Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/New World Translation

Statement by Seddon69
As the (attempted) mediator of this case i would like to make sure that the two parties understand that the Arbitration committee do not decide on content. If this case is to be accepted the content of your edits/wishes is not at judgment at this level it is your actions.

Regarding this, incivility has occurred by both parties, for example here by Marvin Shilmer, and here by Cfitro. There are more instances. The two were engaged in a prolonged edit war before the page was first locked.

At this moment in time, discussions are occurring at the Administrators Notice board for Incidents, Editor Assistance, my own talk page, the Article talk page, User Sand box talk pages, the Mediation talk page, the article talk page, and an RfC. None in these have resulted in a resolution of this matter yet. The two users have different ways of interpreting wikipedia policy and when in regards to such a controversial topic like the New World Translation, a longer term solution perhaps needs to be looked at.

Addition: Mediation case has been closed after a request to confirm the status of the case about whether it was to be extended again but i only had a response from one of the parties. I believe the dispute to be resolved but i cant confirm whether all parties are happy beyond what Marvin has provided below

Final comment I think that as long as the editors involved have learnt from this experience and they learn from their mistakes and in future remain civil as they have been in the recent ending of the dispute then i see no real need for this case request to be accepted. I would suggest that this case should only be dismissed though when User:Cfrito gives a statement about the resolving of the dispute. Both sides need to be heard. Seddon69 (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by mostly uninvolved Slp1
While the arbitration request has been framed for the most part as a content dispute, as such is likely outside the purview of this committee, I do believe that there are clear issues of user conduct here, as alluded to by the valiant Seddon69 who has been attempting mediation. The topic first came to my attention at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard along with User:Marvin Shilmer's incivility and failure to assume good faith. Multiple uninvolved editors who attempted to provide advice and opinions were commented upon: the following are just some sample edits from that board. I have not looked further, though note that Seddon69 mentions other examples, on other pages.
 * To Vassilis78 "I see that, again, you provide less than full information. Why do you keep doing this?"


 * To Donald Albury : Once again, you have offered a non-answer reply. Now if you would actually engage the discussion rather than parroting terms we can all read in Widipedia policy, it would be nice.


 * To EdJohnston : This omission is sure intentional; so why? If you find this a fulfilling endeavor then why not offer response to precise questions asked with a corresponding level of precision?


 * To Slp1 :if this does not communicate the relevancy of the question I presented you with just above, then you are not equipped to offer an answer to it.


 * To J Readings : Your response here leads me to believe that ... you have not taken time to make that opinion fit what I have actually written here. Which makes me wonder, why are you writing what you write?

An unpleasant atmosphere to edit in, as several editors have expressed in various fora., Whether the extent of the problem needs Arb Com intervention is another issue, however.

Addendum: Marvin Shilmer complains that, “remarkably”, I listed only Shilmer’s edits as being uncivil/failing to assume good faith. As stated above, I limited my evidence to posts to the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Since Cfrito has never posted to the RSN board, the omission of his/her edits is not so remarkable after all. Unfortunately, Shilmer’s comment about the issue provides a further (fairly minor) example of his tendency to see bad faith in the edits of other editors, and, what is worse, to allow his assumptions to influence his editing. On the other hand, I appreciate his presentation of evidence of apparent conduct unbecoming by Cfrito, which will no doubt be helpful to the arbitrators in making their decisions.

Addendum2:I am responding to a request for an update. I have not been involved with dispute after the RSN postings, nor have I been following subsequent events in detail. However, after a brief survey of various pages and edits I note that the content dispute appears to have been resolved, and that Cfrito has not edited for about a week. With Seddon69, I wonder what the latter indicates. My own main concern was with user conduct and unhelpful incivility, failure to assume good faith and tendentious argumentative style etc. However, I find it hopeful that recent edits have avoided these pitfalls, suggesting that an actual arbitration case for this may not be required. --Slp1 (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)