This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Request for Deletion

1) I request that Tommstein's talk page, and his sub-page (along with the page histories) be permanently deleted per Wikipedia:Libel at the conclusion of this arbitration. I do not know if there is precedent for this, if there isn't, then this would certainly be a good place to start one. Duffer 08:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

What about my request above? It's been up for nearly two weeks with no comment, please review my request before you close this arbitration. Duffer 20:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see the point. He could have posted that in the evidence page here, like you did, and it would have amounted to the same. And, well, it's just his opinion, a lot of it's true, and it doesn't really look like a personal attack or anything to me... Try WP:MfD, perhaps. Dmcdevit·t 01:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of it in regards to things that I have said is true. Some of it is demonstrably deceitful, and I agree with the arbiter who posted that the libel against the other users is: "mainly unfounded". Besides, an accurate list of my attacks is posted on this page already. It's a libellous Attack page, per this guideline: "these pages are subject to being deleted by any administrator at any time." If such is grounds for immediate deletion on a normal article, why not a person's own talk page if it violates the same guidelines? Duffer 03:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against deletion, but it won't be made part of this arbitration, is all. See if you can find an administrator who will do it, or take it to WP:MFD. I haven't said it shouldn;t be deleted. I do, however, think you should be more careful in your use of the word "libel". Dmcdevit·t 10:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if someone posted such on a thing on their talk page, and on a sub-page about you; things that are mostly correct but with several things that demonstrably aren't, I believe any one would consider that to be libelous. Would you not delete similar if it was directed at you and a couple other Arbitors? You are an Admin are you not? I'm not saying you do, but if you do find the material to fall within the realm of speedy deletion, then would you please speedily delete it? :) Also, Tomm's list is not a posting of evidence for the purposes of Arbitration, it is a list concocted well before arbitration which he used on several occasions to try to justify his heinous behavior. Duffer 22:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Tommstein banned until case closed except for Arbitration pages

1) Tommstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned, until the conclusion of this Arbitration, from editing any page except those directly related to Arbitration involving him, and his own User and User Talk pages. He may be blocked for a short time, up to three days, for any edit violating this injunction, and all such edits may be reverted by any editor without regard to the limitations of the three revert rule.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Moved to Proposed decision. Dmcdevit·t 01:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

1. I'll let you guys tell him. Duffer 02:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1. Copied from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor/Proposed decision. I have unblocked Tommstein (see below), so he may present evidence in his defense.--Sean Black|Talk 23:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of this dispute is Jehovah's Witnesses and the editing of Tommstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Central (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Personal attacks and incivility by Tommstein

2) Tommstein has be incivil and has made personal attacks [1], [2] [3], [4], [5], [6] and [7]..

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tommstein's failure to assume good faith

3) Tommstein fails to assume good faith with respect to other editors of Jehovah's Witnesses and Wikipedia admnistrators [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NicholasTurnbull&diff=36546078&oldid=36451122, [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. For Tommstein's reaction to arbitration see [15]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. Yes, that last comment is rather, er, interesting :).--Sean Black ^(talk) 21:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks and incivility by Duffer1

4) Duffer1 has been incivil and made personal attacks [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], and [32], [33].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. All I can say is that I apologize for the disruption of my previous 'venom for venom' attitude, I have already drastically curbed this and completely changed how I deal with provocative comments (through avoidance and mildness). Duffer 23:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Point of view editing by Duffer1

5) Duffer1 has engaged in point of view editing, removing the link to a critical bulletin board [34] and deleting material he disapproves off [35]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. I'm sorry Duffer1, but I had a good look at the site. While it may permit occasional pornography, it is not a pornographic site but a site dedicated to the free exchange of viewpoints regarding Jehovah's Witnesses. Fred Bauder 00:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

1. Please note that the link I removed (#34 above) is a link to pornographic material and lude jokes. Duffer 23:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Edit warring by Duffer1

6) Duffer1 has engaged in edit warring [36].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tommstein blocked indefinitely

7) On January 24 Tommstein was blocked indefinitely by NicholasTurnbull [37] see also Tommstein's reaction. He was unblocked to participate in this arbitration, but based on the extensive evidence in this case was blocked again on February 4 by Fred Bauder.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tommstein's list

8) Tommstein has prepared an extensive list of the offenses of others at User:Tommstein/List of Personal Attacks, Civility Breaches, Good Faith Violations, etc. by Jehovah's Witnesses. This list contains some genuine violations of Wikipedia policy by Duffer1. However Retcon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Missionary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are history (see User_talk:Missionary#Apologies_to_all_concerned) and the allegations against Cobaltbluetony are mainly unfounded.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Personal attacks by Central

9) Central (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a critic of the Jehovah's Witnesses has been discourteous and has made personal attacks [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], and [47]. 'This nut is a perfect example of how terrorists are made. I can imagine someone like him at the Jonestown mass suicide, grabbing little kids by the neck saying: "Drink your damn cool aid you little shit, I don't give a damn if it tastes funny, drink it for God NOW!!!!"' [48].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Central's point of view

10) Central takes a point of view which is strongly critical of the Jehovah's Witnesses [49], [50], [51], [52] and [53]. According to Central, "a despicable religion that teaches its members no moral scruples at all" [54].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Central's failure to assume good faith

11) Central's strong opposition to the Jehovah's Witnesses extends to failure to assume good faith with respect to editors with a positive point of view [55], [56], and [57].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Central's links to pirated material

12} Central has provided links to sites from which extensive material copyrighted by the Jehovah's Witnesses may be downloaded [58] and [59]. This website, is a wiki using Mediawiki software, the texts are presented as PDF files, see http://www.reexamine.org/index.php/Reexamine:About and http://www.reexamine.org/index.php/Reexamine:Community_Portal:Publication_Downloads:Secret_Publications There is extensive editing on the site by a User:Tommstein. Whois shows the site, registered to "C.T. Russell and Ass" of the "Botchtower" organization is hosted in Beijing [60].

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Not sure what theory this site is proceeding on. Off-shoring, I guess. Fred Bauder 17:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Personal information

13) Central has provided aid to User Greyfox who has threatened to contact Duffer1's congregation User_talk:Duffer1#which_congragation [61].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tommstein blocked indefinitely

1) The Arbitration Committee endorses NicholasTurnbull (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s indefinite block of Tommstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. I'll go for this. He was essentially community-banned, we can endorse that. Dmcdevit·t 20:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. New, but in the spirit of one from the Rainbowwarrior1977 case. I thnk this is the only way to proceed, and while this is an early addition, I think that Nicholas's block is justified, and that this will be an obvious choice for the committee to consider.--Sean|Black 09:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tommstein banned from Jehovah's Witnesses articles

1) Tommstein (talk · contribs · logs), should his indefinite block be lifted, is banned indefinitely from editing articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses. "Related articles" should be interprated broadly.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. The root of the problem.--Sean Black ^(talk) 04:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tommstein banned for six months

1) Should his indefinite block be lifted, Tommstein (talk · contribs · logs) is banned for six months for edit warring and personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. So, were one to decide that an indef block were too harsh,we fall back on this. I doubt his indef block will be overturned, but just in case.--Sean Black ^(talk) 04:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: