User talk:95y88s76agk55621/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello Fazilfazil, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place   on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. ...comments? ~B F izz 03:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks--Fazilfazil (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Personal Attacks
It might be worthwhile reviewing the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks On the article for Jehovah's Witnesses I made a comment that the book The Finished Mystery was falsely advertised as the posthumous work of Pastor Russell. This claim does not originate with me, and in fact it is the dominant view because it is the truth. Truth is supposed to be dispassionate. However, instead of dealing with the facts you proceeded to attack me by making false accusations and questioning my motives. I have done nothing against you, have not attacked you, and do not intend to. I would appreciate the same respect. Thank you. Pastorrussell (talk) 07:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. I was not intending an attack but just stated my observation. Apologies if it hurt you. --Fazilfazil (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi
Are you Jehovah's Witnesses? Bryan Anderson (talk) 03:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Pardon me for butting in, but you don't have to answer that if you don't want to. You can give as much or as little information about yourself as you like here at Wikipedia; it is expected of everyone (at Wikipedia) to make decisions based on the merit of the idea itself, rather than making a decision based on who proposes it. So you shouldn't be afraid to self-identify, but you also shouldn't be afraid to not. ...comments? ~B F izz 05:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. I don't want to self-identify. --Fazilfazil (talk) 09:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Kitty!
A kitty for somebody I really don't know! I just wanted to send my wikilove.

I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page. @ 16:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC) 
 * Thanks--Fazilfazil (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

 * Thanks!!--Fazilfazil (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, you could join to WikiProject concerning related topics. our WikiProject.


 * Just write your sign to this page and start to edit


 * You could put WP:JW userbox to your user page as well
 * ... if you would like to ... You´re welcome! ...
 * FaktneviM (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * okay. --Fazilfazil (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to use userbox in your user page, sign your name here, as I previously stated.
 * You could also inspire yourself with other user´s "user page", including mine and other wikipedians, to create your own.


 * Happy editing! ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jehovah's Witnesses
The article Jehovah's Witnesses you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses for comments about the article. Well done! My76Strat (talk) 03:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for a nice review--Fazilfazil (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * thanks! I am not an active editor. The current status of the article is also because of few other inactive editors who have an insight on the religion. I have learned a lot from my past experience in editing and that helped me to have a balanced view. Its always good to have different type of editors. Its interesting to see this religion being hunted everywhere and still flourish..:-)

Please restrain yourself
Your comment here was unnecessary. I have spelled out my reasons for deleting the additional material you introduced to the lead section of Jehovah's Witnesses. They are based solely on my desire to see the article maintain its high quality -- which was, in part, achieved after you initiated a GA nomination. You have responded in three ways: You say Jehovah's Witnesses "are taught to win evil by their good conduct". I don't consider your unprovoked personal attack on me and my motives to be "good conduct". In short, please stick to discussions about content; leave your assumptions and accusations out of this. BlackCab (talk) 05:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * With an accusation that my edit was motivated by bias and antipathy. We come from opposite sides of the fence: you are still in the religion; I left. We both have strong views about the religion, which is why we are here (accusing me of bias because I left is plainly nonsensical: are you suggesting I therefore have a bias but you don't?).
 * With a generalised attack on "apostates" (whoever you deem them to be), that nutty term so loved by religious fanatics;
 * With a defence of the JW system of expelling and shunning. A talk page is not the place to discuss this, and I did nothing to invite a discussion on the merits and consequences of shunning, which is what you've now sparked.
 * Pointing out a flaw in you thinking is actually a part of "good conduct". Please don't take it in bad faith. I don't want to defense anyone. I try my best to convince what is wrong--Fazilfazil (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Contact with disfellowshipped persons
Re your statement here that speaking with a disfellowshipped person is not grounds for expulsion: You may be interested to know that the elders' manual Shepherd the Flock of God (2011) states on page 60 that "brazen conduct" (for which a baptised member may be disfellowshipped) "may be involved in the following if the wrongdoer has an insolent, contemptuous attitude made evident by a practice of these things: Willful, continued, unnecessary association with disfellowshipped nonrelatives despite repeated counsel." By that reading, a judicial committee could most certainly decide to disfellowship someone who continued to maintain a friendship or ongoing contact with someone who was disfellowshipped. That, indeed was the very reason for which Raymond Franz was disfellowshipped. BlackCab (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I might be wrong. But my reasoning was based on some real-scenarios I have observed. Definitely a person would be disfellowshipped if he willfully and publicly continue to make intimacy with a disfellowshipped individual. However a person can continue formal relationships as in business and show decency towards them. Nevertheless in many scenarios the matter is not considered very serious as other disfellowshipping offense.--Fazilfazil (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I just ran across this and would like to offer this simple little bit of input as I am somewhat familiar with the situation. Ray Franz may state that as the reason for his disfellowshipping, but that is definitely not the reason he was disfellowshipped.  His apostasy went well beyond simply  being  "someone who continued to maintain a friendship or ongoing contact with someone who was disfellowshipped."  I will limit the information to that small bit, and that Ray Franz lived up the road from me until the day he died.  Willietell (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The documentation Franz provided in his first book showed he was disfellowshipped for eating with the Gregersons. The organization clearly did not appreciate him holding dissident views and wanted him out, but his association with a disassociated person was evidently the basis on which he was disfellowshipped. It's been a while since I read Crisis of Conscience, but from memory he was questioned at length about his doctrinal views, but ultimately no action was taken against him at that time as an apostate. The Shepherd the Flock of God clearly shows that Witnesses can still be expelled and shunned if they do continue to associate with someone who is disfellowshipped or formally resigns, which was the subject of my initial comment. Incidentally, have you read Crisis of Conscience? I'd be interested in your opinions (at my talk page, rather than Fazilfazil's), on his account in the closing chapters of his book of what happened in his locality after he left Bethel. You probably know some of those people mentioned. BlackCab (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I know people who were in the congregation he attended at the time of his disfellowshipping, and the reason he was disfellowshipped has little to do with what he has publicly expressed as being the reason, and since he knew the society would not discuss such actions publicly, he had license to make whatever claim he wished without fear of having to prove his statements, additionally, no I haven't read it, nor do I ever intend to do so. Willietell (talk) 03:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm not saying that such association would not ever be a reason for disfellowshipping, but it would have to be a pretty extreme case for such a measure to be taken. Willietell (talk) 03:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Since JW members are not told why someone is disfellowshipped, it would not make much difference whether you happened to know people in that congregation or what second-hand speculation they might have passed on to you. It's unclear how you can suggest that Franz' claims&mdash;which you haven't read&mdash;are untrue.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Willietell, I've had a look back at Franz's book. He reproduces a letter, signed by three elders from his local Alabama congergation, requesting his attendance at a judicial committee "to discuss with you your continued association with a person disassociated from the congregation". It would have made no difference to Franz exactly what the charge was, so it makes no sense that he would lie about that and fabricate a letter that includes the signatures of elders known in that locality. I know that gossip is always present among JWs, particularly when someone faces a disciplinary hearing, so it appears that you have been fed information that is quite wrong. Franz spends quite a bit of space in his book going through the back-and-forth contact with both local elders and the Brooklyn headquarters on that issue. I accept that you don't want to read the book and therefore make a fully informed decision based on both sides of the story, but the evidence is quite clear that Franz was disfellowshipped for one reason alone. As Jeffro mentions, members of the congregation are informed of neither the evidence that was presented, nor the accused person's defense and are therefore in no position to be properly informed; in a peculiarity of the JW system of discipline, they are only given the judgment of the prosecution/jury. You can cling to whatever gossip you've heard, but your denial of clear evidence to the contrary says a lot about your own prejudices. BlackCab (talk)
 * But interestingly his uncle continued faithful later served as the president, which gives implication that his disfellowshipping was acceptable by him irrespective of his relation. Later on his vitriolic sentiments/bias in his book suggests his dis-fellow-shipping was justified again and proves he is dishonest. Though I feel pity about these people sometime, since in addition to franz I know a former CO now working as a stone cutter after he unofficially started teaching that the big idol in Daniel refers to 5 watchtower presidents and some other nonsenses. So I feel the decision was for their/our good and an elder who was dis-fellowshiped with him is attending the meetings --Fazilfazil (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also though I commented above, I apologize, please don't continue conversations here. I just don't want to make unnecessary conversations in my talk page. Thanks --Fazilfazil (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, Ray Franz writes (pg 385-386) about several letters he sent to his uncle after being disfellowshipped. He says he expected no reply and received none. He includes an extract from a letter he sent to him in 1988 as Fred Franz neared death. He says he was not surprised he received no reply, but was sad, nonetheless. I'm intrigued, Fazil, about your comment, "Later on his vitriolic sentiments/bias in his book suggests his dis-fellow-shipping was justified again and proves he is dishonest." Ray Franz was certainly critical of the WTS in his book, although "vitriol" seems too harsh a word. The overall tone of the book is concern and sadness, but if you have read the book you are free to make your own judgment. But what dishonesty are you referring to, and what is it in his book that "proves" he was dishonest? Willietell makes a claim based on local gossip that Franz lied about why he disassociated — though all the evidence points to Franz being right and Willietell being wrong — but I know of no other allegations that Franz was dishonest. Throughout his time in, and then out, of the organization, he was revered as a man of strong principle .... which, of course was the reason he decided he could no longer remain on the Governing Body or in the religion. BlackCab (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The brothers I know have firsthand knowledge of the situation, one serving as an elder in his congregation at the time. What I know is not gossip, and the situation with Ray Franz was much broader than just association with someone who had left the truth.  Contrary to what Jeffro77 thinks, after someone is disfellowshipped there is commonly a local needs talk given which directly relates to whatever issue lead to the disfellowshipping.  Additionally, Franz was not alone in being disfellowshipped, several others were also disfellowshipped at the same time for the same reason.  I'm not saying the letter he produces is false, only that there was a lot more to it than that.  Interestingly, prior to his death, Franz made attempts to have his wife re-instated into the local congregation, however, since she personally did not express this desire, it was not something that came to fruition.  I can only conclude that he must have felt a certain amount of regret over his actions or possibly age and the realization of his own mortality caught up with him. Willietell (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry Fazilfazil, I just read your request to take the conversation elsewhere, so I will stop discussing it here. Willietell (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Aaron Spelling would surely be rolling in his grave. With all this small-town gossip and double-dealing, this had all the elements of a fantastic soap opera. Opportunity missed! BlackCab (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012
 In this issue...

- Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia &bull; It is published by WikiProject Christianity For submissions contact the Newsroom &bull; To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here
 * From the Editor
 * What are You doing For Lent?
 * Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
 * Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

Leaving?
Sorry to hear about the problems, Fazilfazil. We have disagreed in the past on religious matters, but I hope everything will soon be OK. BlackCab (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Life is complicated. Thanks for inquiry --Fazilfazil (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam
User:AuthorityTam has resumed editing today and has immediately made a misleading claim about me. I have therefore re-opened the previous unresolved ANI where various proposals were suggested. I am advising you because you were substantially involved in the previous discussion. Please see Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Blog
By making reference to my blog (which I have never cited or mentioned on Wikipedia), you're a bit close to Wikipedia's policy about outing. This is your only warning.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My visiting was quite accidental. But I didn't know the policy. Sorry about that--Fazilfazil (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You can read it as much as you like. Just note that referring to editors' personal information including online identities on Wikipedia can breach the policy.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses
Please see the policy Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. We're not here to provide every possible link on the subject of our articles, nor are we a promotional media. The policy is that we provide a single "official" link for the subject, not multiple links. The interested reader can navigate from the one JW link to the others, so there's no compelling need for the multiple links. Please do not restore them -- editing against policy can get you blocked from future editing. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't threaten me! LOL. I reverted only once, which is far far away from a policy violation to get blocked. I never been a linkfarmist, I reverted it because it was there for a couple of years without any objection, even after GA process. Having said that all the three websites will be merged to jw.org by September, so no objection. Go ahead. --Fazilfazil (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Leaving Jehovah's Witnesses and 'formally say'
Hi Fazilfazil, I noticed your addition of the word 'formally' that was then reverted by BlackCab. I think part of the confusion is how the Witnesses address the question about shunning on jw-media.org vs instructions actually given to elders and the latitude they have in deciding who of those who leave should be put through the process and why. The answer given on jw-media.org addresses those who merely become inactive, those who commit a moral sin such as drunkeness, stealing and adultery. It also addresses those who 'who formally say' -- in the mind of most this implies a written or verbal statement informing the congregation you no longer want to be known as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. But this leaves an important category unaddressed. What of an individual such as myself who leaves due to conscience (I'm an atheist). After having had no substantial contact with the congregation in 2 1/2 years, I then openly celebrate Christmas (mostly for the benefit of my 6 year old, who I do not feel should be compelled to forego common things like this). This resulted, not in disfellowshipping, but instead unilateral disassocation against my wishes. In no way, did I ever make a 'formal' statement. But the structure of the faith allows the elders to claim that my post-leaving Christmas celebration was tantamount to saying this. I even went as far as suggesting to the elders they could make a public statement to the congregation that I was an atheist, but no one was being directed to shun me (i.e. to address any concern about community confusion regarding my celebration of Christmas). But they ignored that suggestion, made the short-form announcement, without even informing me they did so. In terms of Wikipedia I do think it is important we rely on sources both inside and outside the organization that are known to be reliable to craft the best encyclopedic statement we can about the faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randyg271 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Again action was taken in your case only because you publicly manifested your conscious disagreement with the Biblical teaching you promised to follow during your baptism. However what I am saying is that simply someone leaving JWs religion or isolating themselves due to conscious disagreement does not prompt disfellowshipping. There are more people who go inactive than getting disfellowshipped, that is what the official statement emphasize on--Fazilfazil (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand why they took such action. My point merely orbits around the why adding the word 'formally' as if this is a key trigger for action is not supported either by reliable sources or real life experience.  The use of the the phrase 'formally say' on jw-media.org covers one case of those who leave and are shunned for doing so, but certainly not all.  Your comment above are in close agreement with my experience and what sources say.  It is the public display of one now holding different views that is key.  And that is what triggers the action, regardless of time away from the faith.


 * Thus the wording: 'Sociologist Andrew Holden says those who _choose to leave_ the religion "are seldom allowed a dignified exit...' (which I see has just been changed again) is exactly right and my experience and your comments show this is the correct. "choose to leave" would cover those who "formally say" and these ones would be shunned.  "choose to leave" would also cover those who leave and make some obvious public display of difference with the faith like open celebration of Christmas, running for political office or attending another Church, etc.  These ones would likely be subject to DBA (dissaociation by action) and shunned.  And "seldom" doesn't mean "never."  As you point out those who leave, become inactive, but continue to follow an undefined subset of the rules that govern active members might be said to have been afforded a dignified exit (i.e. they are not subject to a DF announcement).  The current change (not by you) lumps all these folks into a "defectors" category. That can't be correct, but I will leave it up to other long-time editors. Randyg271 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 03:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As I have indicated at the article's talk page, the matter of actions that the JW leadership imagines to indicate 'disassociation' warrants a separate sentence entirely rather than trying to lump it in with people who might more formally 'disagree'.
 * Apart from that, I'm amused by the attempt to elicit guilt with the phrase "Biblical teaching you promised to follow during your baptism". A 'promise' (or any verbal or written contract) based on a false premise is null and void, especially when there is pressure by the peer group to take such action (not to mention that the doctrines at any point may be significantly different to the so-called 'biblical teaching' at the time of the person's baptism). Any person who leaves the group for any reason, or for no reason is not actually subject to any procedure or regulation that the leadership of their former association might imagine to be valid. If a person were to insist that this requires some so-called 'scriptural basis' (though such insistence is irrelevant in the real world), they should realise that a person who is no longer a member is not "someone called a brother".-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the comment about a broken promise nonetheless captures an important point. I was baptised in 1981 before the wording was changed to make it more clear the candidate was making a promise towards a religious organization. But it is clear that Witnesses do generally view those who leave in this light -- i.e. persons who have broken their baptism promise and/or followed a clearly un-Biblical course of action, rather than something more generous such as conscientious objector. The latest back and forth edits highlight this tension.
 * In terms of how the proceedings of disfellowshipping and disassociation actually work, in any given case, only the people involved know the details. As outsiders (i.e. nearly everyone) we may have created a logical model of how we imagine the process works that does not fit all cases or even the typical case. Since much of the data that could reveal the details is not generally available, even a careful and unbiased sociologist could misfire on this point. Thus is the challenge volunteer contributors to this wiki project! Randyg271 (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * One would imagine that, in Randyg271's case, 2½ years' absence from all meetings would indicate that one has lost interest in a religion and moved on. It does seem odd that after all that time a religion would go to the trouble of formally announcing that severance, knowing full well that it would result in a mandatory organized shunning. One can only speculate on the motives of the local elders.
 * Good friends of mine who decided they no longer accepted the full range of Jehovah's Witness doctrines similarly decided to cease attending meetings. They moved state and made no contact with any local Witnesses, or indeed any Witnesses from their former area. Their intention was to live quietly outside the religion. Some years later the wife's brother, a JW elder, alerted elders in their new city that in conversations with him, they had expressed their views; the elders called on them and requested them to attend a judicial committee to inquire if they still believed core JW doctrines about the faithful slave class. When they refused to attend, an announcement was made in their former city that they had been disfellowshipped. When the wife's elderly father later became terminally ill, family members prevented her from contacting him. What possible benefit was there in the whole judicial committee process: to "keep the congregation clean" and protect the brothers? They were conscientious dissenters who simply faded away; in their case it was the expression to family members of their disagreement with JW doctrines that brought about their shunning.
 * When I quit attending meetings, a JW friend begged me to explain why I was leaving. I didn't dare tell him, because of the danger that he might initiate a judicial committee interrogation; I simply wanted to walk away, because by that time I knew much more about the JWs than I had when I joined. What then: should I forever be limited in life choices by what my former religion expects of members for fear of being disfellowshipped? At what point am I free to make choices to celebrate my children's birthdays, for example, or buy lottery tickets, or donate blood, or vote? I ask these questions, Fazilfazil, only in the context of what you believe is true: namely that disfellowshipping would result only if I promoted my disagreement with the society's teachings. BlackCab (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

"Some personal content in this comment removed lately"

However they will never take any actions until the person show behaviour shown by Apostates. This includes not telling the disagreement on teaching to other members and not stumbling them. No actoins will be taken as long as no reports on the person creating divisions or stumbling others with his involvement in serious sins prohibited by the religion--Fazilfazil (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That's interesting, Fazilfazil. You say "they will never take any actions until the person show behaviour shown by Apostates", yet I have just provided a real-life example of them doing just that. Since there was was no congregation to "keep clean" (the couple no longer lived in the area where they had served as JWs) the disfellowshipping seems to have been an act of revenge, or punishment, for leaving the religion .... with lifelong impacts on normal family relations. Your religion applies a harsh and unchristian interpretation of scriptures against defectors, and sociologists have correctly deduced that it serves as a powerful and effective threat for those who might consider leaving the religion. I don't know how many family members of yours are in the religion, but if, for rational, intellectual reasons you one day decided (as I did) it was not the religion you wished to remain part of, would you be comfortable with the fact that none of those family members -- or your friends -- would speak to you or acknowledge you again? JWs claim to follow Jesus, yet I see nothing in Jesus' teachings or examples in which he showed he would require people to cease speaking to family members for the rest of their lives.
 * Your comment that "I have no time reading all the things going on here" is also revealing. Like many JWs I have worked with at the doors, you talk, but don't listen. You simply shut your ears to a conversation that forces you to think, which is a sad characteristic of cult members. The sociologist James Beckford wrote (The Trumpet of Prophecy, page 120): "To argue, as do some opponents of the Watch Tower movement, that its system of doctrine is riddled with logical inconsistencies is to miss the point ... what is sociologically interesting about Jehovah's witnesses is that they derive psychological satisfaction from perceiving a coherent pattern in their beliefs regardless of possible inner consistencies, and that if they do notice inconsistencies, they can then abrogate personal responsibility for their own beliefs in the safe conviction that someone, somewhere in the Watch Tower Society must be able to solve the problem. An implicit premise in the argument is usually that, if the perceived inconsistencies were real, then the beliefs would not have gained widespread popularity." Just something to think about. BlackCab (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Removed some personal content in this comment".--Fazilfazil (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I won't reply to any more comments, since I feel like this is becoming an unrelated discussion--Fazilfazil (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to read my comments and respond. BlackCab (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

User page
Please note that placing a blatant propaganda piece on your User page is a violation of the User page guidelines. See WP:UP.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I thought it was little bit hurting to others too, So took that down. --Fazilfazil (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Seriously?
Do you really imagine that linking your opinion of other editors' discussions on Wikipedia to some Bible verse adds any weight to your argument? If you do, Wikipedia probably isn't the place for you.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 03:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ya man. I didn't link it to Christianize you. I could have also linked to another proverb in Quran or Bhagavad Gita. Its a saying, empty arguments is a waste of time. Period. I understand we both have opposite view points on matter often, so some friction is expected. Fazilfazil (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Linking to any 'scripture' would be just as stupid. And it's particularly stupid to do so if you already 'expect friction'. Citing scriptures in support of some 'doctrine' (even if they are out of context) is one thing, but citing scriptures as commentary about other editors is entirely unwarranted. Characterizing my concise responses to Gabby Merger as "foolish", "unprofitable" and "useless" is a personal attack, irrespective of whether it is done in the guise of 'citing scripture'.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 03:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Your new identity, and a caution on SPA
You appear to be the same user as Fazilfazil. If so, it would have been helpful if you had made clear on your user page that you have changed your user name, and a note on the JW pages would have helped too. On a related subject, your contribution history shows 100 percent of your work on Wikipedia is on pages related to Jehovah's Witnesses, almost always arguing in support of them against perceived slights. I want to draw to your attention the Wikipedia essay on single purpose accounts. At that essay there are warnings about editors whose purpose here could easily be construed as advocacy, and who could be deemed to have a conflict of interest. Would you care to comment? BlackCab (TALK ) 06:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I updated the members list on the JW Project page on 5 September when I noticed the change. It may be that Roller958 considered that sufficient disclosure of the name change.
 * Editing "within a single broad topic" is not the same as a single-purpose account focusing on a very limited number of articles. That said, Fazilfazil/Roller958's edits have been almost entirely restricted to the more specific subject of child sexual abuse within Jehovah's Witnesses rather than the broader subject.
 * There are conflict of interest concerns though, with a focus on trying to justify JW beliefs rather than present them. This includes going far beyond just debating topics, with some comments such as this and this that are of no relevance whatsoever.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Examples given of "single broad topics" are spiders, nutrition, baseball, and geometry. If Roller958's edits spanned topics on religion or "millennialist religions" that would fit such a criteria; his edits are instead focused entirely on one minority religion of which it's apparent he is a member. The fact he is editing articles on a few different aspects of that religion don't alter the fact that his edits are of "one very narrow area or set of articles". He is by definition an SPA editor and his motives are questionable. BlackCab  (TALK ) 08:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not disagreeing. Refer to my second sentence of second paragraph above. My point was that the editing focus appears to be even more specific.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. I did'nt know if it need a notification anywhere, my old username should redirect here. Regarding being an SPA, please feel free to open a case. I am not a disruptive editor. Though my primary focus is on JWs articles on general, I've edited not just Child Abuse article. My edits are usually undisputed, if disputed its only by BlackCab and Jeffro77 whose estimated 80% in relation to JW article edits are with a negative slant. It can be said BlackCab always writes offensive sourced material, understandable since he himself declared that as a ex-JW he hates JWs. Roller958 (talk) 12:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to you substantiating your false claim about 80% of my edits. Good night.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 13:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Its easy I don't need to dig all your history, I can easily show last few edits of you two and say that you are indeed sloping against JWs as far as possible. I can recall all edits I had personal conflict with you two and demonstrate that. Please feel free to open a case. Thanks Roller958 (talk) 13:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * However please note that the contention here is whether I am an SPA or not Roller958 (talk) 13:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "BlackCab always writes offensive sourced material, understandable since he himself declared that as a ex-JW he hates JWs". That utterly false statement pretty well summarizes your own bias, pettiness and maliciousness. My efforts have included the significant expansion of the Joseph Franklin Rutherford article, the creation of Watch Tower Society presidency dispute (1917), and the transformation of the Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany article from a very poor article into the comprehensive, fully sourced article it is now. I also spent countless hours helping to bring the Jehovah's Witnesses article up to GA status. All this was done by employing detailed research with a range of quality secondary sources, while also working on hundreds of other Wikipedia articles on a wide range of subjects including history and music. You live a blinkered life in a narrow world and your efforts on Wikipedia are aimed solely at trying to promote and defend your religion using that religion's own publications as your chief source. BlackCab  (TALK ) 13:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * How many times would you keep accusing of this BlackCab? Stop accusing me of different things, may be you need to cool down on your emotions . I don't know about your all other contributions sorry, but I can show from my edit history that all the time I have a conflict with you its because I tend to do sourced defending and you tend to do sourced criticism in JW related edits. Apologize if my claim above was wrong. Don't jump on me just because you are not happy with my sourced edits, and is now afraid that your dominance in controlling JW article is being threatened. I just don't understand why we have this conversation in the first place. Are you trying to catch me in word. I am an SPA? Okay open a case with the reason then, instead of backbiting., Roller958 (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And you think I live in a narrow world? I probably traveled more countries in the world that you have. Though I don't want to boast about my accomplishments, which I could. I have a good life and I am happy. Don't think that JWs are not happy and are living in a narrow world. Roller958 (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You are certainly personalising things a bit too much. BlackCab's opening statements in this section were a quite friendly caution about how single-purpose accounts can be perceived, and your knee-jerk reaction to immediately lodge a complaint at the admin notice board was entirely unwarranted. No one at any time said that a single-purpose account on its own is forbidden, or that you were being reported for it, or any such thing. Additionally, the amount of travelling you might have done has nothing to do with what BlackCab said to you in the context editing Wikipedia articles from a pro-JW perspective, nor did he make any claim about how 'happy' you or any other person might be.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What? Who are you to say its unwarranted, BlackCab has been testing my patience for a while. This is the third/time BlackCab accused me of an SPA, I am right finalize the matter. I want to know if I can continue or not. Why are you so much in to personal issues? I feel like you want to prove you are more intellectually capable than I am, you have better beliefs than I have, JWs beliefs are stupid and you and BlackCab are happy. Okay. I accept all. Now Happy? Please don't comment unwarranted things in my talk page Roller958 (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You do have a single-purpose account (which of itself is not forbidden, but can be indicative of inappropriate advocacy or bias). And you are the one who keeps asserting your personal views. Lots of intelligent people accept lots of irrational things all over the world, and there are many factors other than just 'intellect' (such as emotional, cultural, familial etc) that influence beliefs. (Unless you are suggesting that you think that everyone who doesn't believe what you do is "stupid"?) I haven't made any claim whatsoever about who is 'happy' or otherwise.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay Sir ! I salute you. Please stop this now. Roller958 (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Defense against SPA
SPA are a fact of life here and we welcome those accounts. They are expected to adhere to a NPOV meaning that as a witness we wouldn't want you doing "field service" in the article but you are the balance of NPOV to BC being the balance for you. Theoretically that is how it should work anyways. Next time this happens ask for a WP:RFC and failing that you can try for a Mediation Committee. The nice thing about those processes is that it opens the question to a wider forum for consensus and not as reliant on editors that because of their beliefs are on the opposite side of the spectrum ;). Now if things degenerate completely which frankly isn't likely there are other options but neither you nor they need blocked just outside opinions to help find the middle ground. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, I don't count hours for what I do here. I contribute much more time on open source projects than on Wikipedia. However I never been adamant when majority never agree with my position. Anyone who edit JW articles in the past know its a pain due to COI with a bunch of editors here. My intention always have been to not completely remove bias, but correct blatant lies and theories, there will be always some bias on controversial subjects. Thanks for advice. Roller958 (talk) 12:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, I wasn't talking about Ur field service hours fwiw 8). I meant that here is less about witnessing and more about reporting nuetrally ;). It's one reason I don't do much on there either just because I know I am not neutral and can not neutrally add into..Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks for sharing that advice. Roller958 (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Bizarre comments
Your comments here are quite odd, but out of scope of the Talk page discussion.

The claim that I have a "pattern of edits" of "mostly wording to support mind control theory" isn't just false, it's entirely stupid. Looking forward to you substantiating that false claim.

The random "30-40% criticism" claim that an IP editor made is based on nothing, but you've decided to run with it anyway. I already provided actual percentages based on a word count, so I'm looking forward to you substantiating that ridiculous claim too.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 05:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Its an estimate. It will take sometime for me to come up with an accurate statistic report. You have a POV pushing against JWs. Ill do it in near future Roller958 (talk) 12:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's an entirely made-up figure. The Criticism section is a little under 15% of the article.
 * Whilst it is necessary to counter the pro-JW bias often asserted by JW editors, I have not promoted any anti-JW content, and I have also removed various anti-JW elements. If your concern is merely that I disagree with JW beliefs or that I have cited notable criticisms in reliable sources, then that is only evidence that you do not want the articles to be neutral.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia relevance
At first I intended this comment for the last section, but I thought it deserved its own after finishing it.

I'm sorry to intrude in the discussion, but after reading this talk page I thought that a few important points needed mention... Those "other editors" who "did not survive" did not go away because of a few specific editors. They came to realize that Wikipedia was not a place suitable for propaganda, that its rules and guidelines are designed to reach consensus, based on third-party reliable sources, such that articles be neutral. It is also irrelevant on Wikipedia, who is, or is not, a Jehovah's Witness, who is an "appostate" (whatever its definition might be in a particular context), etc. What matters is that editors achieve the goals of writing and editing the articles properly according to the Wikipedia NPOV policies, and preferably do that peacefully in an atmosphere of respect, without resorting to judgments and personal attacks toward others.

It is normal that this is more difficult if one has a conflict of interest with the topic, but if that conflict is such that it is impossible to achieve Wikipedia's goals, or to remain civil, perhaps that it is not the ideal project to participate to. Often, the notability of Wikipedia and its wide audience make it very attractive, but that notability is precisely maintained because of those policies, making it a worthwhile reference source to consult and obtain actual information. Our readers remain free to consult the references, or to instead go visit the official site of an organization or company. And it is expected that other editors will resist biased edits. It is important to understand that unbiased, or NPOV on Wikipedia have specific definitions (it does not mean that every sentence must be balanced by a refutation, and it means that the "fringe" minority views should be less represented than expert consensus and even not represented at all where irrelevant, like religious dogma in science articles). For Wikipedia, the relevant experts on this very subject include sociologists and cult experts.

When more than one editor objects, it is usually an indication that you are wrong. If they still do not convince you, you can take the matter to arbitration, but you will usually then also face other editors who want to keep enforcing the Wikipedia guidelines. If need be, it might be wiser to move on to arbitration and if necessary to another project, rather than constantly feeling victimized and misbehaving until an administrator has no choice but to take action. I am not implying that this point has been reached. I only want to make you reason about what Wikipedia is about. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are trying to suggest that I want Wikipedia articles on JWs to look like The Watchtower article you got it completely wrong. To be honest I appreciate the criticism in Wiki articles, so that members can have a clear understanding of what critics say, what the organization say and judge themselves if they still want to continue. It would would help them to be not stumbled when someone refers to such criticism. I don't agree with your claim that other editors left Wiki because they found its not a place for propaganda. They may have other reasons. For example a conscientious religious objection to abstain from having conflict with "Apostates" which could corrode their zeal temporarily. That's why you won't find much Witnesses editing here. Or they may have came to the right conclusion that God's purpose is not going to be affected, just because there is widespread negative information on the internet. Or they may be busy with their religious activities/life. Hey I am here adding crucial omissions, that often irritates other editors who have POV. And I don't care if Wiki articles are completely neutral. Most of the accusations against JWs have some sort of rebuttals, which are often omitted by those who write them, that's why its controversial. Your claim when more than one editors oppose should be reworded as more than one independent editors objects, and I have yielded to such inputs in past. Roller958 (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a relevant question: are the rebuttals actually adequate (some of course may be)? Note that the following might not necessarily address your own attitude (I of course know nothing of you and mostly want to address the issue of rebuttals).  An attitude assuming that any criticism against the Jehovah's Witnesses must necessarily be wrong implies a belief in a grandiose conspiracy theory: that the world is controlled by Satan, that the Jehovah's Witnesses are the sole holders of "truth"; that by extension Wikipedia is an apostate organization (or one that is controlled by an apostate cabal), that any editor who agrees with a criticism point cannot be "independent", must necessarily be wrong; that ultimately any criticism must ideally be censored, or somehow refuted by a conjecture if it cannot be.  But on the contrary, criticism should actually raise an alarm signal to warn those who are still capable of critical thinking.  You might or might not agree with some of the following, but here goes.  The reason I mention them are because they conflict with the traditional beliefs:
 * Every editor have their own view on matters, some may have extreme views, especially if they were ex-communicated and got hurt. I never said all criticism against JWs are wrong, it raised an alarm signal when I first read criticism, and then when I researched, it went off. JWs are not perfect, they have made mistakes but they are genuine in their beliefs and they not hypocritical, so do their leaders. I've observed that personally. I would say many criticisms a conflict between standards set in the Bible and standards set by secular individuals. Critics judge JWs based on secular standards, which ultimately is the question of whether you want to do things God's way or your own way/man's way. According to Wiki policy WP:NPOV, rebuttals are adequate when one exists.--Roller958 (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "God's way" is very open to interpretation: consider for instance the number of religions and sects who each claim to interpret the same scriptures the right way, or the subjective value or relevance of those traditional scriptures (other religions might even use other sacred scriptures, and even the traditional authors to which they are attributed have often been questioned). "Secular standards" is also vague, but there are many areas where empirical evidence clarified aspects of the natural world to a point where some traditional myths can be now be considered poetic metaphores, rather than literal or historical accounts.  I admit that social sciences pose other challenges (and this includes psychology, politics, ethics, legal systems); these must of course not stop evolving because of some absolute sacred taboos a particular elite set a thousand years and more ago...  76.10.128.192 (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's put forward a few points which humanity has finally managed to painstakingly discover (and my apologies for stating the obvious if that is the case; I also could be wrong on a few details as these come from memory): Hebrew was not the first language. Homo Sapiens were not the first humans.  Yahweh was not the first human-created diety.  Monotheism is fairly recent.  The deuteronomic laws were not the first similar law codes.  Various legends of the Hebrews were adapted from previous legends of their ancestors such as Babylonians, Canaanites and Sumerians (we see common themes in for instance the older Enuma Elis, Epic of Gilgamesh, Atra-Hasis or at least common influence; and some parts of the Bible itself seem derived from other parts).  The cannon of the Bible was selected by committees, and even the Torah was compiled from various traditions by its scribes.  The Bible was not the first religious literature.  There is no evidence of a global flood having occurred.  There is however indisputable, overwhelming evidence that evolution did, and does occur, and there is no debate about that among biologists (of course the experts in that field).  Modern human as we know it exists since at least 80,000 years, with "archaic" forms up to about 200,000 years, and very close descendents up to at least 1.5 million years.


 * We even have a very good idea of the age of the Earth and that the star of our Solar System, the Sun, is not eternal, and will begin to change dramatically starting in about 1 billion years. That the Andromeda galaxy will even eventually collide with ours, the Milky Way, in a billions of years.  We have an idea of the big bang and of baryogenesis, Galaxy formation and evolution and the formation and evolution of the Solar System; we understand that we function using electrochemical processes.  Abiogenesis poses more questions, but after the emergence of life from non-life, its diversification through evolution is much better understood.  We know that natural processes are impartial, that the universe is a violent place for life, that we're very grateful to be able to live and observe this.  Humans have no central role to play in the universe and this can seem humiliating (science is not vanity).  The scientific method is not based on faith and authority, and scientific theories are not hypotheses or beliefs, but models explaining the observed evidence, and capable of predictions.  For instance, we regularily discover transitional fossils by searching where we expected to find them, despite the scarcity of the fossil record, and we discover particles after physics pretty much knew about them.  On the other hand, if the prophets predicted anthropogenic climate change, which is about to become a major challenge to our societies, or had special knowledge about nature allowing them to know about evolution, it somehow must have been encoded in a way designed to prevent recovery.  Similarly, for all the evidence of evolution that is available, some must have believed that God must have planted it all there (or allowed Satan to do it) to test our faith (a deceptive demiurge?).


 * The above is knowledge, one of the most precious things I know about. And precisely, an encyclopedia is a tool for knowledge, hence it must stand against obscurantism (and censorship).  Contary to the sayings of a common fallacy, science is not limited to what the senses can see (it also develops tools to see way beyond what senses can), but it so happens that it can only deal with what it can observe or detect.  Yet what it discovers remains consistent, and instead of forming sects (like the endless religious forks), sciences tend to converge over time into multidisciplinary sciences (just like the modern evolutionary synthesis uses discoveries made by various sciences to complement, not confuse).  Science does not require faith, it is not religion, it requires reproducible tests to validate its claims.  Science works and the state of our technology demonstrates this.  Where traditional lore contradicts science (like the Genesis creation narrative), it cannot be considered to replace it.  Can science disprove a deity?  It cannot even attempt to address the problem, other than try to discover one (no indication yet, we must reduce its place further and further in gaps of knowledge).
 * All such theories have flaws that scientific community is not willing to teach in school. I would renounce my beliefs if one day I can see at least one species evolving into another species. Or if they can create a simple cell, not even that just demonstrate how life can start from a non-living substance. You underestimate the superiority of Bible in terms of wisdom and answers it give for mankind's quest for spirituality. Belief in evolution/atheism is also a faith, since most are unproven theories, just like religion involves faith. I chose religion because I have more reasons to believe in Bible, others like you may not. --Roller958 (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree, because of the amount of evidence available, and I honestly think that with some study one can get a good idea of how evolution works, to a point where later on life experiences and future discoveries will tilt and keep confirming the model again and again (this has been my own experience). My previous comment above this completes this answer so I'll keep this one short.  76.10.128.192 (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * How could the challenges of an ancient, mostly illiterate society, and its archaic legal codes and erroneous origin myths be of criticial importance in our lives today? Is the authority of a small group of mislead, admitedly imperfect and uninspired (although pretending to be technically inspired in other terms) humans pretending to be God's channel justifiable?  Are the scriptures they use worthy of faith?  Are their particular interpretations of scriptures they consider inerrant, worthy of faith?  One who denies evolution; who condones superstitions, childhood indoctrination and religious segregation; who maintains grandiose conspiracy theories; who prones obscurantism and discourage higher education; who dismisses best medical practices; without geology, biology, pharmaceutical or medical qualifications?  Who deceives its members by pretending that outside of their organization, nothing worthwhile exists; only "degenerescence"?  That anyone who think critically is "mentally diseased"?  That acknowledging evolution reduces us to the state of the other animals, ethically and intellectually (how about our legal codes, which we attempt to adapt to our modern challenges)?
 * According to Bible, God used man as a channel in old testament. Again its a question of whether you would accept Bible or not. The phrase "Mentally diseased" is from the scripture. Indeed in some extreme cases critics can become mentally diseased, in other words if they get obsessed with their hurt feelings and constantly attack their former religion, that is unhealthy. The thing is that there is many other fun things to do in life than just being resentful Roller958 (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Although you already know that I couldn't subscribe to the claims about an objective God channel, I wholeheartedly agree with the last sentence. I would even suggest that this is also the case when leaving a religion.  76.10.128.192 (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I can unfortunately already envision that this text might come off as apostate propaganda (I however never was formally in the religion, the witnesses I personally know are lovely yet naive, and I equate the "apostate" label with the fear to question and reason or a type of imprimatur). My above assertions, relating to scientific inquery and the state of our current knowledge, can be verified by some intellectually honest research and study, not only via Wikipedia, but it's a great starting point.  On the other hand, I feel sorry for having to dispell so much magic and wish-thinking (if any of this concerns you or other readers); an activity which I usually prefer to not get involved in.  However, it appears that it's a social responsibility that is sometimes unavoidable.  Afterall, this resumes the topic: Wikipedia should inform.  Of course, knowledge comes with responsibility.  Just like one who decides to take responsibility for their own actions, instead of allowing a particular source to dictate their lives or how they should think.  When it becomes possible for the rejection of a mere belief or opinion to eventually break a familly apart, a problem can be acknowledged; like disproportionate authoritiarian control, for instance.  Will doing nothing but waiting for Armageddon help us face the new challenges of our civilizations?  Will religious prejudice help in an increasingly cosmopolite society?  Do the Jehovah's Witnesses actively help society fight against honor crimes, gender inequality, sexual prejudices, poverty and ignorance,  or illness?
 * Who first started the idea of independent thinking? It was Satan. He don't want to be in control. He wanted more freedom, wanted to do things his way and enjoy temporary pleasures from lawlessness (which is called sin). For example he wanted to enjoying sex with women on earth. The fact is unless you are not God, you are always going to be in control. God don't want anyone who don't want to be controlled by his set of laws to be worth living, indeed he have the right to do so. However he has given enough freedom to enjoy life, so unless I am selfish or like Satan, I can peacefully enjoy life within the boundaries. For me being a witness don't hinder my freedom or happiness, because I love to be living in God's law Roller958 (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is unfortunately the part where my previous claim of a "grandiose conspiracy theory" can take form, because of erroneous beliefs. We can probably agree that "independent thinking" here means rebellion.  Is knowledge which defeats those beliefs rebellion?  For instance, biology is not a faith, and it is wrong to believe that evolution was "invented" to somehow "justify sin"; it has been discovered .  Sin also being very subjective, I will only add that it is also possible to have ethics and live as honest a life as possible, without it being motivated by fear of divine retribution, or the promise of a paradise.  It would be extremely sad, even unjust, if those people deserved a particular punishment for not having subscribed to particular doctrine of a particular religion.  76.10.128.192 (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Why must scandals emerge and legal procedures be established separately in every country, for the WTBTS to more effectively protect children, when previous knowledge exists from the scandals and reforms done in other countries, where elders are now required to alert the authorities? In this regard, how is the JW religion better than the others which it long denounced for the same problems, when the only difference was a more effectively maintained silence, resulting from an enhanced control over its members, who tend to consult the elders for any matter first, including crimes, because of a distrust of secular authorities or social services (the "corrupt world of Satan")?  Who refuse to read any material which might question their faith?  Is being raised in such an atmosphere of fear and segregation healthy for the next generation?  These are problems with sociologists, criminologists, psychologists, etc, can address, and when they do in notable works, it is our responsibility to share such information.  They are not opinions for the JWs to debunk, they are problems to address, in a religion which is unfortunately resistant to change, which rejects mainstream culture, and whoes members have no word in doctrinal or judicial matters, fearing their rejection by their only society if they have "dissenting opinions"...
 * Take time to analyze so called scandals. Its a conflict with Bible principles. I don't want to get dis-fellowshipped just because a brother accused me of abusing him out of personal feelings against me. In united states two kids were put in prison, for killing somebody. So children's testimony is always true? Secular authorities may arrest individuals just by testimony of child. The organization have done its best to be obedient to local laws without violating God's law, and they keep refining. That's why only very few cases they were asked to pay compensation, mostly because local elders made mistakes. And I repeat mistakes can happen. Roller958 (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I of course have no special knowledge to discover the actual events which took place in particular cases. I can only point out that cases of sexual abuse have occurred in all societies (including among the Witnesses of course), and that part of the public outrage is that the culture (like first going to elders) and policies involved could facilitate the hiding of many such events, and that it was possible for someone who have previously been known to offense in this area to eventually again have special privileges.  When at the same time, the WTBTS claimed that those events making the news are "lies", instead of approaching the issue publicly with honesty.


 * Since this is the last part of the reply, I'll conclude it: although we obviously disagree on some aspects, we did seem to be able to converse with civility, despite the sensitive topic; thanks for that. I would like to recall the point where I said that society must continue to evolve and respond to its moderm challenges, rather than by following an outdated set of sacred rules.  This also includes freedom of speech (and by extension also allows you to practice your faith).  I know that as for the JWs are concerned, other than shunning, they await for divine retribution (for Armageddon to come and for Jesus and his army to "fix the world" for them), instead of themselves getting involved in a (physical) holy war or executions.  That said, We both could have been considered heretics five hundred years ago in Europe, and earlier than that, we could have faced stoning, possibly because of mere rumors.  Women who were considered annoying (and this possibly simply because they questioned or resisted untenable subjugation in some cases) have also been accused as witches and tortured or killed, and it is likely that abortifacients were traditionally fed to women when their husband beleved that they could have slept with someone else.  Unfortunately these situations are still possible today somewhere, and legal systems can also be corrupt or make mistakes.  However, freedom from superstition (this to me of course also includes belief in Satan and demons), fighting ignorance, advocating education, advancing rights, etc, will continue to help against this type of savagery.  Wikipedia is in my opinion compatible with the advancement of society on this respect.


 * I also want to mention that I'm not immune to anything I said in my very first comment either (about the conflict of interest); I actually don't edit the JW related articles myself, and would first suggest changes on the talk pages, but I believe that the efforts of the current editors have been worthwhile, I'm rather satisfied with their current state. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Even critics would acknowledge that there is no room for anyone to violate Bible principles among JWs. It doesn't matter if you are an elder or a Governing Body member. If you are known to have committed child abuse unrepentantly you will get dis-fellowshipped and barred from responsibilities at-least for next 20 years. Further unlike other churches there is no need to save anybody, there is no shortage for qualified men among JWs (over 80,000 elders serve in US alone). There is no so called "silence", other than manufactured "silence" by ex-JWs. Everyone is free to go to police if they are abused, and no one will silence you for going to police to report a crime. Church will deal with Sin, secular authorities will deal with the crime if parents want to. Period. Roller958 (talk) 01:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The claim that there is 'no shortage' of 'qualified men' compared to 'other churches' is quite odd. JW 'elders' have no real qualifications (and are entirely unqualified when it comes to dealing with victims of sexual abuse). And they 'don't have a clergy class' (except when convenient for legal reasons). Despite your assertion that the failure to report child abuse by JWs to authorities is merely something 'made up' by 'ex-JWs', the Royal Commission in Australia (and other similar cases) have proven that the great majority of cases are not reported. Further, there is definitely a culture among JWs to be mistrustful of 'worldly' authorities, further reducing the likelihood of reporting abuse by JW victims.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Royal commission was heard that secular authorities were known to have involved in at least 400 cases, further 200 cases were just a data collection (anyone ever walked to the hall). Awareness about the seriousness of child abuse was not high in 1950s even among general public. I would like to see a statistic report which compares the proportion of reporting in Australia (General Public vs Jehovah's Witnesses). I would argue that it would be the same. In my opinion many families don't want to report if abuse is from family, especially when their is no legal obligation for parents. Those are social reasons than an injunction from the church. If I had a family and my child was abused, what I personally do will be to call police. I'would say that its also true for most JWs in United States, where awareness about the seriousness of child abuse is greater today than ever before. Your comment regarding 'qualified men' is misplaced. I am talking about spiritual qualification to deal with sin, not about secular qualifications to investigate or counsel.  Roller958 (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You keep trotting out this claim that authorities were "involved" in "at least 400 cases" (the actual number given was 383), when actually it was very clearly brought out in the Royal Commission that this 'statistic' was based only on a word search of words like "authorities" being near words like "reported" (which would include statements such as "was not reported to authorities". It was not established that secular authorities were involved in all of (or any particular number of) those cases. Stop making the misleading claim.
 * So totally '0' individuals reported to police? Members are free to call police for any criminal cases. (including theft, murder, abuse etc). In civil cases, they are encouraged to not purse legal course. If anything it was parents alone who decided not to go to police. Royal commission was not even able to find a single direction from elders or in publications which says witnesses should not report to police. Too bad. My argument was that, as long as no statistic report that suggests to the contrary, rate of abuse not getting reported would be the same in comparison to general public. You are entitled to have your opinion. This is becoming a pointless discussion, which you invited yourself out of nowhere. Roller958 (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Why zero?? I never said anything of the sort. I said you are not justified in repeatedly claiming that "at least 400" cases were reported to authorities. I did not even imply that none were. The number that were actually reported to secular authorities is not available. Trying to pass the buck to parents who didn't report is irrelevant. Parents who know about abuse should also report, but that doesn't mean others shouldn't. Parents may not always know abuse has occurred, or may be the perpetrators. It was clearly brought out in the Royal Commission that whilst the JW policy is for elders 'to not discourage' reporting to authorities (although in practical terms that still happens), they do not encourage secular reporting either.-- Jeffro' 77 (talk) 07:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Your statement about 'spiritual qualification' doesn't really mean anything. JW men previously deemed 'ministerial servants' who are then popular enough among current elders and report enough hours of preaching per month are deemed 'qualified' for the position. Though there are some arbitrary 'qualifications' mentioned in the Bible, there is no specific benchmark for comparison that is used when considering whether a JW 'qualifies' (i.e. unless there is some 'misconduct' that is 'obvious'&mdash;and there is the possibility that even that could be overlooked if local elders are complicit&mdash;appointment just comes down to popularity). In the Christian tradition, 'elders' are meant to 'shepherd', which includes counsel, for which you acknowledge elders are not qualified.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What other qualifications you would expect for elders? Jesus apostles were tax collectors and fisherman. Elders need a college degree? Elders give scriptural counsel, not a psychiatric advice. They execute scriptural discipline, based on the available evidence. You don't need a college degree for that. Period. You are going insane . Roller958 (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * For pointing out that 'spiritual qualifications' doesn't really mean anything in practical terms, I am supposedly "going insane". Entirely unjustified personal attack noted. You claimed that there is some significance in the number of elders compared to priests of other religions, and then you claim that I am "going insane" for correctly stating that the benchmark for being a JW elder is lower than for other churches.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jeffro that "spiritual qualifications" is very subjective, especially considering that every faith has its own definition of spirituality (it is like "divine law"). Acknowledging reality is hardly "insane".  For the Jehovah's Witnesses, authority, theology, judicial and pseudo-legal matters may also be part of "spirituality", yet others may consider their only "spiritual" practices being the baptism and pantecost rituals, prayer and singing...  Since every religion has its own doctrine, which is to decide what is "spiritual", the list of required skills, the education system to develop those, and evaluation of the qualifications or expertise?  How is Shamanism, focusing on ritual and experiences, any less "spiritual" than a theocracy?  Yet, why would we not like a shaman to be our only resort today when we're ill?  Modern medicine usually has more effective treatments.  Likewise, in the case of a theocracy, why should their illogical, pseudo-legal systems have any more authority than established faith-neutral legal and medico-legal systems, the latter having the opportunity to adapt to actual society challenges, has access to superior investigation methods and technology, works with existing social services, etc?  How is the Bible any better than other holy books or law systems, or the Governing Body's interpretation of it any better than those of another Christian denomination (remember that even to some other Christians, the Jehovah's Witnesses are not true Christians, because they do not believe in the divinity of Christ)?  Also remember that some still include Deuteronomist law codes into their "divine law".  Please consider seriously what could happen if the JW theocracy had its way, always, unrestrained by country/state/municipal/secular/etc laws.  Other religions did have the status of government, and some still do; some cults have had unreasonable power over its devotees; we have a lot of available material today to study about related scandals.  An Iranian friend of mine explained to me how Iran courts work and how happy and fortuate he is, to have been able to leave.  After having read more on it, details of how those courts "reason" and "investigate" immediately reminded me of the JW judicial commitees.  It is strikingly similar, and various rules are actually the same.  I appreciate that the Jehovah's Witnesses do not have the power to carry out prison and execution sentences (and is against their current doctrine).  I would however neither consider their investigative methods nor their impartiality adequate or "qualified" for judicial matters (I also suggest reading "Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock" which is directly related).  76.10.128.192 (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Everyone knows the limitations of a judicial committee and its purpose. I am glad every year people who practice fornication and causing divisions are disfellowshipped. "But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless."- Titus 3:9.--Roller958 (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Since I already said too much, I will end this thread, unless you have some questions, of course :) My hope is that there is enough to understand why "It would help them to be not stumbled when someone refers to such criticism" is probably erroneous...  Also, if this ever comes out as aggressive, I'm sorry.  On the other hand, if it's enough to cause a "crisis of conscience", I'm also sorry, because I know that it can be difficult, for some time, to face that we have been deceived.  This happened for me when I studied again the material against evolution when younger, while also reading the referenced works I could get my hands on, but then also reading post-60s material like Campbell's Biology, because it struck me how only very old references were used, and how sentences were mined and misinterpreted, despite the rapid progress of understanding in biology and medicine today; I had previously been a convinced creationist and believed that the material published by the WTBTS was certain to be honest.  I hope that I could write about it rather dispassionately.  Basically, criticism can be raised at many levels, simply because of the discrepencies between the doctrine and reality...  76.10.128.192 (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to an "apostate" book, sorry I have no crisis. "Abundant peace belongs to those loving your law, and for them there is no stumbling block." Psalms 119:165--Roller958 (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I only used the book's title as an expression, to describe the possible temporary crisis which one may go through when discovering that they have been deceived by an organization they invested enormous energy in, and through which they delegated an inappropriate level of trust, which it did not deserve. After reading some of the replies, despite my answers, I unfortunately have the impression that you may not have always read all of the text, or perhaps that the interpretation of various sentences somehow got distorted.  That is fine, but I encourage you to read this whole thread again carefully when you have the time.  Thanks, 76.10.128.192 (talk) 01:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You underestimated my faith, and thought I am naive. You are wasting your time. Enough of partial truths and smooth talk. You can treat me with the same feeling you have against JWs leadership. You had a crisis. If I had I will look at it. Try on someone else.  --Roller958 (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Partial truths? By the answer I still have the impression to be misunderstood.  I am not recommending the book (for a second time), but I indeed recommend reading the various Wikipedia articles on scientific topics I refered to previously (not half truths, but knowledge, and unrelated to the so called "crisis").  I do not believe that you are naive, but I do acknowledge the cognitive distortions which indoctrination can cause.  I do not hate the JW leadership, but I don't agree with all of their beliefs or teachings (some of which are widely known to be falsehoods, and some of their policies widely known to be harmful).  I may have wasted some of my time (that is not a problem).  Although admitedly sometimes digressing, the point of the discussion was mostly about Wikipedia as a tool for knowledge, and I am indeed done, as I would only repeat in other words what has previously been said before, unless I can answer to specific questions, and there is already enough material above for a period of research.  I can perceive by the tone of the last comment that you seem annoyed and will interpret "try on someone else" as a request to end the discussion after this post.  I'll respect that request and you're welcome to contact me in the future if you want.  76.10.128.192 (talk) 02:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Its simply ridiculous that Jeffro77 and you continue this irrelevant discussion. Stalking on Wiki editors page is okay, but I said I don't want to continue. I repeat that I am not naive, equate me to those JW leaders against whom many online have a hopeless gnashing of teeth. It's my pleasure to see that. --Roller958 (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Computer Security user status
Hello Roller958,

I would just like to inquire on your status on WikiProject Computer Security as the list of WikiProject Computer Security/Members is going to be improved to list active and inactive users.

This is update is being done according to a request for comments on the WikiProject Computer Security talk page. Be sure to state your status at the User status section in the WikiProject Computer Security talk page before the end of four weeks as this will state your status as inactive in the project if not done before then.

FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 01:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)