Talk:Fellowship of Friends/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Another Fresh Start 2 Number of Members 3 Payment, again 4 Wanthetruth's addition of Alex Horn's material 5 Post page-protection discussion concerning Alex Horn material 6 Page protection 7 Sock Puppetry (again) 8 Alex Horn page created (and tagged for speedy deletion) (and deleted) 9 Looking for a summary 10 About payments 11 New archive created & sockpuppetry (once again) 12 New religious movement? 13 Editing the Beliefs and Practices section 14 Criticism 15 Blocking 16 Verifiability of sources II 17 Why is this article protected? 18 Personal attacks 19 Wikipedia's editing guidelines 20 Archive 10 21 Departing 22 About the purpose of the History section 23 Edits without a mere summary 24 Page protected 25 Discussion in Yamla's talk page 26 Vandalism 27 Mutual accusations of vandalism 28 Neutrality 29 Twenty-nine sections... 30 What next? 31 Not a forum template 32 Draft page created 33 About history and COIs 34 Proposed uncontroversial (hopefully) edit. 35 Quick tutorial 36 Mediation 37 New draft: new lead section 38 New draft - shortened section on the teacher, discussion on History and Beliefs 39 Articles for Deletion - Results 40 Willing to help mediate 41 COI discussion moved from Yamla's Talk page 42 Draft: Beliefs & Criticism edits

[edit] Another Fresh Start

Now that Waspidistra has not been successful on a major edit of the article there is only a minimal amount, of productive talk on this page. May I suggest a tabula rasa? Let's start really fresh and talk only about how the article can be improved. Are any of you archivists in agreement? You who know me know how I screwed this up the last time I tried. Thanks, --Moon Rising 09:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC) PS - I think the archive, to be complete, should include the section that was deleted. I think it's better to archive than delete.--Moon Rising 09:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC) PPS - and the page is getting long.--Moon Rising 09:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Talking about "how the article can be improved" starts with acknowledging that several of the editors do indeed have a conflict of interest and are simply articulating the viewpoints of an organization of which they are a member. I completely agree with the following comments at the top of the main page: "The creator of this article, or someone who has substantially contributed to it, may have a conflict of interest regarding its subject matter.

It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page." If we are sincere about creating an "improved" article, this issue must be discussed. I participated in the editing of this article to a limited degree a few months ago, and have observed this website closely over the past several months, and nothing has improved. It's fairly obvious that a number of editors are working feverishly to delete many relevant facts about the Fellowship that reflect poorly on it. The goal of Wikipedia is to present an article that is fairly balanced, but this is NOT what we have here with this Fellowship of Friends article. And no doubt we'll hear an outcry and negative response from the very editors to which I refer. Here they come. Artnscience 09:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that Artnscience is absolutely right. Love-in-ark 06:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Love-in-ark, do you really think that or are you being sarcastic? Robertozz 17:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I really think that. Love-in-ark 16:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back, Art. It is true that the article is, as one editor put it, "on the sunny side". Perhaps because of several page blocks, there has been more discussion on the talk page than action changing the article. I really don't want to enter a debate about things are in the state they are in, but would rather move forward and try bring the article up to WP standards. If you look at the sections below - "What next?" and "Draft page created", you will see that at least 2 editors - one from each perspective, agree with you. Since we can't edit the article now, would you agree to use a draft page? If yes, why don't you say so in that section? (And to all the other editors out there, how about you?) Let's stop pointing fingers and do some work on the article. Anyone out there agree? --Moon Rising 20:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Moon Rising: I do not think the page is that long yet. Maybe we can leave it for any newcomer to read it, because the article itself was changed not too long ago. Regards, Baby Dove 21:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's too early to archive. Newcomers have to be able to see what is going on. Love-in-ark 22:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I acquiesce....but lunatic? give me a break, love. Just because I howl at the moon, do you really think I'm nuts ;)? Cheers! --Moon Rising 04:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Number of Members

Want - you and several other editors over the past many months have altered the number of members from what is reported by the Fellowship of Friends on their website to some other number. Someone solved this problem in the intro by deleting reference to membership numbers completely. That is not the best solution in my opinion. I think you know that WP requires a verifiable source for information. If you have such a source for the change you made, then please revert my revert and include the source. Remember the source needs to be a WP recognized verifiable source. Blogs, for example, are not acceptable sources for WP. If you do have a usable source, may I suggest you write something like the Fellowship reports x and ABC reports y? Thanks for your consideration. --Moon Rising 19:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Want - The information you deleted was from a reliable source. Unless you know a reliable source that contradicts it, there is no reason for the deletion. I ignored this change in the introduction, but there is no reason to delete it here that I am aware of.--Moon Rising 23:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Wantthetruth keeps changing the number of members from 2,000 to 1,400 regularly without mentioning the source for his information, hoping that other editors will get tired and let him have it. That strategy is adolescent. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources; people that want to express their judgmental opinions or guesses about membership numbers should invest their time and energy in blogs or personal web sites. Did I say that before? I think so. I guess it is something that some editors need to hear over and over again: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog; if you don't have a reliable source you don't have a chance. Capisce? Love-in-ark 03:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Want - did you read Love's comments above before your last change? Since Wikipedia reminds us to "assume good faith" regarding other editors, I must assume there is something about "Wikipedia is based on reliable sources" that you don't fully understand. Perhaps you can re-read WP guidelines for editing. WP also encourages using the talk page for controversial edits. Thanks for your consideration. --Moon Rising 00:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The number of members quoted on the page is unreliable, but we don't have any better source. Waspidistra 23:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Payment, again

Regarding Wasp's edit moving criticism from the criticism section to the payments section: my first reaction was to revert this edit, but since this is a controversial area, I am opening this for discussion here first. Where do all you editors and puppets think the sentence belongs?--Moon Rising 05:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well...couldn't wait. I reverted the edit, but leave it open for discussion here. I've also done some cleanup work on some of Wasps edits; mostly grammar and some minor wording changes and deletions (yes folks-the article is getting shorter!)--Moon Rising 06:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Moonrising: Thanks for correcting my typos. However, I note that you have reverted edits again, although you did wait for 40 minutes before reverting the payments section edits. The payments section was controversial anyway, so there is no status quo to defend. The donations information on the beingpresent.org site is inaccurate, partial and misleading. I've removed "until they are able to verify the basic principles of awakening and sleep" because the payment increments are time based and any increase or reduction in verification of the Fellowship's effectiveness is incidental. Waspidistra 17:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If the information is not accurate on the website, the organization needs to correct it. As far as the phrase you deleted - I'm pretty neutral on that edit-whatever the reasoning-no major impact to the article-have it your way.--Moon Rising 17:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

When the web site changes, then we can change the article. I put the information back. Robertozz 05:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Robert, what is your rational for reverting my edit? For reference, my verifications in the FOF have diminished but my teaching payments have not decreased. As for 10%, my September donation exceeded my September income. My September donation was $150 (10% would have been smaller but $10 is the minimum) + $255 "special" + $775 fall donation = $1180. This was around 115% of my income for the month. I understand that statements in Wiki articles need to be sourced, but what if the source is disreputable? My removal of that clause made the statement less factually misleading, but the statement as it stood was still sourced. Surely we can't just passively reproduce information on the FOF website. This has allowed the FOF to say anything it likes about itself and then have the information reproduced on Wikipedia. For instance, the FOF radically changed its website to emphasize its church status and the Wikipedia site was overhauled along with it. The Fellowship will never publish the full teaching payment schedule on their website because it will put off prospective students. Waspidistra 16:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I am now happy with the non-specific payment section. Waspidistra 23:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wanthetruth's addition of Alex Horn's material

Want - you keep adding a large amount of information from Ross's website that is irrelevant, long, misleading and detrimental to the article. While I try very hard to assume good faith when working with editors who hold a view opposite to my own, I find I cannot do this here. The nature or your edits seem intended only to harm the article. There is a link to Ross' website in the external links section of this article. It directs the reader to information about the Fellowship of Friends. It does not direct them to some other section of Ross' site. Why anyone would take information from another section from Ross' site and insert it in the middle of an article is beyond me. If you disagree with me, please explain. If not, please stop making disruptive edits. --Moon Rising 19:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Moon Rising - Background on RB's teacher is entirely relevant to any discussion about him and his development. The paragraph before my edit introduces his name. My intention is to continue to give breadth to an article which currently reads like an advertisement for the Fellowship. The abusive and manipulative nature of Horn's teaching was mirrored in RB's as you well know - and we'll get onto that in due course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wantthetruth? (talk • contribs) 19:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Want - please don't assume you know what I know. This is an article about the Fellowship of Friends, not Horn/Gans, et al. Information about the leader's former teacher does not belong in the article at all, IMHO - a footnote would do. If your intention is to give breadth, try something relevant. The "due course" comment is confusing. If things will be tied together by some future edits, why put a confusing, overly lengthy and disruptive edit in the middle of a paragraph now? We don't need an edit war. --Moon Rising 20:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Moon Rising - Background into Horn and Gans seems entirely relevant to me, especially in a section heading titled, THE TEACHER in a paragraph which introduces Horn . RB spent 18 months with them prior to founding the FOF, Horn was his teacher, their methods were strikingly similar. Your glossy revisions and transparent attempts to steer this article under your own agenda carry zero weight with me.Wantthetruth? 23:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wantthetruth, stop this silly edit war about Alex Horn's past and do some real work on the article. You are taking other editors' time. Love-in-ark 01:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, both Wantthetruth and Moon Rising are one revert from violating Wikipedia's Three-Revert Rule (3RR) that states that: An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. Any editor who breaches the rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance, and longer for repeated or aggravated violations. Love-in-ark 01:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wantthetruth: There is too much information in the Horn section. I agree that it is relevant to the article, and that "The Teacher" section is an appropriate place for it, or perhaps the "History" section, but you've gone a little too far. That Patterson article about Horn that is archived on the Rick Ross site is a good source for Horn information. The previous FOF website explicitly stated that Horn was Burton's teacher--not need to be ashamed of it, guys. Waspidistra 17:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Moon Rising - I'm not impressed by sock puppets. Wantthetruth? 17:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about? If you are implying Love and I are sockpuppets, I'd like to have some of whatever you are smokin'.Moon Rising 17:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Waspidistra - Thanks for your input, I'll trim the edit down. Please post your thoughts once the revised edit is in place, I'll gladly work with you to find something acceptable. Moon Rising - Only thing smokin' here is the information in the edit.Wantthetruth? 18:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about what Wantthetruth is smoking, but he is going to be banned if he keeps reverting edits like a maniac. I am ready for the Jihad. Love-in-ark 19:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Love-in-ark: You are also reverting edits like crazy. I don't believe that your earlier message was sincere. You are pitching in on Moon's side so that Wantthetruth will end up reverting edits more often than Moon, so that he will be more likely to be banned. Why not leave his new material up for a few days, though I agree that it's not quite right for the article, and let him trim it down. Or just trim down his statements to make them more acceptable. It's interesting that you see an edit war was a jihad. I've reverted your edit. Go in and actually revise the material instead of just deleting it. Waspidistra 19:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wasp, welcome back. You see, there is a silly edit war going on (from one point of view all edit wars are silly) and I call it a jihad because this is a religious page (the correct term would be "edit jihad", but I use "jihad" for short). Anyway, I have 2 reverts in the last 48 hours, Moon Rising has 4 and Wantthetruth has 5 (on the last one he tried to escape Wikipedia's Three Revert Rule doing a "manual revert", but that doesn't work, of course.) So, who is "reverting like crazy"? Please do your homework before you accuse people. Cheers, Love-in-ark 22:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the long paragraph about Alex Horn actually dilutes the information of the page. There are enough skeletons buried in the yard of the Fellowship of Friends to have to use Alex Horn's. Robertozz 22:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I did my homework, Love. You did two reverts of that material in the same day, and now you've just done a third. What you say and what you do are quite different. I agree that the Horn material added by Want is excessive. Perhaps you could draft a reduction of that material and suggest an appropriate place within the article for it. Waspidistra 22:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the place for Alex Horn's material is nowhere. This is an article about the Fellowship of Friends, not about Alex Horn. May be you can draft a reduction of that material and suggest an appropriate place within the article for it. Take your time. Love-in-ark 23:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's see now...if we're going to count, let's count those in favor of and those opposed to, including AH in this article:

In favor of - 1 (Want)

Opossed - 4 (Moon, Love, Robert and Wasp)

Why waste any more time on this? Moon Rising 00:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Love in Ark, this is not your article though you act as if it is. Wasp - the edit has been revised and shortened. I mean to add more material of a different nature highlighting Horn for the History section and then move on to editing some of the major sections. RobertOzz - I'm digging up as many as possible, watch this space.Wantthetruth? 01:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Want - what part of 4 oppose information about Horn for this article, 1 in favor don't you understand? Any information not on the subject of the article will continue to be reverted, which ever section it is in. Enjoy your digging, just keep it related to the subject. Thanks.--Moon Rising 01:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... After all the inserting of the conflict of Patterson vs Boris to this article, and after the "Aeuio quit saying that this isn't the right place for this.." Well look at this now! It seems that when you guys need rules to get rid of someone else you follow them while if they don't help you you simply ignore them. Anyhow, there is an article Sharon Gans where this info on the theater can be included, and then this page can link to it without mentioning the same thing. That seems the neutral thing to do. Aeuio 02:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Aeuio - you posted this on my user page See fof talk. We can even create a Horn page if there is enough info for it. Then the fof article can say "RB was in the Horn theater for this long" - and the theater can link to the other article where all of this info is included. Aeuio 02:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC) - We can also leave it exactly where it is and let anyone reading it decide how relevant it is?Wantthetruth? 02:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Or you can stop acting stubborn before you get blocked and work on something that might last. If you think that you will win in what you are trying to do now then you are more disillusional than the rest of these guys. Aeuio 02:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Aeiou, let's keep reverting him until he goes home. I just did. Robertozz 02:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why I am getting involved here again, as I am quite fine with this page as it is. Adios guys. (ps i was somewhat on wants side - but he couldn't get that, and you cant "do checkusers" Roberto - but everyone's smarter than those that were here for a long time) Aeuio 02:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Aeiou, my apologies to you, I mistook you for another drone trying to censor. As a least resort perhaps something like you mentioned, I don't see why when the information is relevant and on-topic. I simply don't understand a process here in which a bunch of cult members bully people around with impunity.Wantthetruth? 02:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you are actually helping the "cult members" with your childish behavior. Wise up. Robertozz 03:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Want - your true colors are showing: the goal of editing WP articles is to produce a good article by WP standards (look them up if you don't know what they are). By rejecting Aeuio's suggestion, simply because you "mistook him for another drone trying to sensor" rather than actually considering whether or not his ideas made sense, is not in the spirit of WP. It seems that once you figured out that Aeuio was not on the side of "a bunch of cult members", his opinion was worth considering. By the way, referring to fellow editors as "a bunch of cult members" is not in keeping with WP etiquette, which says that we should be civil and not make personal attacks. Since the word "cult" has a negative connotation as used, and WP considers religious comments "never acceptable" I would hope you would moderate your language in the future. Since most of us are anonymous here (except for those editors who email each other and seem to know each other personally) please don't make assumptions about other editors' religious preferences or affiliations. "Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia." --Moon Rising 05:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What has Alex Horn doing here?????????????? Burton left Horn years ago, and can't get why is he mentioned in this article. It is enough for us with all the Rick Ross staff, to have Burton also talking about him... Basha —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bashaluz (talk • contribs) 02:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Basha, are you OK? Any problem with your "?" key? Love-in-ark 05:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Love - please remember not to bite the newcomers. While your comment is only slightly sarcastic, it's not exactly warm and welcoming either. Basha - welcome to Wikipedia! --Moon Rising 05:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Basha, welcome to Wikipedia!!!!!!! Make sure you change your IP address when you change your ID! Love-in-ark 07:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Post page-protection discussion concerning Alex Horn material

The creation of a separate Alex Horn page to which this article can link is a good idea. RB has always stated that AH was his teacher, and the previous FOF website stated this "Robert Burton, the teacher and founder of the Fellowship of Friends, studied under Alex Horn, who was a student of Lord Pentland, who in turn was a student of Peter Ouspensky."

http://web.archive.org/web/20070103024233/www.gurdjieff-ouspensky-centers.org/english/joining_a_conscious_school/faqs.shtml

So I would we propose . Love: I suggested that you should try to rewrite Want's additions because you just reverted them, as did Moon. It's pretty obvious that we are all taking sides here, for or against the FOF, and none of us are just disinterested editors. Waspidistra 09:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Independently of our personal opinions about the FoF and the rampant sock puppetry, it is obvious that Wantthetruth is not going to stop his adolescent behavior until he is blocked. I just reported him for 3RR violation. Love-in-ark 15:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

So, anyone interested in working towards an acceptable to Wikirevision of my edit which includes some background to Alex Horn, RB's spiritual teacher? To refresh anyone's memory, the FOF line in the paragraph header, The Teacher states that; "The Fellowship of Friends states that the course of Robert Burton's life as a spiritual teacher is indistinguishable from the growth and development of the Fellowship of Friends"

The course of his life as a spiritual teacher was obviously influenced by Horn whom he consistently claims is an enlightened being and in so doing gives credence to himself while proposing a spiritual lineage. Horn was dogged by accusations of serial abuse and manipulation as is Burton now. IMO reference to Horn seems valid.

Wasp - I've tried to find the Patterson page on Rick Ross with no luck as yet, I'll continue to look and if the material seems moe pertinent and concise I will introduce an alternative here for discussion. - ThanksWantthetruth? 20:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a proposal for a second revision of the edit I introduced.

"Horn was the subject of an SF Examiner investigative report in 1978 which detailed accusations of abuse, violence and intimidation from former members" ref, Rick Ross etc.

feedback pleaseWantthetruth? 21:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wantthetruth? If you really want it, never trust Rick Ross, who has a successful criminal career, as you can see in Rick Ross'felonies. Baby Dove 23:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Want - just wanted to let you know I'm not ignoring your request for feedback. I need to think it over. Anything said now would not help towards a compromise. --Moon Rising 01:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Moon - Just to help you focus, I'm not bargaining with you or playing any of the games you've hither to gotten away with. The issue is Horns dubious character and background, the connection to RB and the similarities between the two - thanks though.Wantthetruth? 02:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Want - sorry you feel I've been playing games. I don't see it that way, but I will record your perception and try to make sure I don't do anything that will create such a perception in the future. As far as bargaining with each other, I think the purpose of the article's block is so that we can ALL work out a compromise. I don't know if that's what you mean by bargaining. The similarities you think you see in the 2 gentlemen, is subjective. If there is to be info on Horn, then I think the suggestion (from Aeuio, I think) to have a separate page for him, with a link, makes more sense than filling up the FOF article with Horn's information. I think this is how a traditional encyclopedia would work with this type of situation. Love created a Horn page (see discussion below). --Moon Rising 11:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Moon - Since the edit is less than one line in length I find your concerns about "filling" the article with information a little odd. If you truly are concerned with this issue I suggest you remove the glaringly innacurate entry regarding membership numbers later in the page, this would make room nicely. Do you have thoughts about the wording of the edit, it flows really well amongst the previous references to Horn and Roberts development doesn't it?Wantthetruth? 16:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Want, cool down, man! It looks like you are ready to jump and grab Moon's neck until he recognizes that the FoF is a dangerous cult! Are you a Queen of Hearts or what? Regardless of Wikipedia's policies of being polite and civilized, don't forget that we are all educated human beings here trying to edit an article for an encyclopedia, not dogs fighting for a bone! Love-in-ark 17:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the reference above to the Queen of Hearts is from Lewis Carroll's "Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland." Love-in-ark 17:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Love - Shame on you for such a blatantly disingenuous post. For the record I don't think it's likely that Moon will recognise he is in a dangerous cult do you? As for the comment regarding trying to edit an article for an encyclopedia this is exactly what I'm trying to do. Do you have any comments for refining the edit or anything constructive to say? I suspect people are beginning to think that you and moon are the same person and we wouldn't want that would we?Wantthetruth? 18:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Want, trying to convince current FoF members that they belong to a dangerous cult is like trying to convince a catholic that the Pope is the Antichrist. But...wait! I just found a site that proves that the Pope is the Antichrist! Check it – it is here! Too bad is not part of Wikipedia... Do you get the point? Wikipedia is not a forum for hate and negativity, it is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Why don't you try the so-called "Fellowship blog"? Lots of cathartic posts there. You can find the link to the blog in the “External links” sections at the bottom of the article. Have a good one! Love-in-ark 06:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

PS. Yes, I am Moon Rising. How did you know? Love-in-ark 06:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Want - please be polite and assume good faith:

• I don't see Love's post as disingenuous
• I am not in a dangerous cult. If you are referring to the FOF as the dangerous cult, please try to curb your bias here. There are undoubtedly other venues for this type of acrimony.
• Regarding Love's having something constructive to say: he said it - by creating a page for Horn, and also requesting that it be undeleted. It appears that Love, along with several other editors, feels the best place for material about Horn is in an article about Horn.
• If you are beginning to think Love and I are the same person, then your thinking is incorrect.

Regarding your comments to me that precipitated Love's comments in my defense:

• You are right - one sentence is not "filling the article". But it is still one sentence too many. It is not about the wording, or the space it is taking up. It is just inappropriate here. Aeuio has taken your original essay on Horn and moved it to the Sharon Gans page. It's a more suitable article.
• Regarding membership numbers: I have no information other than what is on the organization's web site, and know of no other source to quote. I would like this article to be accurate as much as any other editor, so if the number is not correct, find a reliable source and quote it.

In the meantime, I think Love's advice to you to chill is well worth taking. The tone of your posts seem to be growing more hostile. We shall never reach consensus unless we try to stay calm. --Moon Rising 21:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Moon, stop pretending. Everybody knows that we are the same person. Love-in-ark 06:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Moon,

I can understand that creating a page for Horn and moving references to it will be enormously convenient for you and the FOF. I don't feel that anyone here has given a coherent reason as to why that is the best option and certainly it's not the only one. Perhaps you could explain why you feel it's fine for the FOF to introduce Horn in the page, assert that Burton's development cannot be understood apart from the development of the FOF and then suddenly find that a one line reference to Horn is innapropriate? Alternatives that I would happily consider would be, moving the reference to the History section or perhaps starting a totally new heading with a working title of, Cycle of Abuse. The new section could reference James Randazzo who you may remember was one of RB's early students now in jail for filming a sixteen year old having sex with his wife. A time line could be established and many references to accusations of abuse linking the three - would this work for you moon? You see for me there's the difficult and for you inconvenient subject of serial abuse to address, I genuinely wish to do everything I can to try and steer anyone away from the dire consequences I encountered after taking the FOF at face value. anyone here can understand that right? If an unbiased Fellowship page were to exist which enabled any spiritual seeker to arrive at an informed choice then that would seem to me to serve Wikipedias purposes as well as the public interest. Nonetheless, the issue is not about my feelings as it's not about yours. The issue as I see it is why can't a reference to Horn be made on the Fellowship page given his relevance as RB's teacher and in light of the fact that he's already referenced. Burying Horn on another page which later will likely be edited to irrelevance is really clever but simply doesn't cut it for me, so please focus on another alternative if you genuinely wish to reach consensusWantthetruth? 23:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, let's get Randazzo in! Here is a page with information about him, including a mug shot. Love-in-ark 06:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Love - You're choosing option three then - A new section titled, "Cycle of Abuse" with an overview of the connection between Horn, Burton and Randazzo - excellent.Wantthetruth? 19:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this was just Love trying to be his cute, impish, sarcastic self. But, just in case you took him seriously Want, I want to go on the record that adding Randazzo makes no sense to me. I would like to think you were joking when you proposed it, but I haven't seen this quality in your other posts, so I don't know. I have no idea who this character is, other than what's stated here, but the relevance to the FOF escapes me. More to follow on your above post.--Moon Rising 01:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Want...it seems as if it is a question of balance for the specific Horn reference, the cycle of abuse, and the informed choice issues. In each case, the proposal is to select material that emphasizes the "dire consequences" you currently feel that you suffered.

To my mind, the core question is the impact that the FoF has on current students and had on former students. There seems to be a spectrum of effects. You represent one part of the spectrum. How do we provide a balanced perspective of this spectrum? Do we include testimonials from the entire spectrum or maybe individually balanced testimonials from select parts of it? I think that any way we tried to do it would be quite inadequate. Personally, I would have great difficulty giving a balanced and coherent description of my emotional evolution these past years. Perhaps you too would have difficulty.

Just by the nature of things, I think that the negative end of that spectrum is very well represented already on the internet, though I doubt that I would agree that it is balanced on the individual scale, let alone the entire spectrum. If this article tends to be on the sunny side, well, it doesn't trouble me much. But in the interest of compromise, perhaps we could have a section on the Impact of the Work, and keep it generic and neutral as to potential impacts on functions and consciousness (I believe Ouspensky has some words here, including negative ones but not the ones you would like to refer to).

This is likewise my reasoning for objecting to the negative Horn group reference you propose. A more balanced approach is required. This would be over lengthy and off center to the article and should be left to an external source (e.g. an article on Horn), in my opinion. I could use many more words but maybe this is a start for resolving the issues.StillWorking 23:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Want,

I am sincerely sorry that you suffered dire consequences. Your editing perspective is now clearer. In light of this revelation of yours, responding to your above post is more difficult than responding to any other post I’ve yet to encounter. My position on the subject in question has not changed, yet I feel I must choose my words even more carefully than usual, so as not to offend.

StillWorking made some insightful points on the spectrum of effects membership in the Fellowship of Friends may have on an individual, and the extreme side of that spectrum in which your experiences fall. I also find his suggested new section a worthwhile idea, which, if it would be possible to find reliable sources to substantiate it (from all ranges in the spectrum) would achieve what you seem to be after: to protect others from suffering as you apparently suffered.

I’d like to comment on some of the points you made above, and in other posts. You say that “it’s fine for the FOF to introduce Horn in the page…”. Well, actually, Aeiou added that, and, as I recall, was quite insistent that it remain. It was not part of the article originally produced after the launch of the FOF’s new web site. Burton’s connection to Horn is so distant now, and the Fellowship’s teaching so far from its roots in Gurdjieff and Ouspensky, that mentioning Horn does not make sense to me, even as it stands before your proposed changes.

In an earlier post, you said that “the course of his [Burton’s] life as a spiritual teacher was obviously influenced by Horn…” This is quite probably so. However, no one but Burton could say how – and would he say the same thing now, as a mature man, as he did 35 or 40 years ago? We can only surmise. So for me, adding even one sentence about Horn does not add value. Furthermore, a sentence, or even a paragraph, that presents only one aspect of an individual is not, IMHO, suitable for WP.

You have consistently rejected the idea of a separate Horn article, while at least a few other editors thought that would be a possible way to work with presenting the information you wish to have added. Your lack of trust in that solution, and your insistence on only one way to resolve this while others favor another alternative is problematic. Going back to where I began, your situation seems unique and this intractable attitude is almost understandable. As Aeuio said earlier, “if you think that you will win in what you are trying to do now then you are more disillusional than the rest of these guys.” I don't know if it's true, but it's an interesting thought.

Finally, I just read that the Horn article was rejected in that there does not seem to be sufficient information available about him to justify his own article. To me, this supports not including information about him in this article. My best to you, Moon Rising 05:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Stillworking - If you would like to balance the specific Horn reference please try and find one and present it here for discussion regarding inclusion alongside the one I'm proposing . Also if you wish to introduce a seperate section with testimonials providing a full range of the emotional spectrum go knock yourself out. I'm not interested in this and never was. Horn was RB's teacher it's very simple! You concede that the current FOF page is on the sunny side i.e. unbalanced AND you wish any future edit to be balanced meaning in effect that you wish the article to remain unbalanced in the FOF's favor. In your last line you state that a more balanced approach is required but that this would be impossible within the article!!!!???? Any more red herrings?Wantthetruth? 18:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Moon - To answer your points;

Since the Horn article was rejected we're now back to the task of reaching consensus on inclusion within the FOF article, please focus on this.

If you would like to help Stillworking on his new section, I'm sure you know where to find him. His proposal is not even in the ball park of what I'm aiming for which is a reference to Horn - Burton's teacher.

Burton at the age of 67 is still referring to Horn as a conscious being so we don't have to summise anything. You seem to be suggesting that age 35 or40 he was an immature man, would you like to include this statement in the edit?

There are many references meeting Wikipedia criteria which illustrate how Horn influenced Burton, enlightenment through theatre, a vineyard etc. so we don't have to guess. We have an existing reference to Horn and it's in the interest of the uninformed to dig a little deeper into Horn and make their own minds up. Adding one sentence about Horn you state, does not add value for YOU, however IMO it adds a potentially imeasurable value for others.

Aeiou presented the info, thanks for the correction and thanks aeiou.

I am not bent on only one solution, but since you seem bent on misrepresenting what I say, Let me make clear again what I have proposed so far; There are three versions of the edit to choose from, if you want to take a stab at rewording I'll gladly consider a revision PROVIDED THAT the link to the Horn reference remains. A reference to Horn balancing my proposal will be graciously considered, please try and find one. The edit can remain in the teacher section or be moved to History section and fleshed out a little in order to make sense. A totally new section, Cycle of Abuse references Horn, Burton, Randazzo, follow love's link immediately above yours for background on Randazzo. Hey, you know what, I'll even propose that we just add the link to Horn after the current sentence referencing Horn, we don't even have to have anything remotely causing cognitive dissonance in the current members. What do you say?

You state that my situation is unique, perhaps you mean as an editor? As an individual I can safely count myself in the hundreds. If we add in Horn and Randazzo we'll be closer to at least a thousand - you find this irrelevant? I take it as an imperative for adding a simple edit in your glossy brochure.

Your re-statement of AEIOU's warning speaks volumes about you and the FOF.

Please do come back with a workable alternative, you have several now from me.Wantthetruth? 19:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Want, I think you meant to address the above to me, not yourself. It seems we are at an impasse. We (you, me and other editors) have offered what we consider workable alternatives. "What we got here is a failure to communicate" (to quote the movie Cool Hand Luke). I've requested the help of a mediator and hopefully an impartial third party can help us through this impasse. At this point, until a mediator joins us, I don't know that it's worth taking up any more space on wikipedia with words that go nowhere. --Moon Rising 01:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I created a page for Randazzo. Waspidistra 23:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

This page has been protected for a period of 4 days due to a continuing edit-war. Please try and discuss changes on this page to derive consensus. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Gee, that was fast! That's why Wikipedia works. Love-in-ark 15:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

So, reversions are not the way. Neither are endless chats in this page. I hope we can all remember to be more civilized. Regards, Baby Dove 17:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps keeping the page protected and submitting via admininstrators is the answer. Waspidistra 23:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sock Puppetry (again)

Love: in response to your accusations about sock puppetry, I will admit that I previously posted to the Talk page only (not the article) under the name Genuflect in April. Occasionally I have forgotten to sign in before posting, but I have always gone back and corrected the omission. That might technically have been sock puppetry but I haven't used the names concurrently and I didn't edit the article under the name Genuflect. Please tell us who you think the sock puppets are. I must admit that I initially thought that you were an SP for mfantoni. Waspidistra 16:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am happy you don't think anymore that I am a sock of mfantoni, because I am not. Also, I don't see mfantoni editing here so there is no sock puppetry as defined by Wikipedia. Anyway, let's go to the point. Here is the text that Robertoz posted yesterday (curiously enough, nobody commented...):

Well this is funny, after all that chit chatting about sock puppets, Love-in-ark is unable to say anything when asked to give some names and evidence. Seems all she is interested is chatting and attempting to divert the discussion. Well, I just got an email from a well-known editor of this page saying that "PresenceInArk is probably a sock of Moon Rising (SAme ip and same habbit). And Tupac8 and Sitting9bulls are probably socks of Baby Dove (These two did the exact same thing that BD did word for word some time ago)." Robertozz 23:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

PresenceinArk, Tupac8 and Sittin9Bulls are not editing anymore, so Moon Rising and Baby Dove are OK at the moment. The only issue would be if you, Waspidastra, were Moon Rising but you aren't, right? Love-in-ark 17:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Presence-in-ark posted to say that she was adopting a new name and Moon Rising stated that 9passions/prsence is Moon Rising's spouse. So that's meat puppetry, but as I mentioned earlier, some innocent meat puppetry is almost unavoidable in a small community like FOF members past and current. I am certainly not Moon Rising. Wine-in-ark and Nixwisser are husband and wife too, but neither of them have contributed for a while as far as I know. So that should have cleared the air. Waspidistra 17:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Chit-chat again. Let's wait for Robertoz's checkusers. Love-in-ark 17:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

WOW! So all of that talk about sock puppets, and the accusation you make is that MR = Wasp. (I had to read your comments 3 times to make sure i am not misunderstanding). So the whole time you were mentioning socks you were suspecting that the person who dedicated the most of his time in defending the fof, got another username to make valid reasons against the fof. (I am sorry I ever deleted that previous section and prevented you from saying this earlier:) You have a very nice way of thanking your friends! Congrads Aeuio 00:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I assumed he was joking. Love also said it was curious no one commented on an earlier comment. I wish it had remained commentless - this is a ridiculous discussion and I can't believe I'm contributing to it. --Moon Rising 01:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Aeuio, I appreciate that you took the time to read my comments 3 times but I am sorry to tell you that it was Wantthetruth who raised the suspicion about MR and Wasp being socks. Just check this to see what I mean. Also, I am pretty sure that you were the one that sent the information about socks to Robertoz (I recognize your writing style, it's unmistakable). You deleted the information after Robertoz added it because you wanted to accuse and remain anonymous. Am I clever or not? Love-in-ark 01:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, I am the only one here who has his email showing on his user page, and I am the only one here who could make those accusations. It was obvious earlier when some editor said the same thing word for word about what I told him about BD and those socks (and I am pretty sure I already accused MR of being PR). If you know what happened here way earlier then you'd know I don't have a problem with accusing people (especially BD), check the archives. So you are not clever at all (you'd be pretty stupid to think that it wasn't me).

Anyhow, basically, you were asked "who do you keep accusing of being a sockp, and give some evidence", and instead of answering you have opened up a new chat section. And later on, you'll continue saying that "the sockpuppetry is rampant". If you have nothing, then don't bother saying anything. PS I'll tell you a secret: I purposely use the brackets a lot and write the way I do (kind of similar to how BD uses "Regards".) I am very glad that my writing style is unmistakable. Aeuio 02:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well, and I thought I was clever... Aeuio, please never ever leave this page. You are the only editor to my knowledge that is not a current or former member of the FOF. We need some neutrality just for a change. Warmly, Love-in-ark 03:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

When did Nix & Wine admitted they are husband and wife? Baby Dove 17:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Who are Nix & Wine? Why are we talking about that couple? Love-in-ark 01:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone else made the comment somewhere above. It sounds like some editors know the real identities of other editors. --Moon Rising 01:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The suggestion that I am Moon Rising is absurd, and I'm not even sure that Want was suggesting that it was me. I mentioned the couple Nix and Wine because they were the main targets of the earlier sockpuppetry accusations. Yes, I know their real identities and they are two people, not one. Waspidistra 08:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Darn. This is the first time that I didn't check the situation more clearly (Want wasn't saying anything about you and MR being socks). O well, since I regrettably didn't see that in time, there's no point in repeating my sarcastic comments, so I'll leave the biggest screw up ever to happen here alone. (I hope that this pointless section is done.) Aeuio 10:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

THIS SECTION IS A CONVOLUTED WASTE OF TIME AND SPACE. ANYONE OBJECT TO IT BEING DELETED? CAN ONE SECTION BE ARCHIVED?--Moon Rising 10:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

NO. Robertozz 11:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Love- Brilliant mis-direct and excellent waste of everyone's time - congrats. Wasp - Just so we're clear, didn't accuse you of anythingWantthetruth? 17:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wasp - please be nice.--Moon Rising 18:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There was nothing unpleasant in the tone of my message, Moon. Waspidistra 22:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Go try Y! chats!!!!! Baby Dove 23:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is it Aeuio deleting this section repeatedly? He was the one that sent me the info about socks privately (I can say it now because he admitted it here) and he even sent me a message 2 days after saying "Why are you hesitating to add it? Do it already (put it in the bottom of the "article improvement" section.)" Aeuio, please be the same person in public and in private and don't delete the section again. Sure, Moon finds it "a convoluted waste of time and space" because he is the main suspect of sock puppetry (so is Baby Dove but he decided to stay quiet, how convenient). The part that I don't get is why Want calls it a "brilliant mis-direct and excellent waste of everyone's time". As a former member, he should be happy when current members are exposed as socks. Anyhow, I have to agree with Love (even if I find his sarcastic posts distasteful) that a talk section can't be deleted because it is a "waste of time" (a section of the article can and must be deleted, but this is NOT the article). The talk page is a record of ALL the exchanges between the editors; I admit that sections can be erased in cases of vandalism, but we can't delete sections because they are "boring" (or should I say "inconvenient"?) Robertozz 04:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ozz, thank you for replacing the word "repugnant" by "distasteful" when commenting about my posts. Regarding your insinuation that Moon and I are friends, I am sorry to tell you that you're wrong. As Want already discovered, we are actually the same person. Love-in-ark 22:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ozz - Actually, a WP guideline asks that editors not edit posts on talk pages - first, they don't need to be grammatically or otherwise perfect, as we aim for in the article, and second, because if a word or meaning is changed, it could confuse the thread if other editors have already commented (as I did on your talk page). Regarding my friendship with Love, it has developed slowly on this page, I am glad to say. We had some contentious editing for a while, but our relationship on this page has become playful. I feel a strange connection to each editor on this page, even those I don't agree with. It's like a family. --Moon Rising 18:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ozz - actually, in good faith I thought it was a waste of space and energy because the older editors here have been through it multiple times. I didn't know about private correspondence between you and Aeuio and what is apparently continued suspicions. Am I suspicious that some editors have used other names in the past, yes. Do I think there are current sockpuppets, no. If you have any doubt, I have heard there is a way for administrators to check to see. I invite such a check. It's getting a little old being the target of suspicion. I'm not even a meat puppet (as someone suggested). I don't edit as my spouse nor does my spouse edit at my request. We are 2 people with 2 id's, our own ideas and one connection. This should not be a problem for WP. --Moon Rising 05:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Robertozz - re- Brilliant misdirect etc. this was my attempt to highlight what was occuring with obviously too much sarcasm -my apologies. Please bear in mind it's me they wish to discredit for the moment. This is an old, old, Fellowship tactic. FYI these people meet at least once a week and decide who's going to do what with regard to attempts to edit the pageWantthetruth? 17:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Want, times have changed since you left. We now use instant messaging to communicate real-time and the hours we spend on Wikipedia are converted into dollars and the amount is deducted from the monthly donations (the project is called "Strategic Wikipedia Action Team" - SWAT). Love-in-ark 22:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Want - when editing in the spirit of WP, editors need to aim towards not attacking other editors, but rather, focus on what was said. I am not, and I don't think other editors are trying to discredit you. If you read my last post to you, I think you would see that I have a heartfelt sympathy towards you. I just don't agree with your point of view. Those are 2 very different things. I truly have no idea of what you mean by an "old, old, Fellowship tactic. And I don't understand how you can make a statement that "these people meet at least once a week...". I think our identities are hidden, for one thing, and if anyone is meeting to discuss WP, they are not including me. Anyway, as far as misdirects go, your comments to Robertozz match any that you have accused others of.Moon Rising 17:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Want - I've been hoping for some time that you would focus on what was said. By the way does the name Richard Laurel ring any bells?Wantthetruth? 18:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC) This should have read; Moon - I've been hoping for some time that you would focus on what was said. By the way does the name Richard Laurel ring any bells? Wantthetruth? 19:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 19:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, I didn't know that the 6'6" basketball player from Hofstra University was a FoF member. Love-in-ark 22:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Want, you called "Moon" "Want" (your name!) and you forgot to login (now we know that you are in Oregon House, so you may be a sock of a current member!). Are you OK, Want, or is this exchange taking its toll on you? Love-in-ark 23:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Love, since you seem to have admitted below that you are Mario, you should know that this actually is sock puppetry. "A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who already has one or more accounts. The Wikipedian who uses a sock puppet may be called a sock puppeteer. Use of sock puppets is discouraged in most cases." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waspidistra (talk • contribs) 09:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Mario, if you are reading this, please declare that I am not you. Love-in-ark 12:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Horn page created (and tagged for speedy deletion) (and deleted)

I just created a page for Alex Horn here. Please feel free to edit it. Love-in-ark 01:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Alex Horn page was tagged for speedy deletion. I can't remove the tag because I am the creator of the page, but any other editor can. If any of you thinks the page has to exist, please remove the tag. Your call. Love-in-ark 01:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There is already an article on Sharon Gans. It makes sense to me to combine the 2, if that can be done. Do you know if that's possible? --Moon Rising 10:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
P.S.: The Horn page has been deleted.--Moon Rising 11:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I just left a message for the Administrator that deleted the article to see if there is a way for the article to be up for, let's say, 24 hours to give the baby a chance to survive. Let's see. If the article has no importance according to Wikipedia's standards, that's another reason to remove Alex Horn's information from this article, don't you think Want? Love-in-ark 18:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Love - No, I don't think your deduction has any meritWantthetruth? 20:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but it doesn't hurt to ask. :-) Love-in-ark 05:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Alex Horn is a published playwright and theatre leader and an esoteric teacher. That's enough to get him into Wikipedia. Waspidistra 16:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Love - have you heard back from the administrator's about allowing a Horn article? Moon Rising 18:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)~

I just got this message from him:

Hi, how are you? The reason I deleted the page was because a google search showed up none of the information in the page, besides the site that you referenced, so the reliability is in doubt if it is not backed up by more sources. However, if you could find more sources and establish notability, and maybe focusing on a biography of Alex Horn rather than the Theatre of Possibilities, you could recreate the page. I hoped that helped you, if not, feel free to ask- CattleGirl talk 02:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a lost cause to me, but if anybody has a suggestion it is welcome. Love-in-ark 04:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This is really the inner confusion... Baby Dove 23:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Baby, what do you mean? Now I am confused. Love-in-ark 04:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Forget Alex Horn, the article is never going to make it to Wikipedia. As CattleGirl said, there aren't enough Google hits. Robertozz 15:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

the bickering on this page is, quite frankly, beautiful.--132.61.176.6 18:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if you do not want us to see that you use an Air Force server, please create a log in for you and be welcome... Baby Dove 22:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sir, I would like to welcome you to the Fellowship of Friends page. Remember to login, sign your posts, assume good faith, be polite, and change your IP address when you change your ID. I wish you a rewarding editing, sir. Love-in-ark 23:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome from me too. Please remember to be civil, and make sure that you always call in the mediators before the opposition does, that you regularly make baseless accusations of sockpuppetry, that you submit strawman Wiki articles to prevent information being added to this one, and that you revert every edit while reminding other editors that reverting is rude. Oh, and don't include any information that isn't on the official FOF site, even when that site changes suddenly in response to government investigations. Waspidistra 21:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Wasp, you forgot to tell our friend that if he is not a former member of the FoF seeking revenge (or a refund) or a current member defending the organisation, he is wasting his time here. The Paris Hilton article is much more appropriate, believe me, to mitigate the monotony of a military life in peaceful times. Love-in-ark 21:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point, Love. Also, if he is neither a current nor a former member, but a government investigator, he should remember that under the Patriot Act he is able to access all IP addresses of contributors and then obtain personal details from the relevant ISPs. Waspidistra 00:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

As a point of solidarity, Love, I don't think that you will be in the FOF either within the year. The jokes about changing IP address before changing ID were excellent. Waspidistra 00:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I am glad you like my sense of humor. Wasp, may be you will re-join within the year, since you spend so much time thinking about the FoF. Love-in-ark 02:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I successfully created a page for Alexander Francis Horn. Waspidistra 23:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for a summary

What's the crux of the dispute that had the page locked from editing? What is everyone trying to achieve with "their" version of the article? Are there changes that everyone can agree with? Cheers! Vassyana 17:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Vassyana, the page was blocked because there were frequent reversions of the addition of information about the church leader's teacher, Alex Horn. It appears that one editor will accept only the addition of information on Horn, while other editors (both sides of the discussion) do not see the point. Discussions are going in circles and are contentious. In my opinion, there is an absence of good faith and civility amongst some editors.

Overall, editors appear to be members of the FOF or negative ex-members. The picture each side has of the church is akin to 3 blind men touching and describing an elephant: you would not know that they speak of the same organization. The article as it stands is mostly drawn from the organization's website and as such is more positive than neutral. Understandably, current members have done nothing to add negative information, and the only significant article modification since you last visited us was the addition of information on Alex Horn, which led to a stalemate. There have been interim minor modifications. One or more of the editors has expressed a desire to warn others of the dire consequences of membership. My personal bias is to have an article that leans towards the positive, though I understand the need for balance and hope that I would be receptive to reasonable changes to bring this about. Hope this helps and thanks for being here.--Moon Rising 19:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana - Hi! Here is my version of the crux;

I'm trying to establish a link within the current "Teacher" section of the Wikipedia Fellowship of Friends entry to Robert Burton's teacher Alex Horn. The section as is references Horn as Burton's teacher and further states that ".....the course of Robert Burton's life as a spiritual teacher is indistinguishable from the growth and development of the Fellowship of Friends". You can find the reference in question @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_Gans and http://www.rickross.com/reference/theater/theater1.html. Horn was by all accounts I've read and heard, abusive, violent and manipulative you can access first hand accounts of this by some of his former students @ http://www.esotericfreedom.com/. The article as it currently stands largely comprises information from the Fellowship's own web-site, it is IMO to say the least one-sided. The Fellowship would like the article to stand as a recruiting tool, "free advertising" is how I personally heard it couched by one of the fellowship's hierarchy. You can access first hand accounts of Burton's predation, abuse and manipulation @ http://fellowshipoffriends.wordpress.com/2007/09/14/res-ipsa-loquitur/. That the reference should be included strikes me as a no brainer regardless of my personal opinions, that it serves the public interest by offering a balancing view of FOF history and development seems equally valid. You are hopefully aware of Burton's checkered past in light of lawsuits by former members claiming sexual abuse? There are links to this information on the current FOF page. Burton had an abusive teacher and went on to abuse his own students. I've offered alternatives to pro Fellowship editors in terms of the length of the edit, these included an offer to only place a link to the Horn reference without any change to the current text. I've offered to move the reference to the History section within the article -again no takers. I've also suggested that we begin an entirely new section working title; Cycle of Abuse linking Horn, Burton and James Randazzo, an early Burton student who went on to start his own group, "spiral of friends" in many ways similar to the FOF and also the subject of rampant sexual abuse, not surprisingly, no takers. Pro- FOF editors tried to move the reference to a straw man page for Alex Horn and offered an alternative which they themselves admitted was unworkable, there appear to be no changes that everyone can agree with and here we remain stuck. ThanksWantthetruth? 19:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana, in my opinion the crux of the dispute is that Wantthetruth keeps adding negative information about Alex Horn, one of Robert Burton's spiritual teachers, extracted from anti-cult sites. Five other editors, namely Moon Rising, Baby Dove, Robertoz, Aeuio and myself, disagree with Wantthetruth Alex Horn's additions.

Thanks for coming back, your presence is welcome to resolve the standoff. Love-in-ark 20:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's rememeber Waspidistra (who is generally not positive towards the FOF) and our new editor, StillWorking, do not favor adding info on Horn to the article. Most of these editors would favor a link to an article on Horn. Since Horn is not sufficiently notable for his own article, some have suggested using the existing article about his wife, Sharon Gans, for the link. There is considerable info on Horn taken from an anti-cult website in that article. Wanthetruth did not agree to this.--Moon Rising 20:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana - Let's remember why the pro Fellowship editors don't want a reference to Horn and let's also remember the many people who joined the FOF in good faith unaware that their "teacher" believes he's a goddess in a man's body who will share an apartment with Leonardo Da Vinci on the sun upon his expiration! Wantthetruth? 20:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Want, calm down. Remember you are talking to a Wikipedia Administrator. Love-in-ark 21:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Mario, look we know you're on a paid salary from the fellowship to block anyone trying to edit, but constant claims that the other guy needs to calm down are below the belt even for you!Wantthetruth? 23:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Want, here is Mario. You are wrong. I am not paid by the FoF to work on Wikipedia, I actually pay them. Love-in-ark 06:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Vassyana -- I am a novice editor and so cannot speak about the reason(s) for blocking. I would be satisfied with a balanced article but feel that efforts to assert "cycles of abuse" and insert "public service warnings" are both biased and outside the scope of Wikipedia articles. For example, approximately 10,000 people have passed through the Fellowship of Friends (FoF). We do not know much about these 10,000 since most of them have not contributed material that can be referenced. They are likely more positive than Want, though he leaves a lot of room in that regard. The internet has been a good forum for the verbal minority of the 10,000 that are adversely disposed to the FoF. Likewise, we have a biased sample of Horn's group and, in addition, the time distance (37 years since FoF began) makes it very difficult to conduct any detailed assessment of it. It is my position that it is therefore difficult, if not impossible, to provide a balanced account of either Horn's group or those 10,000 that have left FoF.

-----I propose two specific solutions. First, simply state that Robert Burton was a member of Horn's group; the interested reader can do their own search on Horn, which will lead them to the information Want would like to include. Any more is truly outside the scope of the article, in my opinion. Secondly, insert a small section on the impact of the work. I believe material that can be referenced covers both potential benefits as well as cautions to potential members that the work is not for everyone. References to material that Want proposes to include are elsewhere in the article. In addition, the internet contains a biased sampling of the 10,000 former members of FoF; I am not sure if anyone can reliably summarize that 10,000 to present a balanced account.StillWorking 01:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)StillWorking

I haven’t been much of an active participant, but I have been following some of the the dialogue. Don’t have much to add…except my support against including Horn. It seems that StillWorking said it best. Printed media/blogs/anti-cult activists’ websites are the small but noisy and visible voice…everyone knows it is easy to criticize. Those persons happy with or neutral about the FoF are mostly silent; not being the ‘newsworthy’ majority, they are not quoted in the press or books…and they don’t need to waste time on blogs.9Passions 02:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana, I would like the article to be more neutral. As it stands today, it's a copy of the current website of the FoF with the addition of 'the FoF believes that' at the beginning of each sentence. The problem is that Wantthetruth?, an anti-FoF editor, and the current pro-FoF editors keep engaging in petty edit wars about issues that are not critical to the article (this is good for the pro-FoF editors since it produces a 'smoke curtain' that keeps the article as it is, so Wantthetruth? is actually helping them). The postings above on this section will give you a very accurate picture of the situation. If you can help balance the article and stop the edit wars you will do a great service to this article. Thank you. Robertozz 04:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

A "copy of the current web site of the FoF"? I don't think the last part of the history section ("A former member sued Burton and the organization...") and the entire "Criticism" section are there. Besides, how are you going to explain the current teachings of the FoF without using the official web site? Any suggestions? Love-in-ark 06:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point. And even the parts that are from the website are condensed from the much longer website. I just went into the article history, and since the article changed with the publication of the FOF's new website back in June, there has been very little sustained disagreement between editors. Want's insistence of on including Horn is the first stumbling block, and also the first time both the pro and anti FOF editors are largely in agreement (except for Want). This isn't to say that the article can't be improved with Vass' unbiased third party review, but we (all the editors) have been working together well. --Moon Rising 06:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

To continue this train of thought, there was much discussion with Waspidistra, an editor with strong anti-FOF leanings who wanted to make the article more neutral, believing it to be emotive and promotional and tried to work on it to make it less of a mouthpiece for the FOF. After spending some time trying to "fix" it, he felt that all the words added to attempt making it more neutral (claims, states, believes, etc.) did not show the FOF in such a positive light after all (if I am paraphrasing him correctly), and the he can’t imagin anyone being satisfied with the article as is. He said that after re-reading, he felt the tone was not as pro-FOF as he had originally thought. I think this clearly speaks to the tone of the article and the editors prior to the recent upset. My apologies, Vas, for giving you way more info than you probably wanted. I tried not to, but my fingers, fueled by coffee, could not be stopped. A thousand lashes for me. Mea Culpa.--Moon Rising 07:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Moon's summary of my view is essentially correct. The information on the teaching is mainly FOF promotional material, but the continual interjections of 'the organization states' etc. considerably reduce the success of it as such. In my view, the section on the teaching could be summarized neutrally in a quarter of the space and we need to do something with the payment section. I would prefer a non-specific 'Membership of the Fellowship required monthly payments.' to the misleading information currently in the article. Waspidistra 09:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Waspidistra regarding condensing the section on the teaching and modifying the payment section to be more general (we can use a draft if necessary). Love-in-ark 12:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Love-Ark what the hell are you doing? Here are some pointers if you are going to use a meat puppet such as Robertozz: 1)Don't create him 5 min after you write a long section about suspected meat puppetry. 2)Don't have "I am a former member" as your first comment. 3) The only thing that Robertozz did on the fof article was revert another editor who is anti - fof. 4) This comment might as well have Lover-Ark at the end (your first slip) because Robertozz didn't put the info back, you (LA) did. 5) And most recently you made the same mistake of commenting from the wrong username. Obviously you are not cut out to use meat puppets and I don't know why you do. (O, and as Ozz in an email you said "FoF members are claiming again that there is a lot of sock puppetry in order to blur the whole editing picture. Love-in-ark and Moon Rising are playing again the old game of chitchat, gossips, etc." - That is, you said your true purpose as Love-Ark) I knew that Ozz is a fof sock from long ago, but for some reason I listened to the advise to try and use him for an advantage. (Although it was amusing - it didn't get anywhere).

And Vass, another problem with Love Ark is that he uses stupid sarcastic jokes such as saying that he is MR and so on in order to make this page idiotic and hard to follow. There can't be any serious consensus when dealing with this crap. I hope you tell him to stop.

I am not sure why LA and Ozz (or more accurately just LA) wants me on this page. I don't have the current interest nor do I get paid for this. (It's funny that everyone from anti-fof side including me has assumed that LA is Mario.)

(Now, not counting if Vass comments, there could be three possible upcoming comments. 1)What I call a "Mario one liner". 2. LA or Ozz, in spite of clear proof that they are the same person, write in bold or capital letters "I AM NOT HIM". Or, our friendly neighborhood editor who is trying to come out as good spirited wikipedian who follows the wiki rules (whom I am telling now not to touch my cm) will say something about formating or something other to change the direction of things. It all depends on who gets to work early today....) Aeuio 12:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It's true: I am Moon Rising, and Mario, and Robertoz. When I edit from home I am Moon Rising, when I edit from work I am Love-in-ark and when I want to look like a former member I use Robertoz (I use NetConceal to hide my IP addresses). Since I didn't do any vandalism, can I stay here if I promise that I will use only those 3 ID's? Please! Love-in-ark 14:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Love, you're just reaping what you have sown. On September 27, you posted "Sock puppetry galore, again. Oh, well, let's move on" following an exchange between me, Moon Rising and yourself. When you answered the message addressed to Mario I assumed that you were genuinely admitting to be him. You are hoist by your own petard. Waspidistra 14:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is Aeuio so obsessed with sock puppetry? I understand why Love-in-ark does it: all this sock puppetry melodrama helps the pro-FoF editors since nobody is going to be blocked because there is no vandalism and meanwhile the pro-FoF article remains untouched. What I don't get is why Aeuio, an anti-FoF editor, does it. May be he has a secret pleasure imagining who is a sock of whom (remember the false tip about Moon Rising and Baby Dove that he provided to me, forced me to post and afterwards deleted from my comment?) Why don't we concentrate on the article just for a change? By the way, now is a good time to do some real work: I just noticed that the article is now unprotected. Robertozz 18:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be a response? You are not even gonna bother trying to prove my accusations wrong? (In fact you won't even mention whether or not you are LA)... It seems like the old story - realize you got nothing, throw a joke in there, some wrong info (because as you know MR admitted to sharing an ip with 9P) and say "lets move on" - Which I am sure someone will repeat soon. With people like you (LA) arguing for the fof, I can't even imagine the stupidity of people who read all the comments here and on the fof blog and still feel that everything is justified and right. (But then again, RB probably banned these sites...with his advertising team being the exception that is). Aeuio 18:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Mario is; Moon Rising, Love in ark, Robertozz, stillworking, Baby Dove and 9passions. He has conversations with himself, backs up his own arguments, reaches consensus with himself and stymies anyone seriously attempting to edit from a standpoint that is not pro-FOF, actually now I think about it, there's nobody pro-fof but MarioWantthetruth? 18:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's probably a record. Should we tell Jimbo? Love-in-ark 19:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana asked 3 simple questions: 1) what's the crux of the dispute? 2) what do you want to achieve? and 3) can we use WP guidelines for consensus to get there? Most editors have answered 1 and 2 directly. The rest of the posts above indirectly answer the third question. I think he has more than enough to work with. I only hope we haven't scared him away. Please keep going if you have more to say. --Moon Rising 19:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Vassyana! Sorry you were required again! As you can see, I was not active editing this article the last couple of months or so, and I was frankly not pleased by all the chat and all the mutual accusations of sockpuppetry within the article. At the same time, a new editor started insisting in connecting the Leader of the Fellowship with information about Alex Horn, who is said to have been his teacher 40 years ago, for a yerar and a half, until Mr. Burton left him. This information about Mr. Horn was maily taken from the Rick Ross site, a person with an impressive criminal record according to Rick Ross'felonies. While any other information on Mr. Horn is rare, I was ready to support the creation of a separate article on Alex Horn, but it was deleted before I could even see it. Were any of the things Rick Ross says about Mr. Horn and his wife Sharon Gans, I do not really think they have any value here, considering that Mr. Burton seems to have taken due distance from him 40 years ago. This is a long time, and I do not think it has anything to do with the Fellowship of Friends at this time. Of course, if others think they have reasons to justify mentioning Mr. Horn here, they can show these reasons. But it would help if they limit their comments to verifyable (and respectable) sources, not to old copies of deleted pages that anybody can easily rewrite at their convenience, or records from someone who makes his living out of selling his gossipping on whatever organization he considers a cult (even WP was included as such once within its own articles)! Baby Dove 07:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Baby Glove - "Students, required to sell tickets to the weekly productions (theater presentations by Horn's group), were harangued and physically beaten if ticket quotas were not met. At Horn's instigation, all-night drinking marathons culminating in fist fights were common occurences, all in the name of the teaching. Punishment, in many forms, was a feature of Horn's teaching." could be sourced to "Taking with the Left Hand: Enneagram Craze, People of the Bookmark, & the Mouravieff Phenomenon" Written by William Patrick Patterson, Edited by Barbara Allen Patterson, Arete Communications, Publishers, 1998, ISBN 1-879514-10-9 pg. 110" Would you prefer this reference to Horn?Wantthetruth? 18:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The appropriateness of the information is the crux of the question. This information, IMO, belongs to a Horn/Gans article. It was nice of Aeuio to send you this information to post here for him, but it doesn't justify inclusion. --Moon Rising 19:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are referring to Baby Dove, I already said I see no point in mentioning Horn as a teacher who Mr. Burton left 40 years ago. The book you quote is also part of a disgusting discussion between Patterson, Laura Knight Jadczyk and maybe more people who have written books critizicing each other, probably to disqualify competitors. In it, Patterson also disqualifies Boris Mouravieff, Burton and Horn.

Since this is not a blog, I do not want to be part of a chat full of accusations and disqualifications such as calling people under names. I even saw that you were trying to make telephone numbers not taken from any official site, for anybody to call to ask what they want to. I do not think this would be appropriate, and I do not know where did you get those numbers. If you want to contribute in the article, you are always welcome, but please do not display you bad manners when you do not agree with other editors and do not call them names. Baby Dove 00:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Baby - Still waiting for a good reason not to include Horn, Rumi had Shams, Laurel had Hardy, Burton had Horn, Randazzo had Burton.Wantthetruth? 18:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Do whatever you want, and do not complain if others do not share your ideas... Who is Randazzo? This is not a blog to discuss your likes and dislikes. Baby Dove 07:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Baby - since you asked, this is Randazzo;

"J&C studied under a man named James Vincent Randazzo, who ran a Fourth Way school called "The Spiral of Friends". Randazzo, in turn, learned about The System from Robert Burton and his international "Fellowship of Friends".

Randazzo's legal troubles are well documented. In 1985, he was fined for poaching, and several automatic weapons were removed from his home by police. In 1989, Randazzo and his wife Colleen were convicted of sexually abusing and exploiting children. Four teenagers (two boys and two girls) were given cocaine and videotaped having sex with the couple. The Randazzos claimed the sex was done in the children's own good, as treatment for depression and to boost their self-esteem. The court found otherwise. James was sentenced to seventeen and a half years in prison, and Colleen received ninety days in jail followed by a period of probation. In 1994, the Colorado courts refused Randazzo’s bid for an appeal." http://fourthwaycult.net/lineage.html Wantthetruth? 17:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Babydove said: "Were any of the things Rick Ross says about Mr. Horn and his wife Sharon Gans, I do not really think they have any value here, considering that Mr. Burton seems to have taken due distance from him 40 years ago. This is a long time, and I do not think it has anything to do with the Fellowship of Friends at this time. Of course, if others think they have reasons to justify mentioning Mr. Horn here, they can show these reasons. But it would help if they limit their comments to verifyable (and respectable) sources, not to old copies of deleted pages that anybody can easily rewrite at their convenience" Shame on you Babydove. You know as I know that Burton has claimed throughout these 40 years that Alex Horn was his conscious teacher, to whom he is eternally grateful. Are you saying that the archived webpage of the old FoF website, which claims direct lineage to Gurdjieff through Ouspensky-Pentland-Horn-Burton, has been rewritten at someone's convenience? Look at the lengths you are willing to go to hide something. Are you ashamed? I think the source of many of the editing problems and disputes here on this site is a certain Fellowship belief seen in action: the belief that "only the present moment is real" - which interferes with giving due acknowledgment to past actions or events: history tends to be erased. Wine-in-ark 01:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About payments

I got rid of Gurdjieff's wise words on payment, and changed the title of the section accordingly, because payment should not be justified. It is natural to pay for what one wants. If the official position about it is not enough, the reader can easily ask for more details in person. Baby Dove 23:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi BD! it seems like a long time. I disagree 100% with your edit. The philosophy behind payment is part of the church's beliefs. I don't see it as justification and I think it belongs in this article. On the other hand, quoting the website in its entirety provides more information than this article requires, IMO. Waspidistra, if memory serves, was trying to limit what was said to what I put in. The details really don't seem necessary. As you say, the reader can ask for more detail in person. The article already says that the church is a tax exempt organization so that does not need to be repeated here. What do you think? --Moon Rising 00:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried to make the section shorter and more practical, removing the unnecessary. I believe that the 3 main topics are covered:

• Membership in the Fellowship of Friends requires a financial payment.
• To join, one pays a tithe of 10% gross monthly income, and membership payments are made monthly.
• The membership donation is also presented in a sliding scale, so that newer members are required to pay less than older members until they are able to verify the basic principles of the organization (not awakening and/or sleep, that would be a bold affirmation).

See what you think. Love-in-ark 03:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Love--Concise, factual, and adequately comprehensive. I like it. StillWorking 03:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Still...

It's better. Moon, if the *principle* of payment is important, why not insert a shorter edit of that Gurdjieff quote into an earlier part of the section on the beliefs and practices? The wording of the Payment section is still a bit slippery though, and it could be construed as meaning that members will eventually be paying 10% of gross rather than 10% (minimum $150) being the starting level. I've corrected "monhly" to "monthly" and added a clause, so that it now reads, "Membership in the Fellowship of Friends requires a financial payment. To join, one pays a tithe of 10% gross monthly income, and membership payments are made monthly. The membership donation is also presented in a sliding scale, with additional payments being being added gradually, so that newer members are required to pay less than older members until they are able to verify the basic principles of the organization. " I also changed "religious organization" to the more specific "new religious movement". Waspidistra 09:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to get into reverting, but I do prefer Moon Rising's version, now that I have seen it. I have a problem with 10% of gross as the basic because this is not accurate in itself. The minimum is $150, per month, so someone who earns less than $18,000/yr will be paying more than 10%. Plus, 10% of gross/$150 is the USA basic payment, so can we specify that? I didn't object to the earlier statement concerning reduced payments for students, old people, unemployed etc. because the statement was accurate. Let's post accurate information. If the source isn't accurate, we should post non-specific information until the organization gets around to updating their website with accurate information. Waspidistra 11:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it seems that the Gurdjieff quote I deleted applies to many! The organization mantains centers in about 60 countries, and the "basic" you talk about refers to the US only. In your example of a "minimum" payment you forget that in many Latin American countries, the minimum monthly wage is about what you call "minimum payment!" And there are several centers there... In any case specific cases are not reasonably part of as general article. Besides, a payment waived member in the U.S. can pay less than one from Russia... But you cannot add whatever you like to a quoted paragraph and then refer what you added to the same source. If you have any information regarding payments from a verifiable source (not from sayings or unknown photocopies), please include it separately, though, as I said, the interested reader can get the information of whatever would apply to him or her, personally. Baby Dove 16:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe it, but I agree completely with Want. It seems the payment structure is too complex to be included in an encyclopedia in detail. I would suspect that the official website cites the most common and generally applied standard, and would make sense to use, the topic overall doesn't deserve our time or WP space to argue the fine points, particularly since there are apparently no reliable sources. As someone said above, an interested party can call and find out the details.

Also, since there seems to be general consensus on deleting the words of Gurdjieff explaining the philosophy behind the requirement for payments, there is no reason to have the payments sub-section under the Beliefs and practices heading. Without the philosophy, it becomes an administrative issue, so I moved it under the heading "The organization". Hope you all like this. Do what you like if you don't. --Moon Rising 17:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Mario, please don't agree with something I haven't said! You will be happy if we include the phone number 530 692 8201 so that interested parties can phone and find out the details?Wantthetruth? 18:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Moon meant Wasp, not Want when he said that he agreed with Want, he made that mistake before. Basically, I want the statement about teaching payments to be accurate. Merely stating that there is a monthly donation is accurate. Stating that there are reduced payments for students, unemployed etc is also accurate. Stating that the beginning payment is 10% of gross is incomplete and inaccurate because there is a minimum payment and the rate varies from country to country. The current version "Being a member of the Fellowship of Friends requires a financial payment. Membership payments are made monthly." is accurate and I have no argument with it. Waspidistra 18:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I confused the 2 of you. Both your names start with W, not that that's a good excuse. I guess the possibility of agreeing with Want about something was wishful thinking.--Moon Rising 19:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wasp - I've made a new edit in payments including info for any interested party to call and enquire as moon suggested, does this meet with your wishes?Wantthetruth? 18:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Want - WP is not an instructional manual. If a reader is interested enough to want more information, such as the phone number, he just needs to go to the church's website. --Moon Rising 19:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Moon - so to be consistent with your comments re- any interested parties, we can instead direct people to the FOF web-site and they'll find the phone number there?Wantthetruth? 19:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

There are phone numbers listed on the website for people interested in contacting the organization. I don't understand what you are asking and why. --Moon Rising 03:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Wasp- are you happy with the payment section now? Still no mention of payments increasing radically over two years. When I joined the FOF the increased payments weren't mentioned until 6 months AFTER I joinedWantthetruth? 18:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I modified Wantthetruth?'s modificatrion to the text regarding the contact phones, because the lines are said to contact the organization. I guess it is fine to call and ask for payments, but since the donation situation may vary from person to person and from country to country, I guess only members or people about to become a member would be given any detailed information. I also guess that current members might dislike any disclosing of their personal information...

I have been looking in other churches, such as Mormons, Scientology, etc., or esoteric groups of various kinds and even when it is known that all of them depend on donations from members, I could hardly get any information about the subject on-line. The FOF has some published guidelines in its website, and even so some editors are particularly interested in having a more detailed information beforehand. If the word "identification" deserves any explanation in this article, it seems a very good example... But since nobody seems to talk about their payment requirements, I am starting to think that the very mention of the subject is a real waste of time. The interested reader would manage to get informed before joining, and since the word "donation" refers to voluntary contributions (which can, of course, be deducted from the tax balance). Anyhody not satisfied with what he gets from it, he o she can simply stop paying (and deducting from the tax balance)... Baby Dove 07:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New archive created & sockpuppetry (once again)

I just moved older messages to the Archive 9. Lots of messages these days. If you think that something that was archived needs to be here, just put it back. Cheers, Love-in-ark 03:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Love/Mario - I've reverted your archive, IMO it contains info pertinent to the ongoing discussion. In future please indicate your wish to edit or archive before the event.Wantthetruth? 16:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Want/Stephen - fine with me. As I said, if you think something was archived too soon just put it back. I didn't expect the whole thing to be back, but well, who cares. We have more important things to take care of the moment, like sock puppetry, right? Love-in-ark 07:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

My user name on WP is Moon Rising. I have never edited under another name. Insinuations of otherwise from you and other editors is tiresome at best, and disruptive to the general discussion. Please stop. Mario was an editor many months ago. If you suspect Love of being Mario, then take it to the administrators who handle sockpupptery. I don't know if WP has any policies about trying to "out" the real identity of an editor, but if they don't I think it would be a good idea. Regarding the archive, all of the information in the archives is important, but it is common to archive subjects that are no longer part of the active discussion - personally for me, I have dial-up and was relived to have the page open quickly. If there is a particular part of an archive that is still pertinent to the current discussion, you can move that back into the talk page. The entire archive doesn't need to be reverted. --Moon Rising 17:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Love is Mario, and that you (Moon) aren't. It doesn't matter especially, but Love was making random accusations of sockpuppetry and they rebounded on him. I can understand why Mario wouldn't want his name to be picked up by Google in connection to this page. I'm happy to let it rest as long as Love doesn't start stirring his big spoon again. Waspidistra 18:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Waspidistra is Moon Rising. Wasp pretends that he is a current student with an anti-FoF attitude (yeah, right) but at the end defends the FoF like any pro-FoF editor. His grammar and style and just like Moon's. When Wasp joined Moon left a message on his personal page saying "Why are you still a member of that church? It seems to me you'd be happier elsewhere" (curiously, the message was deleted yesterday, but here it is if you want to check it). We know Moon - he is an example of courtesy and politeness, and will never say something so blunt to another editor...except if the editor is a sock of himself. So, am I a better detective than Aeuio or not? Love-in-ark 07:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Wasp - sounds reasonable, provided the dishonesty ends I'm happy to let it rest too but not if it continues. Over to you Love.Wantthetruth? 18:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

So I am not Moon Rising anymore? That means that I can just be Mario, Robertozz, StillWorking, Baby Dove and 9Passions? Want/Stephen, I hope that in a week or so you will reduce me to 2 or 3 people - this multiple ID business is killing me! By the way, I apologize for what I said at the Post Office when we met the other day. Please drop the account and let's behave like good Wikipedia editors. Can you forgive me? Love-in-ark 07:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Love - Just realised what you're trying to do here, you really are a sad little man. You're pretending that I'm somebody named Stephen who has a personal grudge towards you and that we met recently. Take a look at yourself Mario, is it really worth $400 a month to you to defend a deluded has-been by smearing other people?Wantthetruth? 18:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

There goes the big spoon again, stirring away. Moon Rising, Love-in_ark and 9Passions are meat puppets--three separate people who have been coordinating their edits of the FOF page. Baby Dove has also been coordinating edits with them. 9Passions is Moon's spouse. Moon and Love have worked together. Moon's spouse adopted the name Presence-in-ark at the same time that Mario began using the name Love-in-ark. Baby Dove also worked with Mario in the office. Waspidistra 09:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

My user name is Robertozz and I have never edited under any other ID. If you believe everything that Love-in-ark says then you deserve to spend hours chatting here about nothing. Don't you realize that the whole sock puppetry issue is just a pretext of the pro-FOF editors to turn this page into a blog and turn the attention away from the article? Robertozz 17:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Waspidistra seems to know a lot of other's lives... How does she or he knows that Moon is married to 9 passions? I do not recall any of them saying such a thing... You better stop all this chat. Baby Dove 22:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course Waspidistra knows a lot about Moon Rising and 9Passions, since Waspidistra IS Moon Rising AND 9Passions. It's becoming pretty obvious. Love-in-ark 07:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that this is intended sincerely, but just get an administrator to check my details and s/he will see that it is impossible that I could be MR or 9P/PIA. Oh, and in response to a private communication from another editor, no I don't think it appropriate that references to fisting or to the Mafia passports/French prison sentence be included in the article. Waspidistra 08:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Babydove, on Sept 11, Moon Rising posted "I do share a computer with my spouse, 9Passions (formerly PresenseInArk till the forgotten password episode)". See above. And, yes, I know your identity too. It has become an issue because Love-in-ark keeps making false and misleading accusations of sockpuppetry, so in response I went back to the subject of Fellowship meat puppets. Waspidistra 09:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New religious movement?

After 6 months of having "non-profit religious organization" in the opening paragraph, Moon/Wasp changed it to "non-profit new religious movement". That's the kind of edit that needs to be discussed before, since it is critical. I changed it back to "non-profit religious organization" - let's talk and see what people think. I personally don't agree ("new religious movement" sounds too new age for me). Love-in-ark 08:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

New Religious Movement is a respected, neutral description for organizations such as the Fellowship. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_religious_movement "A new religious movement or NRM is a term used to refer to a religious faith, or an ethical, spiritual or philosophical movement of recent origin that isn't part of an established denomination, church, or religious body." If you look at the bottom of the article page, you will see that New Religious Movements is one of the two Wiki categories into which the FOF fits. BTW, there is no status quo for this page. The next time that you revert a reasonable edit of mine I'm putting it back. Waspidistra 09:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just noticed how many edits Love has made directly to the article, so I've put NRM back into the main article. As I mentioned, it is a neutral term and is the correct term to use for the Fellowship. Waspidistra 09:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Love is starting another edit war. Love, please leave my small and impartial change up on the article. If someone presents me with convincing reasons that religious organization is more accurate an appropriate than NRM then I will change it back. Waspidistra 10:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not an "small and impartial change", this is a critical edit to the first line of the article where the FoF is defined. Considering that, I suggested to leave the text that has been stable for 6 months and discuss the change of "organization" to "new religious movement (NRM)" here to see what other editors think, but Wasp/Moon refused to do it. So I lost a good 30 minutes checking the list of NRMs in Wikipedia (the reason that Wasp/Moon is using for his edit is the the FoF is part of that list, so it has be defined as a NRM in the intro of the article) and I found, amongst others, the following entities: A Course in Miracles, the Fellowship of Isis, New Acropolis, and the Self-Realization Fellowship. Then I checked the articles of those entities and here are the first lines of the intro section for them:

• A Course in Miracles is a book considered by its students to be their "spiritual path".
• The Fellowship of Isis is a modern religious organization devoted to the worship of the Egyptian goddess Isis.
• New Acropolis is a worldwide non-profit organization.
• The Self-Realization Fellowship is a spiritual organization.

Thus the presence of a religious entity in Wikipedias NRM list doesn't mean that its article has to start saying "this entity is a NRM", as common sense indicates. I reverted Wasp/Moon's NRM edit and I hope that this ends the issue. Love-in-ark 06:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Organizations like the Fellowship are referred to as new religious movements. Cult is a perjorative term, new religious movement is a neutral term, and is a common academic category used for all kinds of religious movements that are not traditional churches and not derived from traditional churches. The Wiki category also includes the Jesus movement, House of Prayer Christian Church, Nazarene fellowship, Missionary Church of the Disciples of Jesus Christ, and the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church, so the Fellowship "church" is in good churchy company there. Since no on else has joined in the discussion, I hope that's enough to settle the matter for you Love, and back it goes. Obviously none of the previous editors had thought of including NRM in the text, so I wished to repair that omission. Waspidistra 08:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wasp/Moon, if you are trying to get the article protected again you are doing a great job. We could use the page protection to take a break and spend time with our families... Love-in-ark 09:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've compromised by including both, "The Fellowship of Friends is a non-profit organization, a new religious movement founded in California in 1970 by Robert Earl Burton." Waspidistra 11:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a bad compromise - it looks incomprehensible. I replaced the clumsy "non-profit organization, a new religious movement" by "non-denominational church" since the FoF IS a church and doesn't have any affiliation. This is from Wikipedia on non-denominational churches:

"The term non-denominational refers to those churches which have not formally aligned themselves with an established denomination, or remain otherwise officially autonomous."

Let's make life easier to the visitor of the page, not more complicated because our differences of opinion. The page is for him, not for us. Love-in-ark 17:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the FOF has certainly referred to it a non-denominational church in brochures. But non-denominational churches don't open their Wiki articles by stating such either do they. Let's get the NRM ref somewhere later into the article then. Waspidistra 17:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing the Beliefs and Practices section

I started working on the article to make it more fluid and less a replica of the official web site (some editors would say "less like FoF propaganda"). I worked only on the section The search for "divine presence" to see what you think. I am planning to continue editing the other sections tomorrow. Love-in-ark 08:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

In Esoteric Traditions of the Past I included a sentenced on allegorical interpretation, which is the technique that the FOF uses to interpret sacred texts. When this section gets edited I would like this sentence to remain. Waspidistra 12:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Love - The organisation doesn't have an awakened guide. - That statement IS propaganda you'll have to better. Wantthetruth? 18:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Want, what you wrote above about RB was slander. I deleted your defamatory accusation. Please stick to the facts and reserve your negative opinion about RB to your personal web site and/or blog, not Wikipedia. Thank you. Love-in-ark 07:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you really know this? Can ordinary man say anything on the subject, or he can only crucify people? But, of course, you are only possibly trying to call other's attention to yourself... Baby Dove 21:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The article only says "The organization furthermore believes that with the help of an awakened guide to provide instruction, members can be taught how to be present to their lives" which is acceptable. Waspidistra 08:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What about including mention of exercises in the practices section? The smoking exercise is sourced in the SF eXaminer, http://www.rickross.com/reference/fof/fof7.html Waspidistra 09:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wasp - An entry on Exercises would expand and clarify the "awakened guide providing instruction" statement. Do you have a suggestion for introducing this? Wantthetruth? 18:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure we can get a list of exercises from Girard Haven's books (see section named "Further Reading" at the end of the article). Does anybody have access to them? Robertozz 02:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

In the Criticism section I have added Burton's own defence of his sexual conduct to balance the "Sexual abuse" allegations a little. Waspidistra 09:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a secondary source (Rick Gross says that a newspaper says). Needs to be verified at the source (the newspaper). Love-in-ark 10:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've followed your suggestion and clarified that the statement was from Burton's attorney, and clarified the reference. Yes, I had previously checked the online version of the article against the original and it is an accurate reproduction. It's important for the page to have Burton's own response to the claims of sexual abuse. Waspidistra 11:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop reverting my edit. This is a sympathetic and balanced edit because it gives the Fellowship's response to the sexual abuse allegations. This is a good thing--the FOF attorney says that the sex is consensual. There is no issue with it being a secondary source. Secondary sources are allowed, but in any case, the Rick Ross site has merely reproduced the original article. Waspidistra 16:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

So put the original source, instead. Rick Ross was found guilty of charge several times. Burton never, and you insist in saying "it is important to know his answers to "the accusations"? I think it too pretentious to try to take the Court's place. Baby Dove 16:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wasp, your real nature is coming out. You are a former member posing as a current one. That's why you know so many details about the FoF and that's why you are so negative towards the FoF and pro-FoF editors. Come on, drop the costume and be honest! Love-in-ark 16:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a strange logic: I know so many details about the FoF because I am no longer a member! I'm not negative to pro-FOF editors, just to editors who continually revert reasonable edits. Why are you objecting to the sourced statement that the sex is consensual? Do you have reason to believe otherwise? Waspidistra 17:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Civilized people use to have consensual sex. Nothing would justify talking about the subject in a page like this, then. Where is thew news? Baby Dove 17:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Because "A number of former members have criticized Burton for alleged sexual abuse, behavior control and brainwashing". RB admits the sex but claims that is consensual. That is the FOF response to this piece of criticism. Should we put in a separate "Response to criticism" section instead? I stand by this addition. Oh, and presumably, Love-in-ark, you believe that Moon Rising is an ex-member too, or have you abandoned that particular piece of obfuscation? Waspidistra 17:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I asked for a checkuser on Moon and you yesterday but after you displayed your real nature here today I know that the chances that you are a sock puppet of Moon are minimal. That's why you never denied the accusation - because it was good for you because Moon is a current member and you want to look like one. You fooled some people for a while, but today you are showing who you eally are: a former member posing as a current one. If you are not, please tell me: what is the picture currently on the Tokio page of the Propylaia? Love-in-ark 17:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I did deny the accusation and state that it was ridiculous. If I log into Propylaia (which I can still do) and access that page, the activity log will reveal my identity to you, which I don't wish. BTW, you and Babydove are really a cabal today, or should I say, junta? I'm interested in including factual, sourced info on this page. I won't tolerate it being used to promote the FOF or to hide inconvenient facts. I also won't tolerate abusive anti-FOF material. Waspidistra 17:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You know that many people visit the Propylaia everyday. How will somebody know which one is you? You are getting deeper and deeper in the mud. Stop pretending, join the anti-FoF editing group and let's end this. Everybody is free to have his opinion, pro-FoF, anti-FoF or neutral, but lying and pretending is not nice. Love-in-ark 18:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

So an administrator responded to my protect request. Let's have some fun over the weekend. Just to tidy up the latest bout:- Love, it was established that a few months ago the Wiki page was being edited in parallel with the FOF site, so it's quite reasonable that you would have access to activity logs for Propylaia. I logged in anyway and looked for a page on "Tokio" but couldn't find one. I decided a while ago that if you continued your sniping and goading I would respond in kind, and it looks like you don't like it (short guys often don't) so stop it. We need to restore the history section. Why do we need a history section? Because the Fellowship, like every organization has a history. I haven't made any false claims about my membership. A lot of disaffected students are in the process of leaving. Waspidistra 22:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I asked the admin to put back the history because that was a mindless edit. Aeuio 23:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking

Well it seems that there is some blocking going on around. Love ark is blocked for a day due to the reverting, while Baby Dove is currently indefinitely blocked for being a sock of Love ark (same ip). On top of this, if you look at Waspidistras contributions, you'll see that this edit war is about to escalate. Aeuio 23:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC) PS Contrary to MR's conviction that LA was joking about Wasp=MR, Love ark actually tried to do a checkuser on them. Aeuio 23:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Baby Dove blocked indefinitely for being a sock of Love-in-Ark? Probably the reverse is true, since Baby Dove is an old timer. Anyway, I think that both should be blocked indefinitely, since it is obvious that one is a straw/meat puppet of the other. Also, what do you mean by "if you look at Waspidistras contributions, you'll see that this edit war is about to escalate"? I guess you said that before the page was protected. Robertozz 02:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It's probably best that I don't comment any further on this. In future I will just paste in "My policy is not to reply to any personal attacks" if any Talk is directed at me in that way. I also had a notice about reverts posted to my Talk page. Is there a way of having the page protected indefinitely and having any changes approved by an administrator? That way, we could discuss changes in the Talk and then submit them once we have agreed. I'm happy to use the Talk section to draft entries as long as I feel that reasonable sourced statements have a good chance of being included and will not be reverted immediately. In any case, I'm not going to chat away while the page is locked. Have a good weekend everyone. Waspidistra 08:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of anything. I was just pointing out that when the fof figure out that there is a wiki page on Robert B, Ranzoo, Mario F, and Horn, this edit war will escalate. For what is worth I find you the most neutral person here Wasp. Anyhow, there's no way to get the page protected like that. O, and the admins here are making it clear [1] [2] that the fof ip will be blocked should they disrupt this page because they are not even allowed to substantially edit this page due to WP:COI. Aeuio 11:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Aeiou, that message wasn't directed at you, but to the personal remarks coming from Love-in-ark earlier. If there is any mechanism for permanent protection, I could live with the page as it is now. Waspidistra 14:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability of sources II

Rick Ross appears as quoted reproducing a San Diego Union-Tribune article on Burton, where it is said that his attorney talks of Burton's sexual habits. Every single quote of Rick Ross comes on a yellow page with a red title and text in black characters. This means Mr. Ross edits the news he says he reproduces instead of providing a link to the primary source. And here, he says that the article is as of March, 1995. Can we know the exact date, because the paper's website cannot show news that old, so we cannot verify what Mr. Ross quotes in his website? Love, Love-in-ark 17:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back, Love. Yes, the San Diego Union-Tribune article is not accessible from the free section of its own site. You haven't provided any evidence that Ross is "editing" the articles, only that they have been formatted in accordance with his site design. If you search the Wikipedia site for references to rickross.com on Google (site:www.wikipedia.org rickross.com) you will find that many Wikipedia pages reference that site. Yes, that particular San Diego Union-Tribune article is referenced only to March, 1995, but that article is cited in http://www.rickross.com/reference/fof/fof5.html Trouble Taints a Cerebral Sanctuary Robert Burton created Fellowship of Friends to celebrate the intellect and offer a haven from nuclear holocaust. But claims of a sex scandal have prompted many members to leave. L.A. Times/November 4, 1996 By Jenifer Warren

"Goldman, Burton's attorney, acknowledged in a 1995 article in the San Diego Union that the leader had sex with the senior Buzbee and at least one other male follower. Goldman said it was Burton's policy not to make public comments, and added that "we don't think a [sexual] relationship between a leader and a member of the congregation is abusive in and of itself.""

So take your pick. We can either cite the original article even though it lacks the specific date, or we can cite the 1996 LA Times article. An abstract of the LA Times article is available in the online archives of the LA Times. The text in our FOF WP article might be a little different depending on which article we are citing. I would prefer the original article. Waspidistra 23:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Buzbee could never prove what he says in Court. Neither could anybody else. You might be willing to check the old files in the archive and see that all this has already been discussed before. Besides, you cannot quote all these unproven affairs 12 years afterwards as if they were true. Go and take a good look at the files in Yuba City Courts, and you will discover that most of the case file is sealed to the public, so you can only speculate about it, but you can't take the accusations as being true. And the disgusting way in which a sexual relationship is described in the provided link, proves it is only written to attract more readers. Love-in-ark 00:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The known facts are that the allegations were made, the case was settled out of court, and Burton, via his attorney, admitted having sex with male students but claimed that it was consensual. It is those facts that are in our WP article. Waspidistra 10:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, the Fellowship attempted to sue the LA Times, Jenifer Warren and others connected with the above article. The lawsuit was dismissed and the Fellowship was ordered to pay around $20,000 in fees and costs. http://www.rickross.com/reference/fof/fof1.html So the accuracy of the article can hardly be in doubt. Waspidistra 15:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Waspidistra: You are considering two similar cases from a different point of view. In any case, when there is an out-of-court agreement, there is no way to know whether the accusations are true. In the Buzbee case, the parts were forced not to make the terms of the agreement public, so maybe Mr. Ross is violating this secret by saying what this attorney might have said. And in case he is not doing so, what he says in his own website in black, yellow and red, cannot be taken seriously. He was guilty-of-charge in several crimes, and there are plenty of websites where people he attacks fights him back. But it would be a sort of blog to copoy all these articles here. I suggest you googling "Rick Ross guilty of charge" and see what comes up. Love Love-in-ark 04:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The articles were not written by Rick Ross, but come from reputable newspapers. I agree that Ross' blog or message board would be inappropriate, but the newspaper articles are reputable sources. BTW, I put up a brief article about Randazzo, if you would like to add material to it. Waspidistra 08:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

As a further clarification, the articles quotes Laurel senior, with whom Burton (or his attorney) acknowledged having a sexual relationship. The out of court settlement was made to Buzbee, Laurel Jr. Waspidistra 08:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The newspapers are reputable sources, but a web site that reproduces the newspapers' articles is not. Mr. Ross can edit the articles on his web site, and there is no proof that he didn't. Either we find the original articles or the information has to be removed. Mfantoni 10:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The article matches the the abstract available for free on the LA Times site (see above.) Do you have any evidence that Ross has tampered with newspaper articles? If we cite the article as coming from the LA Times will that satisfy you? If I pay to access the article from the LA Times site, or look it up in library archives? If I do so, how am I expected to prove to you that the article is the same as the version on the Rick Ross site? Waspidistra 00:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia asks for sources to be verifiable (bold in the original):

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

We can't demand for readers of the article to pay in order to verify the Los Angeles Times article, so the article is not verifiable. Mfantoni 05:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It is verifiable as a print source even if you do not accept the online version. Sources do not have to be online (even though this one actually is.) Taking with the Left Hand, Creating a Soul and Deadly Cults are all referenced and none of them are online. This is just obstructive behavior. If I drove mfantoni, love-in-ark and Baby dove down to the LA Times office (my car only has three seats, but that shouldn't be a problem) you would tell me that it's a Hollywood set. Waspidistra 08:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Waspidastra's text above "If I drove mfantoni, love-in-ark and Baby dove down to the LA Times office (my car only has three seats, but that shouldn't be a problem) you would tell me that it's a Hollywood set" is sarcastic; it groups editors that disagree with his position in order to make fun of them. Is this kind of posting that makes consensus (or at leat compromise) almost impossible. Mfantoni 16:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope someone takes note of this. The LA Times published an article on the Fellowship, the Fellowship sues for defamation and their case was thrown out. The article is available in public libraries in the state and elsewhere, can be purchased for download online, and is reproduced at the Rick Ross site. This is rock solid as a source, and yet mfantoni is still disputing it. Additionally, I am only quoting the Fellowship's own defense of Robert Burton's sexuality. Waspidistra 08:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"We can't demand for readers of the article to pay in order to verify the Los Angeles Times article, so the article is not verifiable."??? Ummm.. Why is referencing books ok then? They cost money. Aeuio 16:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this article protected?

Can anybody explain to me why is the article protected? I checked the history and it looks that the article was pretty stable and that the reverts were about minor changes to the article. The discussion here seems very civilized also. Thank you. Ikagen 04:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There was a revert war, sock or meat puppetry plus false allegations of other sock or meat puppetry, then some vandalism done by deleting the entire history section. Plus a COI (Conflict of Interest) because two editors were editing this page from a Fellowship of Friends Internet connection. Waspidistra 10:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

Several people told me recently that I was being attacked on this Talk page so I decided to break my interval of 3 months and take a look at it today. I was shocked to see that several editors are attacking me without any warnings or punishment. I also noticed that an editor even created a page for me on Wikipedia, most likely to direct more attacks to me since I am not a person that has done anything that deserves a personal page in Wikipedia. I will be monitoring both this page and the one that was created about me to make sure that personal attacks are reported. This is not my policy, this is Wikipedia's policy. Let me make this clear: I will not tolerate personal attacks, and I will report any attack to Wikipedia Administration. Mfantoni 23:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Mfantoni, I will take you in good faith. The Wiki page about you contains only factual information about you and your business, but if you tag it for deletion I won't protest. Love-in-ark was suspected to be a sock puppet of you, and even claimed to be you at one point. He was posting from a Fellowship Internet connection so you might want to go over and talk to him. However, your own history as an editor was hardly exemplary. Waspidistra 08:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I was browsing through the archives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fellowship_of_Friends/Archive_6#Sockpuppeting_or_advertising2 and saw that Babydove and Mario Fantoni previously made edits from the same IP address, and now recently Baby Dove and Love-in-ark made edits from the same IP address, and in both cases these were Fellowship IP addresses. So it's not surprising that your name came up again in connection with suspected sockpuppeteering. If you are not the same person as Love-in-ark, then at least three separate editors have been editing this article from the Fellowship offices, which increases the COI. Waspidistra 09:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't care who is or was suspected to be a sock puppet of me. I am not here to discuss suspicions. Regarding several editors using a Fellowship of Friends internet connection, if that is a COI it has to be decided by Wikipedia, not us, so I won't discuss that topic because it is a waste of time. Postings mentioning suspicions of sock puppetry or COI will be ignored in the future. Mfantoni 09:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It's like me saying "Original research has to be decided by Wikipedia, not us, so I won't discuss that topic..." WP:COI is wikipedia's policy and has to be followed by everyone and it won't be ignored.

And everyone had agreed to stop the sock accusations if LA would stop, but he didn't. So you can address him about that first. Aeuio 12:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't get me wrong. I didn't mean that I will ignore Wikipedia's COI policy, I said that I will ignore comments from others editors about COI on this page. Also, I didn't say for editors to stop sock puppetry accusations, I said that I will ignore them. So, bottom line, I care about only one thing: the article. Of course, if the personal attacks against me continue I will take the appropriate measures. Mfantoni 19:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Mfantoni, caring only about the article is not enough. You have to follow Wiki guidelines, including those about COI and sockpuppetry. I've just searched this page, and the only personal attack on Mario that I found was the following:- "Hey Mario, look we know you're on a paid salary from the fellowship to block anyone trying to edit, but constant claims that the other guy needs to calm down are below the belt even for you!Wantthetruth? 23:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Want, here is Mario. You are wrong. I am not paid by the FoF to work on Wikipedia, I actually pay them. Love-in-ark 06:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)"

All of the other references that were critical of Mario were in connection with Love-in-ark being a sockpuppet of Mfantoni, which were not unreasonable because Mfantoni and Baby Dove were shown by administrators to have shared an IP address previously, and Baby Dove and Love-in-ark recently shared an IP address, and Love-in-ark has a very similar style to Mario, and in the above quotation claimed to be Mario. So I don't feel that Mario has any real complaint to make, except to Love-in-ark and wantthetruth. Some personal remarks were addressed to Love-in-ark by myself, but not to mfantoni. As we have seen, both mfantoni and Love-in-ark have posted from the FOF office, so perhaps mfantoni should speak to Love-in-ark (or email him) concerning the personal attacks. Waspidistra 23:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to mention the following comment (bolds are mine):

Love - Just realised what you're trying to do here, you really are a sad little man. You're pretending that I'm somebody named Stephen who has a personal grudge towards you and that we met recently. Take a look at yourself Mario, is it really worth $400 a month to you to defend a deluded has-been by smearing other people? Wantthetruth? 18:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the kind of attack that I will report. Mfantoni 04:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I didn't say that I am not going to follow Wikipedia's policies, I said that I am going to ignore comments about suspicions of sock puppetry and endless discussions about COI between editors in order to concentrate on the article. If somebody still doesn't understand this is because he or she doesn't want to understand it and I have nothing to do about it. Waspidistra, if you want to talk about the article, I am all ears. If you want to talk about other editors, I am out of it. Mfantoni 04:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia's editing guidelines

Waspidistra edited several of his own posts, even after other editors had commented on them. This is against Wikipedia's guidelines for Talk pages, that clearly state:

"It is best to avoid changing your own comments. Other users may have already quoted you with a diff (see above) or have otherwise responded to your statement. Therefore, use "Show preview" and think about how your amended statement may look to others before you save it."

I reverted Waspidistra's edits to his own comments for the exchanges to make sense. Mfantoni 05:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, changing the time of an earlier post generates confusion. Why would somebody do that? I noticed that it happened several times today, that's why I mention it here. Mfantoni 05:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I also noticed that some editors never fill the "Edit Summary" field when editing the article and the Talk page. This is also against Wikipedia's editing guidelines (Edit Summary section), that say (bold in the original text):

"Always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Accurate summaries help people decide whether it is worthwhile for them to check a change. "

Wikipedia's editing guidelines exist for a reason. Mfantoni 05:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I made those edits very soon after the original posts and there was no response from another editor in between. As for summarie, yes I always forget to do that, so I'll try to do it. Waspidistra 08:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archive 10

I have created a new archive, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fellowship_of_Friends/Archive_10, of the five sections at the top of the article. WP still thinks that the Talk Page is a little too long. If anyone feels that the sections still belong to the current talk page, please paste them back in. Waspidistra 08:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Departing

Well, this page is taking up too much of my time, so I'm not going to edit it, at least for a while. I hope it stays protected. I notice that Moon Rising, who was the most reasonable of the pro-FOF faction, has also disappeared. The page is fairly acceptable to me as it stands, except that the section on teaching could be cut down a bit. I regret that let myself be goaded by some of the editors here. On a personal note, the behavior of of the pro-Fellowship editors on this page is one of the factors that has made me decide to leave the Fellowship. I hope all visitors read this talk page. Waspidistra 09:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Here I am back so soon. Mfantoni has nominated the articles on James Randazzo, Alexander Francis Horn and Robert Earl Burton for deletion. I have no problem with his own page being deleted, since that is his own business, even though his adaptation of the Taguchi method to advertising might be worthy of Wiki notability. Randazzo's inclusion might be arguable. But the other deletions are once again obstructive. Horn and Burton were/are the leaders of new religious movements and are both published by respected new age/esoteric publishers, Element Books and Weiser. The information on those pages is sourced and neutral. If an editor wishes to contest the deletions, please edit the following:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Earl_Burton#Robert_Earl_Burton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alexander_Francis_Horn#Alexander_Francis_Horn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Vincent_Randazzo#James_Vincent_Randazzo Waspidistra 09:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wasp - sorry to hear you're leaving this page, glad to hear you're leaving the Fellowship, congratulations and thanks for your many, mostly willfully obstructed efforts here to arrive at a neutral page.Wantthetruth? 17:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately, Wikipedia is based on the Law of Large Numbers and at the end neutrality prevails. If that were not the case there would not be a Wikipedia. Mfantoni 21:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About the purpose of the History section

Wantthetruth, the text you added about Alex Horn and James Randazzo belongs to the Horn and Randazzo articles, not to the History section of the Fellowship of Friends. If we add to the History section information about Robert Burton's teachers and former Fellowship members the section will grow tremendously and its purpose (to inform the reader about the history of the Fellowship) will be defeated. Also, I noticed that you don't complete the Edit Summary field when you edit the article or the Talk page. Filling the Edit Summary is a Wikipedia guideline and saves other editors a lot of time. Thanks. Mfantoni 00:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, that will be the Horn and Randazzo articles you've tagged for deletion? Still up to your old tricks Mario. Both references are entirely relevant to the histiory section of the FOF. DON'T start another edit war MarioWantthetruth? 00:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

My user name is Mfantoni, not Mario. I have to remind you that Wikipedia's Talk page guidelines expressely ask for editors not to disclose other editor's personal details without their consent when they state (bold in the original): "Never post personal details: Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time, including indefinitely." On the other hand, the text "Still up to your old tricks Mario" is a personal attck and it is also against Wikipedia's policies that clearly say (bold in the original): "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia." Next, the text "DON'T start another edit war Mario" is not only a disclose of personal information but a threat. That is not acceptable. Finally, you are still not filling the Edit Summary field, so you are forcing all other editors to go through all your edits in order to find the ones they are interested. I advised you to do it and your refusal shows a lack of cooperation. I removed again your addition of Horn and Randazzo information to the History section because you still didn't present the reasons for that addition. Mfantoni 03:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I also removed the last paragraph where it was said that Rick Ross is quoting "San Diego Union-Tribune of 1995." He is talking about living persons and putting sayings in their mouth without giving further context. The FOF attorney cannot legally make any statement regarding Buzbee's case, because the out-of-court settlement establishes so (for both parts). It is easy to make an article in a website saying that it reproduces what a paper said. If this really happens, a link to the original could be easily provided, but here there is not even a date. Due to the delicacy of the case, it would be good to have an appropriate citation there. Baby Dove 04:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Baby Dove - Your edit is vandalism the reference is fine. mfantoni - You've been given reasons for inclusion of the references several times. Horn was Burton's teacher he is an unmistakeable part of Fellowship history, Burton was Randazzo teacher same point. what is needed from you is a reason why not to include. Being frightened that the history section will fill up is not a reason if you continue to revert reasonable edits i'll report you for vandalismWantthetruth? 06:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Wahntthetruth, your claim that "Horn was Burton's teacher he is an unmistakeable part of Fellowship history, Burton was Randazzo teacher same point" is not reasonable because Burton had other teachers and the Fellowship has other former members, so according to your logic we will have to add information on them and the History section will soon be larger than the rest of the article. We have to remember that the Fellowship of Friends is a small religious group with approximately 2,000 members, and the Wikipedia article must be suscint and concise. Please discuss your point of view here instead of reverting my edits and threatening to start an edit war. Mfantoni 09:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

mfantoni - Can you see that it's your logic which is the problem here? The History section of the article is the place to add information regarding the History of the Fellowship of Friends, Horn and Randazzo represent significant milestones in that History. If you want to add information about Burton's other teachers you're at liberty to introduce that for discussion here. It doesn't follow either that we'll have to introduce information regarding other former members though once again, if you wish to do this please introduce this for discussion. The issues are seperate and linked in your mind only. On the subject of reverting, it was you who reverted wasn't it? Please try to think your arguments through in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, if there is a difficulty with language perhaps you can discuss the subject with a colleague before writing here, - just a thought and please don't take offence, I know English is your second language and that outside this context you seem to be a very intelligent man - thanksWantthetruth? 19:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits without a mere summary

Wantthetruth?,

Please leave a summary of your edits, at least, especially when other editors have even justified theirs in the talk page. Thank you. Baby Dove 04:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page protected

A substantial number of edits to this page appear to be in violation of WP:COI. As such, I have protected this page until this issue is resolved. There's been a discussion on my talk page but please feel free to move the discussion here instead. --Yamla 15:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion in Yamla's talk page

According to what he suggested, I am copying the said discussion:

Hello, Yamla. This is related to the IP range block at the Fellowship of Friends page. I am an editor of that page and my company rents an office at a building owned by the Fellowship of Friends. Sometimes I do edits from the office, but since last Thursday I am not able to edit any Wikipedia page if I connect to the interned through the connection that I use at the office (it is included in the rent). Note that besides me there are more than 70 people working in this building that can’t edit any Wikipedia page at the moment. The reason that was used for blocking the building’s connection is COI. I can’t understand this. Why is it that a person editing Wikipedia from this building is a case of COI but the same person editing from anywhere else is not? Wikipedia should block editors, not IP ranges, so I am asking for the IP block to be released. I am copying several administrators in this message. Mfantoni 17:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned that rather a lot of people who work on a building and are supplied with Internet by the Fellowship of Friends are actually editing that page. Could you please let me know exactly how you, for example, are related to the Fellowship of Friends. Perhaps you are entirely unconnected except that you are employed by a company which rents office space from them. Perhaps you are employed by a company owned by the parent company (if one exists). Perhaps you are employed by a company that has a closer relationship to the Fellowship of Friends than simply being a tenant. Anyway, if you could please let me know. There are some seriously troublesome issues at work here but please understand that I am not accusing you of anything. The problem is simply that a significant number of people using the IP addresses belonging to the Fellowship of Friends is editing the Fellowship of Friends article. --Yamla 17:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that WP:COI applies regardless of where a person is editing from. If a person is associated with the Fellowship of Friends and is violating WP:COI, they would be violating this guideline regardless of whether they edited from an IP address owned by the Fellowship of Friends or edited from a home address. The IP address range is blocked because of the substantial undisclosed conflict of interest problems with that article. However, this should not be taken to mean that it would be appropriate for people with a conflict of interest to continue editing from other addresses. Nothing could be further from the truth. --Yamla 17:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, let me try to clarify the situation. I am a current member of the Fellowship of Friends, and that is my only connection with the organization. I am not paid by the Fellowship of Friends to edit Wikipedia, or to do any type of PR for the organization. My company rents an office at the Fellowship of Friends building, and I share a Fellowship of Friends internet connection with other 70 people. Mfantoni 17:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I believe it inappropriate for you to edit the article on Fellowship of Friends. It would still be appropriate for you to discuss the article on that page's talk page, however. Are you aware of anyone on that IP address range who is not associated with Fellowship of Friends (not a member, not employed by them, not employed by a related company) who is currently blocked from editing as a result of the IP address range block? --Yamla 17:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that being a member of the Fellowship of Friends is a reason for me not to edit the article? Are members of the Catholic church forbidden to edit the article on the Catholic church? Are French people not appropriate to edit the article about France? This looks like discrimination to me. Mfantoni 18:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You are a member of the Fellowship of Friends. You are editing from an IP block owned by the Fellowship of Friends. Do you seriously not see why someone would not think this is a conflict of interest? In fact, it appears that you have a management position in the Fellowship of Friends, at least according to this source. Please reread WP:COI. --Yamla 18:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

May be you are not familiar with religious articles. Vassyana, an administrator with experience with religious articles that worked as a mediator in the past, mentioned that any page about a religious organization has editors that are current members of the organization, former members, and people that never belonged to the organization (I can find the diff if you wish). Finally, the link you mentioned above states that I was part of the management team of Kelly Services, not the Fellowship of Friends. Mfantoni 18:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If you wish, I can bring this matter up on the conflict of interest noticeboard, WP:COIN. Do you believe this would be an appropriate forum? If not, I can come up with some other suggestions. --Yamla 18:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I also without reservation apologise for claiming that you were in a management position with the Followship of Friends. You are correct, the link I provide indicates that you are part of the management team of Kelly Services. I want to also reiterate that I am concerned about COI on Fellowship of Friends but even if you are "guilty" of violating this guideline, please understand that I am not claiming you have been acting in bad faith. It's easy enough to violate one of Wikipedia's numerous policies and guidelines while having nothing but honest intentions, as I believe to be the case here. --Yamla 18:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologize - this case is not easy and you are trying to collect as much information as you can. Thanks anyway. Mfantoni 00:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Mario, members of a faith may edit pages about their group. However, this is a case of members of a group editing from internet access owned by the group. If an employee of Ford Motors were editing from a company IP, or a member of the Community of Christ were editing from a church IP, there would be similar concerns about a conflict of interest. It is not purely membership which is a concern, but also editing from a Fellowship owned site. It is difficult in this instance, to say the least, to distinguish between edits from official Fellowship offices and those originating from leased offices in the same location. Please consider the situation and understand how outside sysops may view the matter. Vassyana 19:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

In my understanding the difference between somebody editing from a company owned IP (or site) and somebody editing from a church owned IP (or site) is that in the first case the editor is probably being paid by the company (he is probably an employee or a contractor) but in the second case the editor may be a member of the church with no financial compensation. I examined WP:COI in depth and couldn't find anything mentioning that affiliation to a religious organization and editing from that organization's IP (or site) is a case of COI. Mfantoni 22:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Mario you are complaining that the fof ip was blocked while you are forgetting that Vass unblocked Baby Dove. The last time I complained about the fact that you and Baby Dove share an ip, I was told "Clearly the same person, but I don't see a violation of the sockpuppet policy here. If you can show that these accounts jointly violated 3RR, or something similar (including disrupting the mediation on the Fellowship of Friends page, then that would be a blockable offense; but there's nothing to do based on the evidence presented here. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)". And now when the 3rr was present, in the end, still nothing happened. In other words, you are free to make as many sock puppets you want and, as demonstrated recently, even if they break wiki rules nothing will happen. (I am sure you'll find ways to take advantage of that). PS Yamala, Mario's company does advertising. So when he is all worked up about how "there are more than 70 people working in this building that can’t edit any Wikipedia page at the moment." I hope you are a little alarmed. Keep up the good work Aeuio 20:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Replied to Aeuio on his Talk page. Mfantoni 22:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This was indeed a personal attack and is inappropriate here (or elsewhere on Wikipedia). See WP:NPA. --Yamla 22:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

As it was said before in this discussion using your page and patience, articles on religious organizations usually have members, non members and former members as editors. Of course, former members usually edit against the organization for the same reasons making them leave it, and current members edit in its favor for emotional reasons. It is a mystery what a non member will do if he or she feels attracted to take part in the page.

If you find it is really totally inappropriate that the FOF internet connection would be used to edit the article on the FOF, I still believe I have to remind you that you could block the IP address because it is a broadband connection, and that you could not be able to do it with a dial-up address.

So, this is what I can say by now, besides that I believe I have been quite civilized in the time I have been editing, while other editors have spent their editing time surrounded by ironies or even negative references towards other editors.

I apologize for making a long story in your page, but I felt some discrimination towards myself and it is now, after more than a week that I am able to deffend myself. Baby Dove 03:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocking the IP address range for Fellowship of Friends clearly did not resolve the COI as editors with possible conflicts have continued to edit, presumably via other addresses. This is why I have protected the page. My offer to take this issue to WP:COIN still stands. My concern is that this article is being edited repeatedly by people who either work for the Fellowship of Friends or at least work in the same building and in many cases, are members of the Fellowship of Friends. This does not necessarily violate WP:COI but I am more than a little concerned that a significant proportion of the edits are coming from the Fellowship of Friends IP address range. I'm not singling out individual editors here. --Yamla 17:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yamla, as I mentioned on your Talk page, yesterday I took the case to COIN. The current discussion is here. Thanks for the suggestion. Mfantoni 18:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry, I'm a bit behind. --Yamla 18:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocking the IP address range for Fellowship of Friends clearly did not resolve the COI as editors with possible conflicts have continued to edit, presumably via other addresses. This is why I have protected the page. My offer to take this issue to WP:COIN still stands. My concern is that this article is being edited repeatedly by people who either work for the Fellowship of Friends or at least work in the same building and in many cases, are members of the Fellowship of Friends. This does not necessarily violate WP:COI but I am more than a little concerned that a significant proportion of the edits are coming from the Fellowship of Friends IP address range. I'm not singling out individual editors here. --Yamla 17:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. As you see, I am not editing from a FOF IP address. I fully understand the administrator's concerns about using a Fellowship IP to edit an article on the Fellowship of Friends. However, I do not fully share this idea, since several people in the building is not related to the church. Though this seems to be rather weird to some, I can assure that the Building where the Catholic Church have the Administrative and Justice officers in some countries (the "Curia"), has some people having their own offices there as well. This does not mean they have nothing to do with the church, of course, but their business are independent from the organization.

You have said in my talk page: "Please note that WP:COI applies regardless of where a person edits from." However, I think that this can be applied when one undoubtedly knows who the editor is and what is his or her relationship to the subject of the article.

The last days, a newer editor started making changes in the article, which has been relatively stable for a couple of months, insisting on bringing back negative opinions on the organization and its founder. Finally, he recognized that he is a former member of the organization. Is not this another example of COI? Baby Dove 17:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been unable to find any evidence that anyone not related to the Fellowship of Friends has been editing this article from the Fellowship of Friends IP address. Can you please provide evidence of this? And please note that I have blocked all edits to this article due to COI concerns. I am not taking sides here. --Yamla 17:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Yamla, what sort of evidence? How do you know you are not talking to a non member of the Fellowship of Friends right now? You have to prove what you say, not claim for evidence on the contrary! Baby Dove 07:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yamla, why is it necessary to find an editor of the FOF page that works in the Fellowship building and is not related to the Fellowship? This implies that somebody should go to each office in the building and ask everybody (that's 70 people), "Are you editing the FOF page in Wikipedia? If yes, are you related to the FOF?" I think that you will agree that that would be a violation of people's privacy. And if somebody finds a person editing the FOF page from the FOF building that claims that he or she is not related to the FOF, will you then unblock the IP range? How can we be certain that he or she is not related to the FOF? I would appreciate if you could explain to me the rationale behind your request. Thank you. Mfantoni 09:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:COIN. Really, let's try to keep the discussion in one place. Without going into details, there's clearly a substantial conflict of interest going on here. The current position of WP:COIN appears to be disallowing anyone working in the Fellowship of Friends building from editing the Fellowship of Friends article, as per WP:COI. If you truly do not see why it is a conflict of interest for a person to edit the Fellowship of Friends from an IP address range owned by the Fellowship of Friends when we also have no reason to believe anyone who has done so is not also a member of the Fellowship of Friends then I would dispair of explaining things further because it clearly would not do any good. Yes, there's a possibility that we may hit some non-members but there's no reason to believe this has been the case so far. All further discussion should take place on WP:COIN, please. --Yamla 14:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yamla, yesterday you said "There's been a discussion on my talk page but please feel free to move the discussion here instead" and today you said "All further discussion should take place on WP:COIN, please". Could you explain where are we supposed to discuss this issue? Thank you. Mfantoni 17:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Wantthetruth, you are the real vandal. What you are doing with this page is pathetic. Are you trying to get rid of excess negative energy because you can't attack the FOF since the page is protected? Love-in-ark 03:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Love in ark - Please place your edits sequentially i.e. at the bottom of the current discussion in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. -thanks Wantthetruth? 20:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

mfantoni - In keeping with Wikipedia guidelines, this is my second and last warning to you that I'll report you for vandalism if you continue to revert reasonable edits for no good reason.Wantthetruth? 18:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

My behavior is not considered vandalism according to Wikipedia guidelines, that state that:

"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles. Any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism; careful attention needs to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well intended, or outright vandalism."

The fact that you call me a vandal doesn't make me a vandal - it is a personal attack and it is extremely inappropriate. Mfantoni 18:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

On another note, the place for warnings is on editors' User pages, not article's Talk pages. Mfantoni 19:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

mfantoni - Sorry that you don't seem to understand the guideline you've posted, perhaps you can ask someone to explain it you? Wantthetruth? 00:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Your last comment is sarcastic and shows a hidden agenda. Notice that I am not attacking you, just trying to open a dialog, but it seems that you are not willing to cooperate. I understand your frustration with my point of view of the article, but we still need to find a way to communicate without personal attacks or sarcasm. A good point for both of us to start is Wikipedia's article No angry mastodons, that includes useful advice about how to deal with differences amongst editors. Here is an excerpt:

"There are several informal ways to de-escalate conflicts and defuse disputes. Wikipedia collaboration occurs between geographically isolated people in cyberspace. Nonetheless, sometimes editors get angry and feel a natural urge to fire off an immediate retort. (...) One of the best experiences at Wikipedia happens among editors with deep differences. People don't have to agree about a topic to collaborate on a great article. All it takes is mutual respect and a willingness to abide by referenced sources and site policy. If you think you're right, dig up the very best evidence you can find and put that in the article. Let the other side's best evidence be a challenge to raise your own standards and always bear the big picture in mind: we're here to provide information for nonspecialists."

Note that the article is not a policy or a guideline (it's an essay); I thought that it could be useful for both of us. The very last phrase, "we're here to provide information for nonspecialists", is the key issue for me. The article is not about what you or I think about the Fellowhip of Friends, it is about informing nonspecialists that perhaps want basic information about the FoF, not about its founder's teacher or former members' criminal record. That's my opinion and I hope that you take it into account before replying to this message. Thank you. Mfantoni 01:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

mfantoni - Actually my comment was sincere, sad that you've grown accustomed to taking offenceWantthetruth? 05:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

So your comment "Sorry that you don't seem to understand the guideline you've posted, perhaps you can ask someone to explain it you?" was sincere and I've grown accustomed to taking offense? This is my last warning - I am going to report you if you continue. Mfantoni 09:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wantthetruth? Please leave a summary after an edit. Many times it is enough for others to see what have you done and why, just in this tiny summary in the "Edit summary" box. Other times, perhaps a longer explanation can be needed in controversial edits. This is particularly valuable in case you delete or revert other editor's contributions. I have seen that you tend to forget this, save when you create a new item (just because in this case it is not necessary), but it is a rule from WP to do it. A reversion or deletion without any comment or summary is not good, especially if other editors have explained their position with a summary and a commentary in the talk page. Baby Dove 07:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

mfantoni - please don't edit the subject line in the talk page, this changes the context of the discussion and is misleading to others. I have added my warning to you regarding vandalism to your user page as you requested. Hopefully we will not see a repeat from you of the reverts you seem to feel you are at liberty to make, IMO these cast both you and the Fellowship of Friends in a very bad light which seems to be the opposite of what you intend. Anyway just to be sure there is no misunderstanding down the line, you now have the warning of my intentions both here and on your user page - thanks

You can't name a section "mfantoni - Vandalism" just because you don't agree with my POV. Also, there isn’t a Wikipedia guideline that tells not to change section titles; on the contrary, section titles do change often when their content develops. You can find many examples on this Talk page's edit history, if you wish I can provide the diffs. Mfantoni 00:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Baby Dove - The warning re-vandalism is on your user page too in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines and I've filled the little edit box you're so insistent upon with the heading, vandalism-mfantoni, baby dove I hope this is satisfactory for you.Wantthetruth? 18:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wantthetruth, once again, here is Wikipedia's position regarding vandalism (from WP:Vandalism):

"The most common types of vandalism include:

• the addition of obscenities or crude humor
• page blanking, or
• the insertion of nonsense into articles."

Therefore Baby Dove's removal of the information you added about the FOF lawyer speaking about Burton because it is unsourced and my deletion of the information about Alex Horn and James Randazzo to the History section because they don't belong there are not an addition of obscene material, page blanking or insertion of nonsense, so they are not vandalism according to Wikipedia (they are only vandalism according to Wantthetruth). Mfantoni 00:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I just posted this case to the Administrator intervention against vandalism page to see what they think. Let's see. Mfantoni 00:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

mfantoni - Calm down, take a break if you need to. I have no issue with your point of view as such, it simply doesn't give you the right to revert edits for no good reason, may I remind you that this is not your page although you seem to act as if it is. If you were able to act in good faith we would not be in this situation. FYI I have left a comment with administrator too. Get some rest - thanksWantthetruth? 01:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I am calm, don't worry. If you read this whole section again it is clear that the one that needs to calm down is you. My posts are longer. articulate, and take into accoutn your input; yours are very short, with typos ("offence") and ignore my comments (see bold text below). May I suggest again for you to read the essay No angry mastodons? Here are some pointers from it (bolds are mine):

All humans share the ancient fight or flight instinct. It feels very real but it isn't the smartest part of our brains; it's something we have in common with reptiles. When tempers start to flare and an editor gets hot under the collar, it's a good idea to remember that the mastodons have all been extinct for thousands of years. Nobody ever got trampled to death because they were editing an encyclopedia.

Get a glass of water. Walk around the block. Go wash the dishes. The feeling will pass after a few minutes and you will be less likely to write things you would regret afterward.

It is easy to tell when an editor acted in anger and haste. The edit contains inflammatory language and is poorly written or appears to ignore other editors' input. The best way to resolve this is to remain calm, focus on the subject matter, and allow the other editor a graceful retreat from a momentary lapse. Wikipedia:Resolving disputes can address persistent problems.

Edit on a full stomach. Somehow people tend to be smarter, nicer, and happier after they've eaten a meal. Even a light snack can take the edge off of aggression.

Edit when you're fully awake. Sleep deprivation does screwy things to your mind, and to your writing skills. If you're jet-lagged, exhausted after a long day, or up at 3 AM after finishing an arduous term paper, DON'T EDIT! Put your hands in the air and step AWAY from the Wikipedia. If you edit while sleep-deprived, you could end up doing things as banal as making dumb mistakes that make you feel stupid when they get reverted, to things as potentially damaging as losing your temper, blowing your top, insulting all your friends and colleagues and turning them into enemies.

Drink minimal amounts of alcohol. (also see Wikipedia:Editing Under the Influence). People are not always smarter and nicer after consuming large quantities of alcohol, even though they may feel smarter and nicer. Fuses may be shorter and inhibitions less; be cautious about editing after drinking.

Write your own stress scale. One way to keep Wikipedia in perspective is to write your own Richter scale for stress. Choose an event from your life for every number, starting with 1 for something like I stub my toe and ending with 10 for the worst thing that ever happened to you such as a death in the family. Where would you rank a broken arm or the loss of a job? Where's Wikipedia? It's good to keep things in perspective.

If all else fails. Consider writing on a text editor on your local computer. You can then see what you've said later and decide how and whether to insert it into the Wikipedia article. If you use your text editor (or liquor) liberally, you can adopt this mantra: Write drunk, edit sober.

I hope this helps. Take care. Mfantoni 15:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

mfantoni - I've asked you politely not to edit the subject line in the talk page categories. This changes the context for the discussion and is misleading to others. Hopefully you are not intentionally trying to mislead people here? I am asking you politely again not to revert well intentioned input and to show a little respect for your fellow WP editorsWantthetruth? 17:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Want, where did you find this policy that we are not supposed to edit Talk page section titles? Is that from Wanthetruth Wikipedia Guidelines? Nice try. Love-in-ark 03:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mutual accusations of vandalism

Wantthetruth? Do you really think my explained deletion of second-handed information is vandalism and your unexplained reverts (not even with a summary) are not vandalism? I have talked about your unexplained edits more than once (see the FOF's article talk page), and you did not even answered my comments in the talk page. Instead, you put a phrase on "reasonable edits" referring to yours, as if other's oppinion were not worth been even considered. If I ask whether the words you put in Mr. Goldman's mouth were or were not violating the terms of an out-of-court settlement, is because I have already read what it is said on the archives about this. But you do not answer and warn me in my own page (not in my talk page). Changing what I put in my own page, which is mine, not everybody's, can be considered vandalism of your part, and as such I will address to some editor's talk pages. Hope you calm down a little bit and start trying to follow WP guidelines for editing. Baby Dove 05:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Baby Dove - is this the article you are referring to? It clearly references the source, journalist and date

"Burton would kiss [Troy Buzbee] on the forehead, which he said represented the seat of the soul and then instruct [Buzbee] to 'separate' from his body and just 'let go,' " said the suit, which alleged the sexual encounters continued for more than five years and that Burton had sex with other young men. Although Buzbee said he was repulsed and suffered "self-loathing," his "brain was programmed to believe that there was no place to go," the lawsuit said

.........Goldman, Burton's attorney, acknowledged in a 1995 article in the San Diego Union that the leader had sex with the senior Buzbee and at least one other male follower. Goldman said it was Burton's policy not to make public comments, and added that "we don't think a [sexual] relationship between a leader and a member of the congregation is abusive in and of itself."

L.A. Times/November 4, 1996 
By Jenifer Warren

http://www.rickross.com/reference/fof/fof5.html Wantthetruth? 18:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• What is the problem if the leader of the FOF had sex with some members? Are leaders of religious groups supposed to have a celibatary life? Why are some editors adding information about Burton's private life to the article? He was never convicted of any sexual crime, as far as I know, so his private life should remain private, right? Love-in-ark 04:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

So get a link to LA Times in the article, do not repeat Ross'fancy story as if it were true. Besides, you added a first part. Was this in the LA Times as well, or you added it to the quoted source of the second part? In your anger, you keep forgetting summaries in you contribs, as a mere vandal. Baby Dove 21:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Baby Dove - Hopefully you won't take this the wrong way but I honestly don't understand what you're talking about in your first comment here and can only approximately guess as to the second. For the record, I have never been anywhere near Mr. Goldman's mouth. Could you please slow down? You posted the same comment in two different places and seem to be in a dreadful rush to claim I'm doing and feeling things that I'm not doing or feeling. - thank youWantthetruth? 01:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Want, you keep telling editors to calm down, to slow down, etc. Is that your new tactic, to make other editors look nervous? Please, pleease, stop attacking and start discussing the article. If you feel like attacking somebody while the page is protected, go play on-line Mortal Combat. It's loads of fun. Love-in-ark 04:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I forgot summary in my last edit. It was supposed to say : Rick Ross or LA Times. Here it goes again. Sorry. So get a link to LA Times in the article, do not repeat Ross'fancy story as if it were true. Besides, you added a first part. Was this in the LA Times as well, or you added it to the quoted source of the second part? In your anger, you keep forgetting summaries in you contribs, as a mere vandal. Baby Dove 21:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hear I am again. Baby Dove, do you mean that you will accept reference to the print version of the article? Waspidistra 22:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Should I give you my agreement in advance? Don't think so... Baby Dove 05:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Waspidistra: What was your emotional goodbye then, a show? Is it not something weird that with a frozen article we are chatting all day long? As in a blog or a GF! By the way, where is Moon Rising? He is missing the family reunion Love-in-ark 03:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Love, what is a "GF"? Mfantoni 05:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

"GF" is the "Greater Fellowship" on-line community (it would be nice to add a link to the Greater Fellowship to the article but access is restricted to GF members only). I was told that 100 FOF members and 600 former FOF members belong to the GF community. As with any on-line community, the Greater Fellowship makes possible for its members to exchange messages and pictures, organize events, meet for a cup of coffee or tea, etc. Any candidate to invite GF members to become Wikipedia editors? Love-in-ark 07:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Moon Rising about keeping the focus of this page, so I removed from the comments above the parts about estimates of positive/negative FOF members (that has nothing to do with Wikipedia). Editors that want to discuss those topics should use the FOF blog. Mfantoni 04:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

This is how I view Wiki neutrality: if someone who had no inside knowledge of the Fellowship, but had some knowledge of other new religious movements, was given the main easily available published sources concerning the Fellowship--Robert Burton's two books, Girard Haven's books, all newspaper articles concerning the Fellowship, Taking With the Left Hand, the Fellowship website and whatever other material we might agree on--what would she include in the article? Waspidistra 22:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, what do you think? Love-in-ark 03:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back, Love-in-ark. I missed you. Mfantoni 03:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Waspidistra's question, I have to confess that I don't understand the question. This article is 9 months old and has more than 5,000 edits (article + Talk page). Waspidistra, what is the point? Mfantoni 03:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

So 5,000 edits and no agreement? We would need some more, then. But it is pretty fair as it is, compared to the old times... Baby Dove 05:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

But talking about neutrality here, it would be good to see that the article as it is, reflects a tendency to be stable more or less the way it is after 5,000 edits. Another 5,000 edits would not change this tendency. When one has such a number of cases in a random sample, the result of the tendency won't get any meaningful change when the sample doubles. So keep having fun and do not expect great results in your favor. Baby Dove 06:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

God bless the Law of large numbers, that says: "Given a sample of independent and identically distributed random variables with a finite population mean and variance, the average of these observations will eventually approach and stay close to the population mean." Without it every Wikipedia page would be as volatile as the stock market. Mfantoni 06:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome MFantoni to this break... The most interesting aspect of this, is that 5,000 edits from about a score of editors is almost a whole universe. Samples start being significant when the sample is over 30 cases, as long as they are really randomly taken... This allows mass media to announce the winner of an election two or three minutes after the voting is closed. They actually know the results with just a few well distributed cases. Baby Dove 06:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

So that's the answer to Waspidistra's question about neutrality: just start the article, add any information you wish (true or false, doesn't matter), wait for 5,000 or more edits, and...wooalah! You got a neutral article. The graph of the neutrality will look like this. Mfantoni 06:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Twenty-nine sections...

Yes, even after filling 10 times in the archive, we still have 28 before than this one. And subjects come back as in a Nietzche's book: Payments, Alex Horn, Sockpuppetry, Beliefs, Criticism, History, Goodbyes, Hellows, etc., come and go over and over again... And then, the most important part of the story seems to be whether payments should or should not be as they are, or whether the leader of the organization should have sex or not! But perhaps the "should be's" hide a deadly trap, because instead of describing what the church is, the article gets stuck discussing all these personal "should be's..." Have fun, Baby Dove 05:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Baby, you got it. Sometimes I wonder what impression editors non related to the FOF get when they see this article for the first time. They must think something like: "Gee man, all that energy is enough to improve 500 Wikipedia articles!" If they only knew what's going on... Love-in-ark 06:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Love-in-ark,

Maybe you should read my contrib in "Neutrality." I thought it was more appropriate there, but I guess it has something to do here as well. Baby Dove 06:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What next?

I am on a Wikibreak so have not been editing, and won't really have time to edit much for at least a few more days. What an interesting time to be gone! For the most part, the page is the verbal equivalent to a bunch of children in the school yard who have not yet learned how to play nicely with each other. Most of the other edits skirt the subjects that need to be addressed.

I know I have the reputation of nagging editors to adhere to Wikipedia Etiquette. [3] Assuming good faith, I must believe that editors here are actually trying to develop a good WP article. If your goal is to use this talk page to denigrate or laud the merits of the FOF with material that is inappropriate for the article or if you just enjoy a good fight, may I politely ask that you find another venue for these pursuits.

With the page blocked, maybe it would be a good idea to draft the wording you all would like to see in the article, since we can't put it there. Wasp, it was a good idea to describe what you think neutrality is. What could be better, in my opinion, would be to actually write out what you would like to see said in the article; then others could comment on the wording, and not just the idea. I hope to be back soon. Warm regards to all, --Moon Rising 23:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not a forum template

I noticed that Moon Rising placed a "Not a Forum" template on this page today. Who decides if a message is an opinion on the Fellowship of Friends or a suggestion on how to improve the article? Moon Rising? What happens when a message includes both an opinion and a suggestion, as it is often the case? I am afraid we are entering a pro-FOF censorship phase. Robertozz 18:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, Moon Rising disappears for a week, then comes back saying that he won't be able to edit the article for a while, next he calls all other editors "a bunch of kids" and finally places a "Not a Forum" template to censor the messages of the editors that are actually participating. Wikipedia needs editors, not policemen. Robertozz 18:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Robertozz, my apologies for offending you. I have returned from vacation and an now busy to spend as much time editing as I'd like to. By the way, I didn't disappear, I went on vacation, and put a notice to that effect on my talk page. Regarding the "Not a Forum" template - that's open for discussion. For those of us who have been here a while, the talk page is often more of a blog or a forum for disputing the FOF. This is different from what belongs in the FOF article. I am trying to encourage us to keep on point: editing the article rather than blogging and insulting other editors on this page, both of which are contrary to WP principles. It's interesting that you fear entering a pro-FOF censorship phase. I've been seeing a strong anti-FOF movement building. Also - regarding who could delete material inappropriate for the talk page - well, any of us, just like any of us can revert it. Though some may consider my a policeman, I prefer to see myself as someone trying to promote politeness and civility, which are WP principles which often seem ignored, IMHO.

As far as not editing the article for a while, well, the last time I checked, it was blocked, with no indication of when it will be unblocked. So I thought doing the editing on the talk page might make sense. This is of course open for discussion.

For example, I'm not fond of the current introduction. For whatever reason, it's been reduced to a few sentences. I prefer an older version that actually gives a reader a summary of the article that would give enough info to let them decide if they wish to read further. I would therefore propose (with the addition of references of course):

The Fellowship of Friends is a non-profit religious organization founded in 1970 by Robert Earl Burton. When originally founded, it followed the Fourth way tradition, also known as "esoteric Christianity", while currently it focuses more on other spiritual schools and religions, including the Egyptians, Judaism, Christianity, and Hinduism. The Fellowship of Friends recognizes that the aim of all true religions and spiritual traditions has always been the same: to reach God and sustain the "Divine Presence" within one. The Fellowship of Friends states that its primary aim is to produce "Divine Presence" in its members. Members learn both the principles of awakening and practical methods to apply those principles in daily life. The organization believes this spiritual work requires the instruction and guidance of an awakened teacher, a body of precise knowledge, the understanding and support of others working toward the same aim, and an environment in which to work.

The Fellowship reports that it has approximately 60 centers in more than 40 countries worldwide. Along with the aim of making its religious teachings and practices available in all parts of the world, the diversity of its membership makes the Fellowship an international spiritual organization that it believes recognizes and learns from each of the esoteric traditions throughout recorded time.

Now, would someone like to edit this and make it more neutral and a little bit briefer? Then, when the page is unblocked, we'll hopefully be in consensus and be ready to just cut and paste. That's the sort of thing I have in mind. Does anyone like the idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moon Rising (talk • contribs) 21:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That's better, thanks. A while ago I suggested to create to work on a draft of the article but nobody was interested. Let me try again: should we work on a draft while the article is protected? I would create a draft myself but I don't know how to do it. Robertozz 01:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Moon, I prefer brevity because it encourages factuality. e.g., in the paragraph about the number of centers, the long second sentence is unnecessary because it merely interprets information that has gone before —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waspidistra (talk • contribs) 10:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Draft page created

I figured out how to create a draft page of the article. It is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fellowship_of_Friends/Draft This draft can keep us busy while the article is protected. By the way, the reason for the protection is that Wikipedia is deciding if there is a conflict of interest due to FOF members editing the article. Since we don't know how long this will take, the draft is a way to continue to improve the article. Robertozz 01:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea. From experience with previous draft pages, editors must be willing to use them or they don't work (even those creaded by a mediator). Maybe each editor can comment here if they'd be willing to use a draft for now? --Moon Rising 19:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with editing the draft page. The article is protected anyway. I would like to condense the sections about the teaching - they are too long and read like a copy of the FOF web site with the addition of "The organization believes" at the begining of each paragraph. Mfantoni 04:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About history and COIs

I guess this re-appearance of our creator of the article, Wine-in-Ark justifies this new section.

He says (copied from "Looking for a summary"):

Babydove said: "Were any of the things Rick Ross says about Mr. Horn and his wife Sharon Gans, I do not really think they have any value here, considering that Mr. Burton seems to have taken due distance from him 40 years ago. This is a long time, and I do not think it has anything to do with the Fellowship of Friends at this time. Of course, if others think they have reasons to justify mentioning Mr. Horn here, they can show these reasons. But it would help if they limit their comments to verifyable (and respectable) sources, not to old copies of deleted pages that anybody can easily rewrite at their convenience" Shame on you Babydove. You know as I know that Burton has claimed throughout these 40 years that Alex Horn was his conscious teacher, to whom he is eternally grateful. Are you saying that the archived webpage of the old FoF website, which claims direct lineage to Gurdjieff through Ouspensky-Pentland-Horn-Burton, has been rewritten at someone's convenience? Look at the lengths you are willing to go to hide something. Are you ashamed?

I think the source of many of the editing problems and disputes here on this site is a certain Fellowship belief seen in action: the belief that "only the present moment is real" - which interferes with giving due acknowledgment to past actions or events: history tends to be erased. Wine-in-ark 01:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)'

An archived site of an old FOF page can be edited at will. That was the point. You cannot prove that the page was not changed for the copying site. However, Mr. Burton's oppinion on Mr. Horn as his teacher is duly recognized in "Self-Remembering." That cannot be questioned, as cannot be questioned that 18 month after he joined the Theater of All Possibilities he quit this school. This is a fact and we cannot speculate about his reasons to do it, but this may not have anything to do with Mr. Burton not considering Mr. Holrn a real teacher. This would be speculation and since he talks about him with respect, we have to believe him.

But the scandal that Rick Ross presents on his site might also have been made up. We do not know and ity is in this sense that I do not want the article of the FOF to speculate about how was Robert Burton affected or not by his time being with Horn. I have read several of this speculations in the blog on the FOF, tainted with some pseudo-psycological "explanations" on the supposed effect, and as far as I can help it, I won't tolerate something like that in the article. However, I had voted in favor of having a Wikipage on Alex Horn, and I did not see your vote there...

The appearance of this article, by the way, was gloriously announced in that blog, mainly devoted to justify to other bloggers why the decision of leaving the FOF was a right one for the blogger, under this message:

'Volume 3, 287. Jason Cryter Says: March 20, 2007 at 10:06 pm Hello, I am a former student that wishes to create a wiki that can serve as a repository of FOF history. The wiki is just in the beginning phases, I would like to find some people, current or former students, who wish to help me get this project started. Once it is at an acceptable level of function, I will open it to be read by the general public. If you would be interested in helping me, please send an email to FOFwiki@gmail.com'.'

In the same message, you say you respect Mr. Burton and the FOF. It was not the case of many bloggers, who want to present "the blog's oppinion on the FOF" as a revealed truth. Hope you are well, Wine-in-Ark. Baby Dove 05:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wine-in-ark, what is all that "shame on you", "are you ashamed", etc.? You are an old editor (the oldest of us all!) and you don't need to use those methods when you don't agree with another editor. Regarding your comments to Baby Dove, you say that an archive of an old FOF web site is a valid source for Wikipedia. Are you serious? Can you imagine if editors start using old versions of web sites as a source for the articles? Wikipedia would be a total mess in no time. Regarding the specific case of the FOF and Horn, only the current web site of the FOF can be used as a reference. May be the old site was wrong. May be the webmaster did a mistake. May be somebody checked the old site after several years and said "Burton never said that!" Who knows? If you know, please present the source. Bottom line, we have only the current FOF site as a reference, and older versions of the web site don't count. That's my take on it, and please, don't tell me that I should be ashamed: I leave that to my mom. Love-in-ark 07:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Love, I returned because aeiou pointed out that I had simply been spending too much time on WP (he was right) plus with the COI acknowledgment, bannings and article protection it seemed as if some of the problems with editing on this page might have diminished. When I have time I will take the issue of sourcing to a mediator. As for citing older versions of a web page, a full citation of a web page will indicate the date on which it was referenced. Previous versions of the FOF site are available on archive.org. Waspidistra 09:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Aeuio blanked his user and talk pages with the edit summary "Retiring - I no longer feel that there is a need for me to be on wikipedia. (I still might make an ocasional edit, or even come back if i see something that really annoys me) Take care. It was great." Too bad - this article lost the only editor that was not a current or former member of the FOF. May be Aeuio will change his mind and come back, like Wasp did. Mfantoni 04:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There are no such things as an older version of a page, Waspidistra! Suppose someone feels angry with a given page and sues the owner, getting a favorable verdict forcing the owner to change it. He does so, and then a third party makes the page reappear "in its old version." When a page is gone, it is gone... this is how internet works, for better or worse. Baby Dove 16:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Love-in-ark, yes, you are right, I was having an emotional outburst - I can't actually say "shame on you" to another editor. My point was actually just this: it is sad that the FoF can change its website at its own convenience, and say what it wants about itself, and then FoF students come to edit this article and claim that the current FoF website is pretty much the only valid source of information on what the FoF is. So a few months ago it was still a "true fourth way school" and its aim was "to fulfill the will of higher beings" and Burton was connected to Gurdjieff through his teacher Alex Horn etc. - and now all that has been discounted as "maybe the webmaster made a mistake" and actually that was never true, and only the present moment exists, history can be erased because it's not part of the current teaching, we believed it last year but we don't believe it any more so let's not include it in the article. Please use as many other sources as possible! Wine-in-ark 21:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wine-in-ark, don't be overly emotional, remember to have fun. Remember that Wikipedia is not a job, or a battle – it’s supposed to be a hobby. And a very good one indeed, I have to say, much better that TV or Halo 3. Now let me tell you a couple of things about the official web site of the FOF. The FOF hasn't been a "true Fourth Way school" for several years now, and the change of the official web site was long overdue (minimum 2 years). It’s not that "history can be erased", as you say, it’s that the FOF changed and the web site had to reflect the new teaching. Nobody here is trying to erase the past; it's a matter of the official web site to reflect the current teaching of the FOF. You seem to believe that the FOF changes the official site because of the Wikipedia article. As a matter of fact, I know for sure that the FOF doesn't care too much about what we are doing here, to tell you the truth. They have bigger fishes to fry, so to speak. So all this talk about the FOF changing the web site to support the pro-FOF editors, hiring PR professionals to defend the organization in Wikipedia, having people in the organization's building with the role to edit the article...well, it’s kind of hilarious to me. I can assure you that most FoF members haven't seen the FOF article in Wikipedia and most FOF officers don't even know what Wikipedia means. Bottom line, this article exists for a group of “FOF-related” editors to have fun. So we are back to the beginning: remember to have fun. Wine-in-ark, I am glad you came back: I created my username in your honor. Love-in-ark 06:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Baby Dove, maybe you need to rethink the question of sources, citation and verifiability. Academic citation of web pages include the date and even time that the page was referenced, just as the citation of a book specifies the edition. When a web page is revised, the old version usually still exists somewhere, just as a second edition of a book does not mean that the first edition ceases to exist. In fact, a significant proportion of the Internet, including the FOF sites, is archived at archive.org/the Wayback Machine. When a writer cites a source, the burden is on the writer to cite it and quote from it accurately, but the burden is on the reader to check the citation. For example, the burden is on you to show that Rick Ross has interpolated or altered material in his transcriptions of newspaper articles. I am quite willing to pay my $3.95 to access the complete article on the LA Times site if it will convince you of the accuracy of Ross' transcriptions. It is not enough to say that an article or website *could have* been changed (after all, the beingpresent.org site *could have* been hacked into by malicious ex-students, so that the material does not truly represent the Fellowship's point of view). You need to show us that it *has* been changed if you wish to invalidate it as a source. Waspidistra 23:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed uncontroversial (hopefully) edit.

The introduction says "it emphasizes more other spiritual schools and religion" - delete "more". As it stands it is not grammatically correct. JoshuaZ 14:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Joshua is right. Thank you. Baby Dove 15:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the edit, I can't emphasize more how delighted I am to see a fresh editor. Feel free to correct the grammar; those edits will never be contentious. I changed the Draft page as well in case it becomes the article. Cheers! Robertozz 06:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quick tutorial

Check out Robertozz's new user page. He's gone to a lot of trouble to highlight some useful tips. Thanks, Oz.--Moon Rising 20:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

At this point it is evident to me that with the regular edit wars, page protections and the COI issue, mediation can be useful, if not mandatory. I would like to recommend JoshuaZ, the admin that edited the page yesterday, to be the mediator. Yesterday I asked him if he would like to mediate and today he replied: "I'll be happy to help mediate in the FoF matter. I'll need to take a bit of time to go through the talk page archives first. JoshuaZ 14:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)" Do you have any issues with him mediating this page? Robertozz 18:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ozz - I agree that we need mediation. Thank you for taking this step. However, I looked at JoshuaZ's contribs and it doesn't seem he has much experience in spiritual areas, whereas Vassyana has quite a bit and is familiar with the FoF. I'd prefer to check in and see what happened with him, before bringing someone new on board. Vas hasn't been responsive, but Josh's userpage says he's busy in real life and response time will be slow. What do you think? --Moon Rising 21:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that mediation is mandatory, not optional, and my vote goes to JoshuaZ because I like the fact that he came to the article by himself (I do believe in destiny). Biblical Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, so Wikipedia's Joshua may be able to bring the edit wars to a standstill. Love-in-ark 00:32, 26 October 2007

I agree with JoshuaZ being a mediator. Mfantoni 05:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm still rooting for Vassayana although his past treatment here was deplorable. Vassayana if you're reading please come and help but do bear in mind the following, "During a mediation, the mediator Vassayana, suggests that criticism be combined with the rest of the article rather than being its own section. Which was done. A few days later - when Vass left, all the criticism was deleted piece by piece. So I kept opening a new criticism section because obviously this incorporating into the aricle in the end only got rid of criticism. Then the fof members say let’s incorporate it into the article as suggested by the mediator (ex [2] [3].) Then they would say “not relevant to the section” and get rid of it [4]. This was quite annoying at the time. (I could come up with a couple of more examples if needed). Aeuio 20:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)" So my vote is Vass, he has the prior experience that we all need and won't be so easily fooledWantthetruth? 18:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wantthetruth, I don't remember you being here when Vassyana was the mediator. For that reason, your comment that "his past treatment was deplorable" is an opinion not based on your personal experience. You quote Aeuio to prove that Vassyana was ill-treated, but that is Aeuio’s opinion, not yours. I am curious to know what Vassyana has to say about all this. Anyway, JoshuaZ accepted the informal mediation and I suggest to proceed with his assistance. If you feel like somebody is fooling the mediator, please speak up. Mfantoni 21:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

mfantoni- You don't remember me because I was not an active editor at the time, I was following however and the shenanigans are part of the record here. So the quote represents my experience. I definitely will let the mediator know if I think he's being manipulated. Hopefully though that won't be necessary - thanksWantthetruth? 00:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New draft: new lead section

I just took a stab at creating a revised lead section, trying to incorporate WP's guidelines for this section. It is a lot shorter than earlier versions and shorter than I think it should be. It is than the most recent version, which I don't believe adhered to guidelines for an article's lead. Have at it....--Moon Rising 23:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New draft - shortened section on the teacher, discussion on History and Beliefs

I deleted some of what I think others object to as FOF propaganda, as well as the reference to Horn, one of Burton's teachers before forming the FOF. As stated earlier on this talk page, the name of one of his spiritual teachers does not seem necessary to the article. Since this is an area of contention, can we please try to have a polite and civil dialog. Let's assume good faith, not make personal attacks and remember to discuss the article and not the merits or faults of the FOF. Thank you all.--Moon Rising 23:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Moon Rising - please let us have the names of Burton's other spiritual teachers time spent with them etc. Wantthetruth? 02:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Why? Because you found some bad things about them in an anti-cult site and you want to prove that Burton is a bad boy? No way. Mfantoni 03:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Moon Rising - given that you concede the area is contentious wouldn't it be polite to discuss edits before making them? I have restored the reference to Horn and await your good faith discussion

mfantoni - Your comment is provocative, please be polite and assume good faith. I am asking who were the teachers referred to, it's a simple question. In my three decades plus in the FOF I never heard mention of any other teachers other than Horn, neither have I found any references to them anywhere other than Moon Rising's comments. Since Moon Rising's argument rests on the assertion that there are many, it seems more than reasonable to ask who they were and where the relevant reference can be sourced? Wantthetruth? 04:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wantthetruth, I apologize for being provocative, I will be more careful in the future. Anyway, Burton had minimum another teacher to my knowledge, a certain Hawkins, or something like that. You see, I still don't understand why a person that is looking for some basic encyclopedic information about the FOF needs to know about the teachers of Burton, except if somebody has a hidden agenda and wants to show that Burton is part of a "Cycle of Abuse" (you coined that expression in a message you posted on 10/03/07, remember?). I would like to assume good faith but it is pretty difficult in this case. Mfantoni 05:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

mfantoni - So minimum one other teacher who might have been called Hawkins? In my experience opening centres for the FOF and leading countless meetings for prospective students, a recurrent theme and almost predictable question was "Who was the teachers teacher", Not unreasonable to assume that the unwitting seeker researching on Wikipedia might have the same question in mind? Since apparently the only reliable answer is Alex Horn and no reference to the contrary, it seems in keeping both with the question and the encyclopaedic nature of wikipedia to give the answer. By the way are you answering for Moon Rising ? Wantthetruth? 09:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not answering for Moon Rising; it's my understanding that any editor can discuss any topic on this Talk page. Regarding the "Who was the teacher's teacher" question, I believe that a person attending a prospective meeting of the FOF to decide if he or she will join the organization needs much more information than a person reading an encyclopedic entry on Wikipedia about the FOF just to get some basic information. An encyclopedic entry is supposed to be concise and to the point (yes, the teaching section is way too long but that is being discussed elsewhere) so I still don't see the need to include Burton's teachers (or former students, by the way) in the FOF article. This is my opinion, and I would like to hear other editors'. Take care. Mfantoni 13:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

My point in mentioning other spiritual teachers was not meant as an assertion that there were many, only that there may be some other influences that effected his spiritual development. My other point was that in a concise encyclopedic article, the mention of any does not seem relevant to the average reader. Also, as mfantoni reminds us above, you previously stated a substantial agenda regarding Horn's inclusion. On another subject - thank you for reminding me to discuss controversial edits before making them, and thank you mfantoni, for your quick apology. I think we're off to a good start, and await a mediator, whomever it turns out to be.Moon Rising 18:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

mfantoni - I'm glad to hear that you are editing the teaching section, I shall be doing so too. By shortening that section we will make space for a broader more encyclopaedic article encompassing the organisation' past and it's often stormy development through the decades. The finished article will be concise and informative, thanks for your help in this.Wantthetruth? 18:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You are very welcome, Want. By the way, I didn't say that I am working on the Teaching section at the moment because I have too much real life work and editing that section is not going to be easy. I just said that "the teaching section is way too long but that is being discussed elsewhere", but if you could make that section shorter and more objective that would be lovely. Mfantoni 23:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of other editors wanting to shorten the Beliefs and Practices section (I think that's what you mean by teaching section), I've read it over several times, and don't personally see a need to do that. When I read it, I feel that I need all of what's there to get an idea of what the FOF preaches. If anything, it could be expanded. The only reason for it being as short as it is, as far as I can tell, is that there it forms the majority of the article already. It is not necessary to shorten it to make space for whatever it is Wantthetruth wants to add about the past. There is plenty of space to add more information. This being said, I don't object to edits to Beliefs and Practices of a grammatical or NPOV nature. I just think it needs to stay intact. --Moon Rising 01:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the reference to Alex Horn that I deleted and Want reverted: he kindly reminded me that controversial edits should not be made without discussion on the talk page first. We pretty much know each other's point of view, but I wonder if it makes sense to rekindle the discussion now, or wait for a mediator's help. --Moon Rising 01:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Moon Rising - saying that there may may have been other influences which might have affected Burton is a very flimsy argument for exclusion of reference to Horn, do you agree? If we add in mfantoni's comment that there might have been one and he might have been called Hawkins it approaches the absurd IMO. Regarding what you refer to as my agenda, I had hoped to have made it abundantly clear that my intent hereis to help arrive at a balanced encyclopaedic article regardless of my personal feelings on the matter. Horn is a part of Burtons past and he greatly influenced the early development of the FOF, Burton still refers to him with glowing gratitude.The fact that he's apparently a scoundrel makes him even more interesting. The FOF editors have to accept that they can't exclude things on the basis that they don't like them. Please don't waste more time on Horn and work instead to find a way to include him thats more than less palatable to the FOF.Wantthetruth? 00:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by your last sentence. First, I don't speak for the FOF, I speak for myself. For myself, I don't see a need to include any mention. The current statement you have inserted seems more than adequate for this article. (How many times does this need to be said?) It seems that your intent is to add scandalous information about a person that has only a minor role in this article. Some of the statements you make concerning, such as "glowing gratitude", seem like OR. Also, I am sorry to say that you have not made it "abundantly clear" that your intent is to arrive at a balance article, regardless of your personal bias. I do my best to assume good faith, however in some cases, this proves beyond my capabilities. I think we need third party intervention on this subject, since we are going in circles (and I don't mean formal arbitration, which is a last resort in dispute resolution). --Moon Rising 14:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Moon Rising - I agree that we need mediation but feel this should be formal mediation. I say this in light of the post mediation editing which occured with Vassayana. The "current statement" you referred to above was removed by you 25th Oct. so I take it your intent is to remove it, this is not acceptable. Statements to the effect that there may have been other influences which affected Burton and that there may have been a teacher named Hawkins obviously are OR unless of course you can point to a reference which I've asked you for. The fact that information may be viewed by you as scandalous is neither here nor there. The fof has a history, Horn is part of that and the references to him are not OR. Thanks for at least the semblance of an editing discussion I appreciate this. Please let's move to formal mediation and if it works all well and good, if not then arbitration would be the next step after that - thanksWantthetruth? 20:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Want - I don't think there's a lot of difference between formal and informal mediation-I could be wrong, I was once before ;). If we're talking about the same thing, I discussed the statement I removed on Oct 25 on the talk page, you reverted it, explaining that it was not polite to remove the information without discussing it first. I did not revert your edit and we are discussing it. The OR I referred to in your comment referred to "glowing gratitude". It seems that the main difference on this point between you and many other editors is the significance of Horn's importance and how much information about him makes sense to include. The fact that much of the info on Horn is scandalous is not "neither here nor there" if it does not belong in this article. I still don't see the need to include Horn. That's where a third party comes in, because it seems clear that we're not going to be able to work out a compromise on our own. The sun is shining and I'm going to go play outside now. Cheers!--Moon Rising 22:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

One more thing about this section. I deleted several sentences from this section that I thought those who are negative towards to FOF would like to see removed. In our all absorbing discussion about whether Horn should be in or out, I think this was overlooked. I guess I would have liked some acknowledgment for trying to make this section more NPOV. Lot's of words have been shared on the negative side. Just wanted to point out something positive changed too.--Moon Rising 22:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Moon Rising - If there's little diffference between formal and informal mediation then moving to formal should present no problem? If you look closely at my revert of your edit you will see that I put back only the reference to Horn, the rest of the edit was fine with me. So then, if we can establish that the information about Horn does belong in the article, you would agree that it's "scandalous nature", (your interpretation) is neither here nor there?

Regarding what you see as the irrelevance of Horn's relation to Robert Burton and the FOF, how do you explain the fact that Burton went to visit Horn in New York about a week ago, or are you now disagreeing with Burton too?

Again for the record, I'm pitching for the simple half line mention of Horn that you're trying to remove, I wish to see two links to references regarding Horn immediately following the half line, one to Patterson and one to Rick Ross, I'm not even attempting to place what you might regard as controversial copy into the body of the article, seems reasonable to me. I'll await your comments before requesting formal mediation - thanksWantthetruth? 19:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Want - I would expect you not to disagree with the rest of my edit - I removed information I was sure you objected to, kind of a compromise with removing Horn. If you are now saying that you are satisfied with a half line mention of Horn, I think that is ok. Of course, I'm not the only editor here. Previously, some editor, I think it was you, was insistent about having many many paragraphs about Horn in the middle of the FOF article. That was my strong objection. Yes, I would prefer not to have reference to Horn at all, but a brief mention is acceptable. --Moon Rising 04:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for Deletion - Results

Here are the results of the AfD of the Horn, Randazzo, Burton and Fantoni articles:

• Alexander Horn - Deleted
• James Randazzo - Deleted
• Robert Burton - Merged with the FoF article (redirected)
• Mario Fantoni - Deleted

That's it. Love-in-ark 05:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh no! I already told my mom I had a page on Wikipedia! Mfantoni 05:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

mfantoni - Congratulations! I guess the only avenue left now for inclusion of important, relevant, sourced historical FOF data on Alex Horn and Randazzo is this page. Thanks for bringing us back in focus. Wantthetruth? 09:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. I hope we attract a mediator soon otherwise we will be discussing the Horn-Randazzo issue until the cows come home. Mfantoni 13:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Willing to help mediate

I'm willing to informally help mediate, but the talk pages and history of this is a bit daunting. It might help if people from both sides of the dispute could for starters give short explanations of their content concerns. JoshuaZ 19:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Josh - I left a message on your talk page, but there is a summary above, heading 9, "Looking for a summary". Can you work with that? Major changes since then: page blocking due to COIN, new draft page created by an editor with agreement from other editors, and we're finally learning to be civil to each other. Does the existing summary need to be shorter? --Moon Rising 00:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Moonrising, (apologies for the late reply) perhaps a Request for comment would be pertinent, and bring in a range of opinions from outside editors, as well as setting up a good discussion space. Like JoshuaZ above, I am not sure what the exact situation here is - and am not familiar enough with the group to comment at this point, however should an RFC be started I will follow the proceedings and weigh in if you'd like. Sfacets 09:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets - Hi, presumably you're responding to a private message from moonrising? Agreeing to, "weigh in" if moon rising likes the idea has a teency, weency tad of the ring of bias? Hopefully you'll formulate your own views and contribute accordingly, in which case a sincere welcome to youWantthetruth? 21:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this not what you call prejudice? Baby Dove 05:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Joshuaz - Given the contentious nature here, I decline your offer to mediate informally. I have no objection whatever to you mediating formally. It's likely, judging from past experience, that this page will become the subject of arbitration and as such we need formal intervention. Also, please consider whether you genuinely have the time and patience to follow an often fast moving agenda here. Hope you don't take offence, absolutely none intendedWantthetruth? 00:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This page already had an official mediator, after an unofficial one. And it already had a 2 month period of stability, after which new editors came with old subjects (already been "mediated.") Baby Dove 05:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No offense intended, I'm not formally a mediator here, so if you want to a formal mediation you'll need to file a request for mediation. In any event, this article has piqued my interest, so over the next few days, I'm going to make a number of proposals that are hopefully either non-controversial or helpful compromises. JoshuaZ 01:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

JoshuaZ, please stay around. You are needed. Thank you. Robertozz 02:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Josh - a piqued interest is a very good thing - not sure what piqued your interest, but a third opinion from someone who's interested sounds better than an official opinion from someone who's not been "piqued". Anyway, welcome and thank you, and of course, please, please, please agree with me and only me ;-). --Moon Rising 02:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest to try an informal mediation with JoshuaZ as the mediator. We can always file a request for a formal mediation if the informal one doesn't work. Love-in-ark 09:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Baby Dove - You need to calm down please and if you have comments to make please make them at the bottom of each section so that they appear sequentially i.e. in date order, this is a wiki guideline and it actually helps ensure that your comments are read - thanksWantthetruth? 20:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COI discussion moved from Yamla's Talk page

BACKGROUND: I moved the discussion below from Yamla's Talk page to this one because it is important that all editors contribute. Also, I don't think that it is appropriate to pollute Yamla's Talk page with personal issues and opinions. Please feel free to jump in. Mfantoni 18:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yamla, I reopened the FOF IP range block case since no decision has been made. Meanwhile, 70 people are unable to edit any Wikipedia page using the Fellowship connection. That doesn't sound fair to me. Mfantoni 05:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yamla - So, "70" FOF members are unable to edit the FOF page! sounds like an effective use of IP-range block to me. thanks Wantthetruth? 22:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Want, do you think that the fact that 70 people (yes, FOF members are people too) are blocked and can't edit any Wikipedia article is fair? What about blocking you vor COI because you are an ex-FOF member with an agenda? Love-in-ark 03:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Love in Ark - I did have one or two sleepless nights about the 70 people desperately trying to edit Wikipdia and then I remembered the time I worked at the Collin Office (where most of the 70 work) and the directive that nobody should use the FOF connection for personal use and I sorta relaxed a little, and then I read your recent comment on the FOF talk page and I quote "...well, it’s kind of hilarious to me. I can assure you that most FoF members haven't seen the FOF article in Wikipedia and most FOF officers don't even know what Wikipedia means. Bottom line, this article exists for a group of “FOF-related” editors to have fun." Your idea of fun in my experience is you bullying, humiliating, and generally taking the rise out of anyone who disagrees with you. Would you care to comment on what strikes me as the glaring inconsistency between the two comments? - sorry Yamla I hope you get the picture.Wantthetruth? 10:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yamla, I apologize for you having to witness this exchange on your Talk page but I believe that if you are able to remove the emotional content you will, as Wantthetruth very well put it, get the picture. The "Collin Office" that Wantthetruth is referring to is the FOF-leased building where the blocked IP range is. The fact is that things changed since Wantthetruth left the FOF; the FOF-owned wine business that used to be in the building moved to another location and nowadays the FOF rents several offices in the building to businesses that are not related to the FOF. For example, I rent an office with a T1 internet connection included (by the way, nobody told me not to use the FOF connection for personal use since what I do in my office is my problem) and I never knew that I was using "a FOF-owned connection" (I guess I never thought about it). I discovered that when you mentioned it in relation to the COI issue. Besides my business, there are other 7 non-FOF businesses operating in the building that I am aware of (there may be more, I can check if you wish) and at the moment nobody is able to edit any Wikipedia page. We need to restore people's right to edit Wikipedia. We shouldn't throw the baby with the water, so let's block editors that don't follow Wikipedia's guidelines, not IP ranges. Thank you for reading this. Mfantoni 15:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yamla - The issues are rampant sock puppetry, meat puppetry and an obvious conflict of interest. Wantthetruth? 17:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

mfantoni- Comments for Yamla on his talk page are obviously intended primarily for Yamla, they are open for anyone to read by visiting Yamla's page. By moving an entire conversation here you obviously show disregard for the intentions of other editors. This behavior of yours was previously discouraged by Ed Johnson on th WP:COIN page. Once again we see the same tedious pattern of your trying to control, set the agenda and move the conversation where it suits you, particularly in any instance where things don't go as you wish, it is a transparent ploy and merely confirms a total absence of good faith. By the way, referring to other people's comments as pollution speaks mightily about you and not the commentsWantthetruth? 21:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Mfantoni: Don’t play Wantthetruth’s game. Just ignore his attacks and concentrate on the article. Love-in-ark 00:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

mfantoni- Yes, I heartily agree, please concentrate on the article.Wantthetruth? 01:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Love and Want, for your advice. I will ignore personal attacks from now on and concentrate on the article. The issue of the COI still needs to be solved, since I would like to be able to edit from my office and not only from home. This is really odd: I can't edit from my office because the FOF owns the internet connection, but when I am at home using my own connection there is no problem. This means that COI depends on the cable that connects you to Wikipedia, not on what goes on in your mind. Weird, isn’t it? Mfantoni 05:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Mfantoni, since you liked my advice, here is another one: drop the COI issue. You are kicking a dead horse. Love-in-ark 09:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Draft: Beliefs & Criticism edits

I did several to the Draft of the article. My aim was to reduce the length of the Beliefs section and make sure that the Criticism section is more proportionate to the size of the article.

Here is the word count before my edits:

- Intro: 137 words
- Beliefs: 1,938 words
- Operations: 618 lines
- History: 397 words
- Criticism: 56 words
- TOTAL: 3,146 words

And here is the word count after my edits:

- Intro: 124 words
- Beliefs: 1,369 words
- Operations: 388 lines
- History: 194 words
- Criticism: 230 words
- TOTAL: 2,305 words (reduction: 27%)

Let me know what you think. Also, please feel free to change my edits (or even revert them if you totally disagee). After all, it is only a draft. Robertozz 21:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It's clear you've spent a lot of time, and given a good deal of thought to your changes. Some of the re-wording's I think are very clear, though the removal of so many paragraphs in the Beliefs and Practices section leaves holes in the explanation of how members practice their religion. Rather than revert, I will re-read it a couple of times and see if there could be a compromise, but I think some of that information will need to be put back. I don't really care where the critical information goes - it does seem to make sense where you put it. I do appreciate your work here. If I may flaunt the rules a bit an make a personal note, you seem to be one of the more balanced editors here, particularly for an ex-member (I think you said you were one, though I may have you confused with someone else). Cheers!--Moon Rising 23:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not count the words I enshortened, but I just re-arranged the text summarizing the various existing critics, without ommitting any of them. Baby Dove 02:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I like the new approach very much. I have made some minor (I think) edits in the two first sections. I wasn't sure of the mechanics and so my edits may be cumbersome. StillWorking 03:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear StillWorking, I like that you're getting into editing, but there are a few mistakes in the process. I left you some editing tips on your talk page and made one change (deleted your signature and put a request for citation tag in its place)in the article as an example. You'll get the hang of it! Moon Rising 04:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

However, I like your summarizing. I'm sure you will find where to look for a source. Baby Dove 05:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the patience and instruction, Bad Moon. StillWorking 18:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

When you call me that, the song goes through my head.--Moon Rising 21:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)