Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-13 New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures

Who are the involved parties?
Cfrito, Vassilis78, Jeffro77, Marvin Shilmer -- cfrito (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

What's going on?
POV pushing by Shilmer. Constantly harasses any editor with a NPOV toward Jehovah's Witnesses and the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. Shilmer continues to publish recollections from memoirs (R. Franz, W Cetnar) and push Undue Weighting by citing references that are nothing more than theological debates against JW doctrine and positioning these as scholarly references. I have added several scholarly references and Shilmer has responded by summarily deleting them even though the issues were debated thoroughly on the Talk page beforehand. For example Shilmer has published the academic transcript of Fred Franz on the basis that he (Shilmer) personally researched it and saw it himself. When challenged by Vassilis78 he simply said that his (Shilmer's) own word was enough. When I (Cfrito) challenged that he (Shilmer) was representing that was the only education that Fred Franz had received without proper references he simply responded that I had to prove there was more. I also mentioned that Shilmer's researching the matter and then reporting the findings as authoritative on Wikipedia amounted to a violation of the No Original Research policy. On the memoir matter, Shilmer refuses to delete the recollections until someone can prove that the originator of the recollections does not have any supporting documentation, as if that were possible. Shilmer reports that the source and he are personal friends, and once again, Shilmer is vouching for the existence of such documentation but refuses to provide it. Shilmer has also been asked to disclose his bias -- he is believed to be the same "marvin shilmer" who has authored many anti-JW articles and masqueraded as a member of that organization. -- cfrito (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?
Shlmer needs to step back from his policy that no edit can stand unless he approves it. This has frustrated Editor after Editor on both the New World Translation editing team and on the Jehovah's Witnesses editing team. Also would like Shilmer to disclose his bias and background with specific regard to R Franz, and the Jehovah's Witness organization for academic transparency. -- cfrito (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediator notes

 * Evidence for sources has been requested from users Seddon69 (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Evidence of transcript recieved from User:Marvin Shilmer. Seddon69 (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Page fully protected for 5 days by User:Cowman109. Seddon69 (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Inquired into the status of memoirs Seddon69 (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Cfrito and User:Marvin Shilmer warned about reverting at 21:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer's Response
Here are pertinent details in response to Cfrito’s complaints:

Editor Vassilis78 disgraced himself and Wikipedia by lying to fellow editors and knowingly inserting false information in the article in question. These events are identified and questioned on the talk page here.

Editor Cfrito has removed verified content and replaced it with unverified assertions. The first time this occurred I removed the unverified assertions and reinstated the verified content. When Cfrito insisted on his editing I took the approach of simply tagging all his unverified assertions as in need of verification. This edit of mine can be viewed here. Editor Jeffro77 immediately began removing all Cfrito’s unverified information. Specifiically, Jeffro77 stated his reasons as, “Removing redundant/biased/unencylcopedic/inappropriate/unnecessary statements. This is not a tabloid article. Or a witchhunt. Should explain the controversy, not take part in it.”

Editor Cfrito then again began removing verified content and replacing it with unverified assertions. Again I deleted the unverified content and reinstated the verified content. This time I issued a warning to Cfrito that his edit amounted to vandalism. Cfrito responded by editing out the verified content and replacing it with unverified content. I responded by tagging all the unverified content as in need of verification. This edit of mine can be viewed here. I also presented the issue to Cfrito on the talk page so he could see the problem and remedy it. This can be viewed here. Cfrito’s responses and the ensuing dialogue can be viewed here. Editor Jeffro77 was, again, the editor who removed all the unverified information. Jeffro’s stated his reason as “Removing emotive rhetoric”.

Of Cfrito’s accusations of me:

It is Cfrito’s assertion that the information coming from author Ray Franz is recollection and memoir. Cfrito has not offered any show of evidence demonstrating that this author did not have documents at his disposal for purposes of writing his book. On the other hand, I have not asserted in the article any more than what the author (Franz) wrote and published. What Ray Franz wrote was presented by me as nothing more than what Ray Franz had to say. Along with citing the source document, I also presented a potential conflict of interest on the author’s part by stipulating that he had been disfellowshipped from the organization he wrote about.

Of Cfrito’s references, the problem with them was they did not verify the statements they were attached to. Cfrito would place assertions into the article accompanied by a reference from which he extrapolated a conclusion from rather than presenting a conclusion the referenced material itself presented. In Cfrito’s defense, I do not believe he understands this distinction. These references were deleted with the deletion of the unverified content.

Cfrito accused that I feel it is sufficient to insert information into the article based on my word. This is false, and to this day it is puzzling why he says this. Cfrito cites my usage of Fred Franz’s university transcript as an instance of this. When I cited Fred Franz’s university transcript I provided the name of the university the transcript came from along with the student’s full name (Frederick W. Franz). This is all the information needed to obtain a copy of this particular transcript. Indeed, this was the only information at my disposal with I asked for and received this transcript.

Cfrito accuses that I have asserted original research. What I have done is present information from verified sources. I have not organized or synthesized this information into any new conclusions. Rather I have expressed the information for readers to draw their own conclusions. As always, I too provided precise information about sources making it possible for other editors to seek and find the source for themselves, should the accuracy of the edit be questioned. When editor Cfrito would remove these edits I would ask him/her point-blank “Have you read these sources with your own eyes?” Not once has Cfrito responded in the affirmative, which leads me to believe he dislikes the information rather than having an objective basis for the removal. This is based on my constant attempt to have Cfrito explain himself.

Cfrito accused that I masquerad as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. This is pure speculation on his part. It is consistent with his whole approach to editing.

I surely am guilty of insisting that editors provide verification for their edits.

Cfrito: I invite your responses to what I write above. But, if you would, please refrain from slicing and dicing my statement by inserting your remarks throughout my response. Please add your response below this point. This will leave intact what I have said so it will be easier for other editors to make sense of it.

Jeffro77 and Vassilis78, I encourage each of you to express yourselves, too.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito's Response
Editors: I have responded many, many times to Shilmer on the Talk pages. My most recent responses to Shilmer's demands are posted here. I have provided references for my edits that required such. However deleting information for which Shilmer (and other Editors) have not properly referenced or that were against Wikipedia's policies do not require references apart from the relevant policies, and such were linked in the Talk page. I posted well in advance my intentions and Shilmer remained silent except to immediately undo my edits within minutes of my making them, showing that he feels that his position is superior to any challenger's. Shilmer has already made it plain that he feels that his research methods place him beyond all reproach. Such arrogance should be redressed. For example, after an administrative review against Shilmer, Shilmer openly challenges the Administrative review on the basis that they 'just don't get it' and that they 'fail to address the actual questions'. I pity the Administrator who has to deal with the continual reversals and moving targets that is Shilmer's style: confound, frustrate, confuse, misdirect, redirect, shift the burden of proof to those asking for verification, etc.

Regarding my request for Shilmer to disclose his conflicts of interest and his standing with respect to the JW Organization, I have only asked for clarification which has gone unanswered to the best of my knowledge. This is based in part on this by-line reference on the bmj.com website "Marvin Shilmer,Elder, Jehovah's Witness" In the body text he admits that Shilmer is a pseudonym and that he is afraid of a "tribunal" for his writings. I asked of him if he is the same as the bmj.com article author.

Shilmer commonly edits the Article page initially and usually addresses any requests for verification by demanding that the challenger provide information that what he says is not so. As for edits by others, he commonly undoes them and then demands support on the talk page before he will even consider letting the edit stand. Such self-conferred supereminence is odorous to me, and I am convinced that I am not alone in this assessment. -- cfrito (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer’s Brief Response to Cfrito
Cfrito: The veracity of research methodologies is explained by institutions of higher learning. I am not the one who determines these, but I am trained to identify them and use them. There is nothing whatsoever keeping any other editor from applying robust research methods. But the reality is that editors have varying degrees of training in research methods, ranging from none to much. A person’s choice of research methodologies speaks for itself.

Thanks for linking to my remarks to the administrator DGG. My request there speaks for itself.

Specifically, what you have asked me to disclose in terms of conflicts of interest and “standing with respect to the JW organization” that is relevant? It matters not my person conflicts of interests because I have not asserted my own experiences or opinions as a basis for any of my edits. Rather, I have used other sources, and in each case if a source has a known conflict of interest I express it with the citation.

Specifically you write, “Shilmer commonly edits the Article page initially and usually addresses any requests for verification by demanding that the challenger provide information that what he says is not so.”

When an editor removes information on the basis that the information is unverified by the sources then the editor has asserted that the source material DOES NOT verify the information. These are the instances when I request the deleting editor to prove his or her assertion that the information does not verify the information. This is basic to logical development, construction and refutation! I do not think you understand this.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78's viewpoint
The disputed text is:

''Frederick Franz’s credentials of record show very little if any formal training in biblical languages.[ref]University of Cincinnati transcript of Frederick W. Franz. Franz failed to earn either a postgraduate or graduate degree. He took 15 hours of Latin, 21 hours of classical Greek, and a single 2-hour credit class in a course titled “The New Testament—A course in grammar and translation.” The Greek studied by Franz is a different system of grammar than biblical Greek.[ref]''

So I asked:

Can you please provide bibliographical data for that?

The answer of Marvin Shilmer was:

This data is available to anyone and everyone from archives of the University of Cincinnati. If you are unable to go in person (which is what I did) then, for a fee, you should be able to request Franz’s transcript from the University.

I thought that the answer has nothing to do with the Wikipedia standards, I felt that I am dealing with an editor who doesn’t take Wikipedia standard seriously and merely wants to promote his ideas, and in order to vividly show how improper an answer was, I responded:

The truth is that I went yesterday to the University and saw that F. Franz has a PH.D. in Biblical Studies.

This answer meant: Your personal testimony, according to the Wikipedia standards, is as valuable as mine, namely, of no value. And I proceeded to edit the article to expose even more the undocumented and biased manipulation of sources:

Frederick Franz’s credentials are very good, since he has a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies [ref] For anyone to check that, he must go to the University of Cincinaty and ask for his file with a little fee.[ref]

20 minutes after, Marvin Shlimer reverted the article with the note:

''Undid unsubstantiated claim by Vassilis78 of Fred Franz's credentials. Dates, course work, credits, thesis --- if you please''

So, actually, he asked what I had asked fist. So I feel that my point was proved. Without bibliographical data, anyone can claim whatever he wants. But Marvin Shilmer does not apply his demand to himself. He wants others to give bibliographical support for their editing, but he is unwilling to do the same for his editing. Of course, I did not persist on what I had previously written, because my point was already proved.

In order M. Shilmer to avoid my bringing him to a difficult position as regards his repeated refusal to bibliographically support his editing, he claimed that I was trying to insert falsehoods in Wikipedia as regards F. Franz’s academic status. On the other hand I believe that it is evident what my purpose was when I wrote about the “biblical studies Ph.D”.

So I responded to his accusation of my being a liar:

''Of course not. I just gave a good example of the value of your answer: "Go the university and check for your self." This answer is unacceptable in the Wikipedia. From the beginning of this discussion I am asking the bibliographical data of the file, and you refuse to give it.''

During my response I realized something more, which I expressed:

On the other hand, 'I have suspicions that you may be the LIAR, because you said above that you did go to Cincinnati University, but still you are unable to provide the file/archive number of the document. Since you spent the time to travel to the Cincinnati University in order to check Franz's credentials, why didn't you keep the file number and why didn't you take any photo of the document? If I was in your position, I would have done it. You spent so much time only to give your personal testimony? It doesn't sound very logical to me'.

The answer came after 20 minutes. Marvin Shilmer called me again a liar, dishonest and the same. He said that he does own a copy of the debated transcript, but for one more time he did not give any citation data. Why?

25 minutes after his response I finally wrote:

''I have put the subject to the administrator's table. I will accept their opinion whatever it is. '''If you really had a copy of the file, you would have had its serial number of the archive. Your refusal to give any specific information for the file or to publicly present a photo of the file, which is, by the way, with no copyright, proves how invalid your claims are'''. I will discontinue discussion with you on this matter. I will just wait to see the administrators' opinion. Allow me to apologize for bringing you in this unpleasant situation, but I had no other choice. I wish you to have a nice day.''

40 minutes after my response he desided to give more information:

''Your accusations are the work of a desperate person. I have never refused to give any specific information of or from the file. Indeed, in the citation I provided specifically offers details directly from the transcript. Only today in one of your many tinkering edits to your remarks above have you asked for additional detail from the transcript itself. '''For your information, the registration number showing in the margin of Franz’s transcript appears to be 102-191172. It is written in script and hard to make out with certainty. But I am reasonably sure this is the number. The seven could be a nine. But I believe it is a seven'.

And he added:

''It is nearly obscene that after your dishonesty and tasking me on this issue that you further lay a demand on me to “publicly present a photo of the file”. I have already expressed that for purposes of verification a copy like this is worthless. Apparently you are unaware that images can be digitally altered! Which is why verification of a transcript is possible only by means of getting it from the source. Also for your information, there is a copy of Franz’s transcript online that even a cursory Google search would find for you.''

There is no need to make comments on his last statements.

Conclusion:
Sadly, I do not believe that we are in position to have any serious and logical discussion with Marvin Shilmer. His determination to promote his ideas in the article is greater than his will to keep Wikipedia standards. So, I have left this matter to the administrator’s board, and I will accept their opinion. For the moment, an administrator has stated:

''the entire paragraph can not stand. It is an excellent example of the harm done by using undigested primary sources and interpreting them with OR. From the facts of his courses, one cannot conclude whether his formal training is adequate. One can say he has as aBS degree, but no higher degree, if that can be documented. But even in terms of proper use of primary sources, I don’t see how a transcript from one college would prove it, because he might have taken graduate work at another. DGG (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)''

Thank you having the time to read this,

--Vassilis78 (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer’s Brief Response to Vassilis78
Your constant request was for bibliographic data. When you request bibliographic data you are requesting information that allows you to locate the cited document so you can read and consider it with your own eyes to determine if it has been referenced with material correctness.

When the document in question is a person’s university transcript the two most important pieces of bibliographic information are 1) the name of the institution and 2) the student’s name. I provided both these pieces of bibliographic data specifically so other editors could look up the information if they deemed it important enough to check. These two pieces of information (names of the student and the university) were the only two piece of information I needed to acquire a copy of Fred Franz’s university transcript. Why is the same bibliographic data insufficient for you to do the same? What more do you need that I did not need to get the same document from the same institution?

The difference between your edit to the article and mine is straightforward. My edit provided reference data for editors to retrieve the document for personal examination. Your edit did not provide reference data for editors to retrieve any document for personal examination. You should know the difference between these two.

Your choice to edit false information into the article itself is disgraceful. Such an action aimed at me slaps the face of all the other readers who stumble upon your false statement! Thank goodness I had the decency to promptly remove it! Bantering on the talk page is one thing. Intentionally inserting false information into an article is something altogether different. The former is understandable in casual dialogue (though dishonesty is always a low-road). The latter is absolutely disgusting. That you try to excuse yourself makes it even worse!--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I this is enough for you?
Read carefully the second administator's answer. I have nothing more to add.--Vassilis78 (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Vassilis78: Even now you fail to express what in the way of bibliographic data you need over and beyond Franz’s name and the name of the university he attended (U of C). Why do you not answer such simple requests? I am not trying to frustrate you. I am trying to figure out what it is you need.


 * As for the response you allude to from Donald Albury, he attempts to make a distinction that Wikipedia policy nowhere addresses. Wikipedia policy requires that a source be published. It does not state a requirement that a source must be published for general distribution. If a person was unable to have a university publish (in effect, issue) a transcript then there would be no transcript. What about transcripts from other issuing agencies? Are these also to be considered as unpublished documents?


 * It is extremely frustrating to expend time trying to get to the bottom of what an editor needs when that editor fails over and over again to answer straightforward questions of material importance. I ask you again, what bibliographic data do you need to seek and obtain a copy of Fred Franz’s university transcript that I did not need?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Exception Taken to Warning Issued!
Seddon69: I take exception to the warning you issued on my talk page. If you check the NWT Talk Page you will see where I restrained from further edits pending an explanation from editor Cfrito. This is my standard method. I have just about had it with the means and methods applied to this NWT article by select editors. Academic rigor and common decency have been caste to the wayside replaced with idiosyncratic methods of rank bias and schoolboy standards of presentation. If you do not have the time or wherewithal to deal with this then I ask that you recuse yourself and let someone else work in your stead. Objective editing is testable. I suggest you begin testing the veracity of edits by myself and Cfrito, and speaking up about it .--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Marvin Shilmer, sorry to say this but try to stay cool when discussing things. Just cool it, okay? There's no need for shouting, you deserved such a warning for revert warning. As far as I can see, you only want him to recuse because he's not favouring you.-- Phoenix -  wiki  23:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Phoenix-wiki: Please spare everyone the drama of an unsubstantiated opinion, not to mention hasty.


 * I did not revert one time since the page was unlocked! Apparently you are willing to express your opinion here without checking the record. What I did was re-inserted a single sentence of many deleted . This is not reverting; it is editing. Not only that, but when editor Cfrito actually did revert an edit, I coolly asked on the talk page for his explanation. If this is not proper protocol then please explain what is! If editors like you think no one should edit the article then you should have kept it protected in the first place!


 * Furthermore, Seddon69 has not expressed anything disfavorable about my edits as though this would make me uncomfortable. So get your facts straight. What he has done is sit on his hands in terms of real issues of real editing. For whatever reason I do not know. But he’s coddling something that needs and deserves an objective review. If he does not have the time or wherewithal to offer an objective review and speak up about then there is no mediation going on.


 * And, please know that use of exclamation marks is not shouting. The online version of shout is the use of all caps. Make a note of it. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * From Help:Reverting:
 * "A revert is defined far more broadly as any change to an article that partially or completely goes back to any older version of an article."
 * From an arbitration commitee principle:
 * "The term 'revert' as used in Wikipedia policies and guidelines is intended to include both absolute reverts (where versions differ not at all) as well as de facto reverts (where versions are only very slightly different). Attempting to avoid being accused of reversion by making very minor edits that are then edited out again is in bad faith and against Wikipedia policies and guidelines."
 * Meaning your edits were reverts. Just calm down, you're losing you're temper here. User's are expected to keep a cool head.-- Phoenix -  wiki  00:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Phoenix-wiki: If you want to be helpful, and since you are apparently willing to spend time on this issue, then might I suggest that you address the actual issues rather then tidily-winking around. I have not edited abusively as though in need of a warning, of any kind. I took the time to address the editor who reverted by asking for reasons. I made no attempt to undo his revert. If this is not received and understood as restraint then please tell me what is.


 * It is obscene that you suggest my temper is flaring. My temper is just fine. What is flaring is my sense of academic rigor. Editors are plying wrongheaded arguments, ridiculous proofs, and outright falsehoods, and would-be mediators are sitting on their hands. I am not the one who asked for this mediation. But I have been patiently cooperating. What do I get? A warning from the person who took it upon themselves to do the work of mediation. It is a farce! If he has time to issue warnings then he has time to spend on testing edits for objectivity! If he is going to mediate then he needs to get on with it. He also needs to remember that none of us are here for personalities. We are here to edit encyclopedic content! --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Marvin, I've added myself to the list of mediators. Hopefully, we can resolve this dispute quickly. Addhoc (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Addhoc: Thank you. If there is anything you need in the way of source material, let me know.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)