| Revision as of 16:27, 5 September 2006 editAndries (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers27,090 edits →Please wait a minute before closing← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:57, 7 September 2006 edit undoGoethean (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users40,563 edits →SSS108 in a glasshouseNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| Conclusion: if SSS108's argumentation as to Andries is accepted, the high level of bias and intensity of SSS108's allegations illustrates his own policy to misuse Misplaced Pages for "venting" and to push his pro-Sai Baba POV. | Conclusion: if SSS108's argumentation as to Andries is accepted, the high level of bias and intensity of SSS108's allegations illustrates his own policy to misuse Misplaced Pages for "venting" and to push his pro-Sai Baba POV. | ||
| The rigidity of SSS108s opinions appears fundamental to the conflict and no amount of discussion between the two parties will therefore lead to any agreed result. | The rigidity of SSS108s opinions appears fundamental to the conflict and no amount of discussion between the two parties will therefore lead to any agreed result. {{unsigned|64.191.24.197}} 17 August 2006 | ||
| 17 August 2006 | |||
| == Outside view of jossi == | == Outside view of jossi == | ||
Revision as of 18:57, 7 September 2006
SSS108 in a glasshouse
SSS108 apparently argues that Andries' involvement in criticising Sathya Sai Baba as a result of his disillusionment and subsequent activities as a critic proves he misuses Misplaced Pages "as a venting" and to "push his POV".
The following is to the point only if this POV of SSS108 on Andries' involvement is seen as having any weight in the arbitration. If so, then the same charges applly with equal or greater force to SSS108, whose websites which defend Sai Baba and his organisation at great length and, as far as can be seen, with a mass of aggressive charges and conjectures about the character of just about every known critic of Sai Baba - including Andries - on very thin grounds. A cursory visit to SSS108's websites is enough to convice of this, more so if combined with a look at http://www.saibabaexpose.com/JoeFAQ.htm and related links.
Conclusion: if SSS108's argumentation as to Andries is accepted, the high level of bias and intensity of SSS108's allegations illustrates his own policy to misuse Misplaced Pages for "venting" and to push his pro-Sai Baba POV. The rigidity of SSS108s opinions appears fundamental to the conflict and no amount of discussion between the two parties will therefore lead to any agreed result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.191.24.197 (talk • contribs) 17 August 2006
Outside view of jossi
- Moved from main page
I have followed this dispute for quite sometime. In fact I solicited mediation on their behalf which they accepted. It is my opinion that further mediation will not result in any substantial movement forward in this dispute between Andries and SSS108, given the long history between these two editors. A user conduct RfC on Andries could be explored, although I doubt that this will resolve the dispute between them. An possible alternative would be that the ArbCom take this case and allow for the evidence phase to take place, in which the community can provide the same type of comments/feedback as it would be raised on a user conduct RfC, with the additional advantage that it could resolve the dispute between them, once and for all. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Please wait a minute before closing
Seeing the article Sathya Sai Baba "progressing" while this RFAr proceeds, I'm uneasy with seeing no ruling concerning the future of the article. I'm all for forgiving Andries and SSS108, but even assuming the best of all faiths, I cannot see how the article Sathya Sai Baba can progress to something readable and encyclopedic while it is owned by these antagonists.
Just have a look! The article just crossed the 100k barrier and further growth is in progress. Both opponents by now use the <references/> not for pointing to references, but to actually include court records, interview texts, translation of Dutch newspaper articles and book chapters.
Pjacobi 07:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- See my reply here To summarize it, the long citations are due to mutual distrust, not so much to push POVs. I do not think that using Dutch newspapers is wrong perse. Andries 16:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)