Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2005-12-27 Jehovah's Witnesses

JWs Talk page and vandalism

Stevenwmccrary58, can you explain why you keep vandalising whole pages of user's comments, not from a main article page, but in this Talk discussion? You know the policy on Vandalism, and yet you are doing to worst kind of vandalism of all, by hacking to death people's discussion comments, changing their words, re-orderings their statements and distorting their presentation and argumentation, and all of this in a Talk discussion, not a main article! If you alter even one word, let alone massive paragraphs as you have been doing you are bastardising their thoughts, and manipulating the debate in a totally unethical and unacceptable manner. This kind of vandalising is totally unacceptable, especially when people are trying to resolve and edit a complex subject with all their information, presented the way they choose.

Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMediation_Cabal%2FCases%2F27_12_2005_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&diff=34625746&oldid=34608460

Would it be acceptable to rip out pages of books, and replace them with others just because we did not like what was written in them? Is it ethical to alter history to something else and present this as a factual representation? If you have a problem with someone's phrasing, or words, then make a comment below their post objectively, but please stop vandalising post and changing all their words. Once you have touched their Talk comments and messed about with them, altered them, moved bits and deleted others, mutilated it, it is no longer a valid post, and does not represent in any way what they said and the way they wanted their ideas and disputation expressed. You have marched in with strong-arm tactics and done a massive amount of corrupting of people's paragraphs, mine being the most messed up and altered of all. Again, if you object to any wording, then please post an objection below the text. Please stop this outrageous bastardising and hacking up of people's valid talk posts. This is not a main page, this is a discussion page about an edit, which will have each person's point of view, and their wording expressing their arguments and thoughts in their own manner. You are unfortunately destroying the whole point of a resolution page discussion with your actions. If you carry on with this spoiling, the whole point of the discussion will be void, as all the points will be lost in a deluge of censorship and bastardisation, therefore any conclusion will be unreasonable, manipulated and invalid. Central 17:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Central, thanks for the protest.

I am trying to follow the suggestions on Wikipedia:Civility especially those under the subsection on Rephrasing disputants comments. My intent is to keep the tone civil and on topic on the Mediation page. The notes that remain in the Mediation text points the users to deleted text, so if they still want to read it, they can go to the history.

I do not favor, nor does the Mediation Cabal, admonitions, so I try to avoid those.

I am taking a little liberty on the Mediation page, since it is mediation, albeit informal. Your protest is so noted.

I do not have the authority, not do I want the authority, to "zap" history. It is all still there. The edits on the main page are not unreasonable, nor are they manipulation. If you believe they are censorship, then restore them by addressing them to me. But please, assume good faith, even in my edits of your posts.

Please note that this is the "discussion" page for the mediation. The other page is the mediation "project page."

To the issue, early in the article, I requested certain demeanor on the page, especially asking that both sides address their edits to me, not to each other, and to avoid bloviating. The edits of other users posts were to eliminate deviations from those requests. If you believe that I have "bastarized" one of your posts, please restore it in a civil fashion, again addressing me, not the other users. As you can tell, your's are not the only edits being "toned," most of the parties in this dispute could use some lessons in concise edits, staying on topic, assuming good faith, and following protocol.

Again, if you believe that your edits are "bastardized" please change them, but following the requested protocol.

Again thanks for the notice, SteveMc 18:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC) added clarifications. SteveMc 19:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Cobaltbluetony

Steven, I accept the terms under which you are making these changes, but I would offer the caveat that, in the past, there is no such thing as a "little" liberty, or a "little" anything here. Large or small, certain editors will invariably (and predictably) raise a fuss until everyone else feels physically nauseated. - CobaltBlueTony 18:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator is damaged?

Greetings, How many of you believe that I have damaged my ability to complete the mediation of this dispute by editing the posts of others? (Please read the complaint above.) I will gladly step aside and let someone else finish this mediation.

Please vote below. SteveMc 19:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree (mediator is damaged)

yes he is --Greyfox 02:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC) after the tom insident it's time to go[reply]

Disagree (mediator is not damaged)

CobaltBlueTony 19:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mini 20:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had one of my posts removed. Lesson learned. George 21:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this still an issue? Steve is doing a good job of what he has volunteered to do: mediate; he's also doing it without overstepping the confines of un-official Wiki mediation guidelines. Central, if this was official mediation you would stand a good chance of getting blocked on top of getting edited. Duffer 22:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dtbrown 23:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add that I appreciate concise posts, especially in this sort of thing. I actually appreciated the edits. Dtbrown 03:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is neutral. Storm Rider 23:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I generally strongly disagree with editing the words of others, especially in a discussion (or some semblance thereof), I do not believe that the ability of our mediator to mediate this is damaged. He of necessity has to read comments before he decides to move them elsewhere, so can presumably take them into account, he being the person that is currently making the proposals for resolution.Tommstein 08:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SteveMc, you are missing the point. No one is saying you cannot mediate, but what you should not be doing is altering people's post and then reinserting their signatures, thus changing their words to something they did not say, and presenting it publicly as their words by signing their name. If everything is to be directed to you, then why put it on a public page? Why not just delete the lot and keep it in a Word file of your own? Conversely, if you would like information on a public page, then it should be exactly presented, as it was given and historically posted, and any argument of the subject matter should be developed as each poster wishes, which is impossible if you keep changing people's words and altering them. How can someone reply to another's points if they are removed? You might see them, but you will not see a reply/counter argument as you will have destroyed the opportunity for someone to reply, unless they want to spend ages trawling thought the history, but then posting a counter argument on the current page will not make any sense if the old quotes it's referring to have been erased from the current page!

One problem seen here often is JWs falsely claming that quotes are not accurate from their organization, which is why they must all have references and date, publication etc. so we can all check them. To alter quotes and make them say what we want them to say would be outrageous, and undermine the whole quote, and yet you keep doing this very thing with people's comments here, why? As said, if person X is rude, then comment below. If you don't want their comments in public then delete the whole page and keep it in your own files, so you can read it all as it was said, and then make comments from then onwards. I don't think the mediator is damaged, but I do think you are creating more problem than solutions, as misrepresentation of people's words, thoughts and arguments will only lead to a false conclusion, therefore invalidating any historical discussion on the subject, and will create more ongoing problems with posts. Central 11:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One word/thought for Central : Focus. - Cobaltbluetony 16:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Central, again thanks for the considered response.

I appreciate the gravity of altering posts (really!), and I hesitated before doing it. However, I noticed a couple of times that the editors were regressing to old habits of being defensive, aggressive, and insulting; those behaviors are not conducive to conflict resolution. Having said that, I realize that you and Tommstein, believe this issue was settled once (in October?), and then (unnecessarily) resurrected recently. This must be frustrating. Nonetheless it happened, and it is the nature of Wikipedia, so must be dealt with. As a mediator, so far I have not seen anything to really cause me to questions the motives of any party, so I continue on in good faith. Please let me assure you that the long posts are not needed. I think I get it, but if you think otherwise, post something short and to the point, even direct me to read something already posted. There is sooooo much already posted, that I can go back and gather information myself.
as to your "why" alter the posts of others: I addressed that above, "trying to follow the suggestions on Wikipedia:Civility especially those under the subsection on Rephrasing disputants comments." I believe they are reasonable, and consistent with the original intent of its author, and I will continue to do so, noting your objection.
as to your general disagreement with the requested protocols, I stand by them for a couple of reasons:
1. Mediation is not about bloviating or blogging to the general public. It is about allowing an unbiased individual to help process the dispute. That is the reason for addressing the mediator and not the other parties, or the public. Plus, there comes a point, once the mediator understands the issues, for the long explanations to stop. The mediator knows the reasons without it being stated again.
2. This group of individuals has a history of insulting each other, of distrust, of bloviating, of long responses, etc. It was (and still is) time for each party to stop the posturing and address the issues.
3. I requested the short responses so I could get to the bottom of the issue on my time, not anyone elses' time. The length and number of quotations is exeedingly long and tedious. Therefore, I asked each party to attend to my questions as they arise, not to others.
as to your why not keep the responses completely private: the Mediation Cabal is informal, therefore there are no pre-established rules by the Cabal; it is left to the mediator to establish procedure as needed. I, therefore, took the liberty to establish the protocol (as explained) for this group. (I do not normally establish such protocols.) I hoped that the parties could adhere to the requested protocol, I, obviously, over trusted this group. As already explained, my intent was to get to the bottom of the issue quickly, without going through another round of insults, inuendo, or edit and quote wars.
Again, your protest is noted. I have not intentionally tried to misrepresent or "bastardize" the edits of any party. (I must sound like the current President Bush here. ;-) Again, if you believe that then revert the edits following the requested protocol. I understand your mistrust for altering quotes, but can you assume "good faith"?

I am glad that my credibility as a mediator is not damaged. Let's get back to work on the proposed revisions. Thanks again, SteveMc 17:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to intrude here but I must explicate what happened regarding this issue back in October. This issue was never "settled", user:Central and user:Tommstein (then 66.158.232.37), harassed and verbally abused the editor user:Uberpenguin until he just gave up. I recognized this was happening again when I tried to correct their misconceptions on this matter, so I brought the issue here to the Cabal. Duffer 19:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read Steve's edit directly above regarding fingerpointing and accusing other editors.Tommstein 05:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duffer, You always have to come in with some goading remark don't you? I will call you "Saint Duffer the Persecuted Martyr of Wikipedia" from now on and give you a big badge to wear with Victim stamped on it. I wasn't even referring to October; I was referring to about two weeks ago, when the current quote went on. It covered all sections and no one complained, and then all this argument has come back again for no good reason! Central 23:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean when I refused to participate further in an endless editwar, and instead prepared a case for the mediation cabal over the issue? Steve brought up what occured in October, I was pointing him to the events that transpired then. Duffer 00:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I would not approve of editing anyone elses comments on a talk page. However, the mediation process includes a (reasonable, in my view) exception to that rule, and I don't see that the mediator edits have mischaracterized anyone's viewpoint. Perhaps it would be helpful to tag "rephrased by mediator" on any sections that are edited for civility? CarbonCopy (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. I think Steve is doing a commendable job in the circumstances, and do not think that rephrasing the comments was due to anything other than a good faith effort to follow policy. Personally, though, I disagree with said policy on rephrasing uncivil comments, since the rephraser has to interpret the intention of the original poster, and it masks the incivility of an exchange which should be in full view so that something can be done about it.

Duffer and Greyfox exchange on ad hominem

Read up on ad hominem you direct attacks away from me. You have and might, I ad you are associatng with Disfellowshiped brothers ( I am not one, yet! )which will get you disfellowed or have you ever attended a meeting yourself. You by being here violate the governing bodies direction to stay away from internet chat rooms because it has dfed ones. Did you attend last years convention they talked about the internet several talks were you there and awake. You must have not !!!!! Sorry, for shouting this is touchy,and a another thing The Watchtower Society has said this site Official Web Site of Jehovah's Witnessesis anuff no witness is to set up there own site which technicaly you are doing. Read your KM's man. Greyfox 00:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if I offended you, that clearly was not my intent. You said you are (were?) a Jehovah's Witness (trying to get yourself excommunicated?); I was saying nothing more than the fact that you can verify what I have said about Unbaptized Publishers if you were (are?) indeed a Jehovah's Witness. Duffer 00:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the ad hominem article your are still doing it. I am one in I am late to my book study by the way it is the Daniel's Prophecy book I will get the page and chapter we are on to you when I get back.--Greyfox 01:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)thank you read the article while I am gone.[reply]

OK I,m back tonight was page 210-218 chapter 13 title: Two Kings in Conflict paragraphs 1-15 sub paragraphs are Against the Kingdom of Greece, A Great Kingom Divided into Four, and Two Rival Kings Emerge.--Greyfox 03:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC) What did did you learn from the article ad hominem? This is a two way door are you a witness what is on page two of the KM under to be discussed on January 9, 2005[reply]

Greyfox, using a "hostile witness" (courtroom talk), to underscore the fallacy of someones' misconcetptions is not Ad Hom. Contrary to that, your suggestion that I am setting up my "own site", is ad hom. Duffer 13:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. You did not answer my question on about KM. A current witness should easily answer that.

2. This is not a courtroom. You are violating WP:AGF.--Greyfox 15:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3.ad hominem is when you attack the person to try to weaken there argument. Which is what you are doing. Consentrate on the argument attacking me makes you look stupid and hardheaded.

Relax. I have not provoked you in any way. I have not attacked you. Perhaps you have misread something that I typed. Duffer 15:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of publications do not "infer," they state point-blank. Also, the fact that even baptized Witnesses are said to be unsure of their fate kind of cramps on the possibilities for people that haven't even gotten baptized yet; if there is actual documentation of the claim "Does this mean that we believe Unbaptized Publishers (those who go door to door with us, yet havn't [sic] received baptism yet) will perish at Armageddon?... Absolutely not," it would be quite useful, since otherwise it remains in the realm of editor personal opinion. The reason for the unified front of all three or so people claiming that 99% of quotes don't say what English readers can verify that they say, and that the story is really much peachier than said 99% of quotes clearly and unambiguously say, may involve this: http://www.reexamine.org/quotes/lie.htm (or outright ignorance of one's own religion, perhaps due to spending too much time online arguing with "apostates" all over the Internet; perhaps there is a correlation between discovering what the religion actually teaches and becoming an ex-Witness). While Central indeed has no "verifiable evidence" of the conversations he has had, I still await "verifiable evidence" of Duffer1's considerably more amazing claims to know "the hearts and minds of every Jehovah's Witness" and that "every Jehovah's Witness (involved in Wikipedia or not), that talks about this issue, says you're wrong." Thank you.Tommstein 23:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already have provided "verifiable evidence" that "every Jehovah's Witness .. that talks about his issue, says you're wrong" by linking to an article about the subject on Touchestone. They are talking about it, they say you're wrong. Why you seek to harass members of a religion that you know very little about is beyond me, but whatever the reason, tone down your hostility. Your insinuations that I lie (which I've already addressed) are highly insulting, yet you persist. Tomm, stop. I'm done trying to convice you that I say is true, I have (WP:V) verified my position with legitimate, official, resources and that is enough for Wikipedia regardless if it is enough for you and user:Central. Please keep your comments directed towards Steve. Duffer 23:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same to You !--Greyfox 03:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit my comments Grey, unless you feel I have violated WP:CIVIL. Duffer 13:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are violating WP:CIVIL and and also WP:AGF. You have a double standard. You cast doubt on me (see above) and you don't see a problem, but when someone cast doubt on You, and Your argument, You cried foul. I am trying to point it out to you. You said Please keep your comments directed towards Steve. (Why don't you first !) right after you attempted to trash me. That is stupid, two faced, and immature! --Greyfox 15:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are being entirely unreasonable and insulting. There is no need for this. Where have I tried to "cast doubt" on you? Duffer 15:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insult would be saying that you are stupid, twofaced, and immature. I said what you did was stupid, twofaced, and immature, and I leave to the readers to decide if you are. Stop incinuating that I am not a Witness and in good faith this will stop.--Greyfox 20:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and me unreasonable I am here because I am unreasonable so as to balance out your unreasonbleness. We have quoted and quoted, better and better, sources and you still insist you are right and that touchstone and an old outdated watchtower and urban myth take precident. Let the reader decide whose unreasonable.--Greyfox 20:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go here and sign the truce I am tried of this.[1]--Greyfox 21:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]