This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 64.191.24.197 (talk) at 19:27, 17 August 2006 (→Outside view of jossi). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:27, 17 August 2006 by 64.191.24.197 (talk) (→Outside view of jossi)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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. 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)