Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NicholasTurnbull

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: 03:00, 24 May 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 ~~~~)

Tommstein 04:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}

Mr. Stein is the kindest and most gentle man I know...he wouldn't hurt a kitten...I know this to be true. He is a modern day Wiki-Marytr who will soon bring a most glorious jihad on all these who prey upon him. His vernacular is poetic in form and is not to be questionned by serious students of debate. I officially nominate him as WIKI-Ambassador so that we may rewrite these outmoded concepts of civility and such. He carries my full endorsement, and I intent to model my behaviour after his from this point forward. 72.232.20.146 07:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Outside view

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.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.