Stifle 22:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

There's no need for words about respecting my right to freely choose religion. I don't view this block as religious persecution, I just see it as a mistaken application of 3RR and now also a misapplication of WP:AUTO. That's like saying that because you're Irish you shouldn't write/contribute articles on the Irish railway systems. User:82.88.103.38 was warned several times. I placed a courteous welcome on his talk page. The information that he is trying to include has already been sifted through and added to the article by user:Lucille S. This is certainly not the first time that page had seen that specific "content". He reverted despite being told twice that the information was already in the article, and had been invited FOUR times to discuss his changes on the talk page. That is not a disagreement over content, that is reversion of vandalism. Duffer 03:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If you need any support to contest this hasty block please let me know. It should only take a glance at the edit history to see that the only reason for the number of edits within the period of time was to prevent the article from being reverted to previous versions with no understandable cause. It would be different if there was even a small note on the discussion page (as we all requested) to talk about why the revisions were necessary and what information was yet to be included. Administrators in general may not realise that working on the pages relating to Jehovah's Witnesses is completely different to working on other pages. In order to defend NPOV and create articles of a high quality it beomes necessary to revert such POV and argumentative additions once introduced, otherwise the articles start to go backwards instead of forwards. Lucy 02:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It was only a 10 hour block, thank you though. I hope at least that this has shed some light on the recent zoo of vandals plaguing the Witness articles, hopefully some admins will take notice. Duffer 04:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I know that the block was not for very long but it just seems a shame to have it on your record ]. I guess we all need to be more careful with reverting the articles. If we continue to get no response on the talk page what is the next step? Mediation? Protection? I was really hoping to avoid these sorts of options. Guess we will have to wait and see... Lucy 06:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfair block of Duffer

• ++Moved from Administrator user:Stifle's talk page per his request++*

I would strongly urge you to re-examine the pattern of anonymous users harassing Duffer, which led to your block of him. Perhaps a CheckUser might reveal these anonymous users to be connected to indefinitely banned users or other users who have contended with Duffer in the past. Even if no sockpuppetry is revealed, please look more closely at the pattern and timing of edits, as well as the attitude and language used by these anonymous attackers. I fear you have been used by these vehement and unrelenting individuals who hide their identities to continue their personal attacks as part of a vendetta against Duffer for his involvement in the indefinite ban of both Tommstein (who was banned before his RfA was completed) and Central for what David Gerard called "trolling, personally abusive, unable to work with others, gross net negative," strikingly similar tactics used by the former. These other anonymous users are using religious ideas to provoke and antagonize. How can you let them continue on? Again, please examine carefully what is going on here. Thank you. - CobaltBlueTony 17:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I had blocked him for a violation of the three-revert rule. The 3RR is a hard and fast rule on how many times an article may be reverted, i.e. changed back to a prior form, in a 24-hour period. I have not, and do not, take any sides in the dispute, and in any case I must recuse myself from the content dispute due to my personal beliefs.

Again, I don't support edit warring. The pattern of anonymous users harassing Duffer1 is irrelevant — if you break the 3RR, you break the 3RR. Stifle 22:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Stifle, after a long time coming, you have correctly blocked the user Duffer1. This is not the first time he has broken the three revert rule by any means. Frankly, I am very surprised he is not permanently blocked, as I have found this link to a mass of rule breaking edits and personal attacks by him and his religious apologist CobaltBlueTony.

After you correctly banned him he went on a slander exercise making the malicious and totally unfounded personal attacks withzero Civility and many insults breaking all the standard foundation Misplaced Pages rules attacking new posters, with his unfounded unsubstantiated accusations, that breaches the 'assume good faith' rule, the 'personal attacks' rule, Wiki etiquette and many others. He said:

"The past few days has seen a concerted effort by several anonymous vandals. . .These vandals' include the above IP address as well as: user:217.219.155.216; user:72.19.136.116; and user:205.188.116.199 They have even taken to harassing me by setting up the imposter account user:DufferI"

Is this acceptable practice to allow banned users to then vent their anger, abuse, personal attacks, slander, zero Civility, attacking new posters, and completely unfounded and unsubstantiated accusations? It's band enough people doing this when not banned, but surely this kind of behavior shows a flagrant disregard to the authority of the administrator and all the rules of Misplaced Pages. Maybe this guy, Duffer1 thinks a ban means 'anything goes' when under that ban, but surely it's totally unjust to allows such grossly abusive and malicious behavior to be spouted by him, on top of the massive lists of abuse and rule breaking he's already got away with. I hope you will review his posts and increase the ban to at least one month, or an indefinite ban due to his arrogant and highly abusive manner. Everyone knows that he, Duffer1, is the first to run complain to the administrators when he feels his pride has been wounded, and calls for anyone who disagrees with his religious views to be banned, or slanderers at the very least. Surely he should play by the set rules or face the same consequences as others have to? Many can see from his posts he thinks he's 'untouchable', and will get extra special soft treatment because he's a "Jehovah's Witness". I hope you will not allows that to happen, and will increase his ban as this would certainly happen to anyone else posting the same stuff and flagrantly breaking all the rules, and also doing it while banned. Regards, Ríoghán P.201.248.246.196 11:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I have e-mailed user:Stifle. The list the above person mentions was compiled by the now indefinately banned user:Tommstein and has already been reviewed by the Arbitration Committee. After the Arbitration, Administrator user:Pathoschild blanked the page, unfortunately he didn't delete the history. I have no hard feelings towards you about the block even though I still very much disagree with it. These unscrupulous vandals have used you, I recommend reading the comments left by them on my talk page to get a feel for just how nasty these people are. The situation is out of hand. Duffer 14:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That arbitration page you linked to lists 4 instances of edit warring and 18 instances of personal attacks and incivility by you (at which point they probably got tired of adding more), versus 7 by this Tommstein person. The Workshop page linked to from there adds another count of edit warring and 2 counts of point of view editing by you, which brings your grand total to 25, even though you were apparently the one that started the whole case trying to get others banned. It is amazing that they banned Tommstein and ignored your far more egregious behavior (complainer's benefit? Committee incompetence? Both?). This is probably why the above poster remarked about you acting like you're special, untouchable, above the rules, and all your bad behavior is everyone else's fault but yours. Despite warnings that you were given while blocked, you still persist in calling edits you disagree with "vandalism" and those that make them "vandals." I also see from that Workshop page that you were told, in response to your begging them to erase that impressive list of your policy and behavioral violations, that "a lot of it's true, and it doesn't really look like a personal attack or anything to me" and to "be more careful in your use of the word 'libel'." This from a committee that, from all appearances, you have embarrassing naked pictures in compromising situations of.217.218.235.162 21:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What an amazing display of personal attacks! Perhaps you should register so that you can make it easier for administrators to ban you. Just keep writing like you have above, and I guarantee you'll irritate them. Edit fairly and with civility, and you'll prove me a liar. (Also, you shouldn't end sentences with prepositions.) - CobaltBlueTony 22:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Take your dispute off my talk page. WP:RFC and WP:RFM are good choices. Stifle 14:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, I am having no part in this dispute as I am too prejudiced in the issue to be impartial. Stifle 14:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock