User talk:Timothy6 20

You cannot simply remove critical reports from this page. It is not an advert for SGM, but an encylopedic up-to-the-minute entry.

Removal of subjective and biased entries

I removed the material that is not wanted, is biased, and is probably an advertisement for your own website. This does not fit in with encyclopedic style posting.

It's not my website... I have no link with SGM. By whom is this material "not wanted"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Look2008 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not slander to cite criticisms made by others. For example, John McCain's entry has reference to unproved suggestions that he had an affair with a politician. Do you have any past or present link with SGM? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Look2008 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The information cited is from an anonyomous gossip weblog and is therefore unreliable.

I repeat: Do you have any past or present link with SGM? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Look2008 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am a member of a SGM affiliated church. Regardless, my edits have nothing to do with subjectivity. If you would like to put something on the article that is helpful, verifiable, with reliable sources, no problem. Timothy6 20 (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I have written is perfectly accurate. I am reporting criticism, not endorsing it. Can you find any innaccuracies in the following statement:

"Beginning in late 2007, Sovereign Grace became the subject of a highly critical web-based discussion by former members and associates of its churches. The blog, Sovereign Grace Uncensored, can attract hundreds of posts in a single day by those concerned that SGM has moved away from its charismatic past, airbrushed the role of co-founder Larry Tomczak from its history and engages in spiritually abusive pastoral practices." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Look2008 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, reporting valid criticism is fine, but cite reliable sources. Citing one anonymous gossip weblog is not sufficient, it's more tantamount to slander, certainly rumor and personal opinion. Read the Wiki policy on this. "Questionable sources

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources." Timothy6 20 (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just put a Request for Protection on that article. Disputes on content should be discussed, not edit warred over. Steve Crossin (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks Steve. Timothy6 20 (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"you are showing your cards by boasting in the amount of hits your website received" - has it escaped your attention that I didn't add that detail in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Look2008 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief! I don't want to start a fight now! I'm just trying to help solve a dispute. sigh Steve Crossin (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Steve, I appreciate that a lot! I am a tad frustrated because Timothy 6 20 is a self-acknowledged member of the organisation this article concerns and seems essentially to wish to remove all reference to criticism of his own church. I do appreciate your input! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Look2008 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would never edit an article that I may have some sort of bias or conflict of interest in. Might I suggest a third party examine the article, and review it? Someone not involved in the article at this stage. I would offer to do that, if you would both agree. Steve Crossin (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine with me. I do not - nor ever have had - any involvement with the organisation, so I consider myself to be neutral and simply reporting dissent. But.. yes... that would be OK.--Preceding unsigned comment added by Look2008 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, please understand that I am fine with any criticism. But if you want to post your criticism, please cite reliable sources. We have already been over this. Additionally, you say that you have no connection with SGM, yet the only contributions you have made to Wikipedia are concerning SGM and it's affiliates. This seems odd. Furthermore, you have had several edits censored in the past for similar reasons. As Steve recommended, let's discuss this, rather than simply editing over each other and getting frustrated. Thanks, Timothy6 20 (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve, That would be very much appreciated. As I stated above, I am all for objective, accurate, reliable edits. I freely acknowledge my involvement with SGM, though I do wonder about how objective "Look" is, according to his contribution history. Please give me any feedback you have. Timothy6 20 (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well the first thing that should be done, is a talk page should be establihed for the article. Also, please, no personal attacks. I will create the talk page in a few minutes, and I'd also like you to both find citations for the article. Content must be verifiable, or it can be disputed. Steve Crossin (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never been involved with SGM. I do, though, have a basic grasp of charismatic restorationist history and have - for many many years - been aware of SGM and its history. When I looked on Wikipedia I was suprised to find gaps in what was said (especially with regard to the role of co-founder Larry Tomczak) so I sought to add that in there. I have made edits on Wikipedia before under another name on non-SGm article - a year or so ago. But the lack of historical content leapt out at me, so I addressed that, as one who is well-versed in restorationist history. The reference to SGM Uncensored on the SGM article came a little later, but it seems to be surpressed constantly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Look2008 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page has been created, it is here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cro0016 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for your input on the talk page. And to both of you, please be civil Steve Crossin (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve, sorry, I did make an initial comment on the talk page. With regard to additional sourcing, I am happy to do a little research this weekend, but until then, I will not have enough time. I have been more concerned about keeping the contentious claims of one blog off the entry. Again, thanks for stepping in and moderating. Timothy6 20 (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sovereign Grace Ministries. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Rjd0060 (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign Grace Ministries

I have filed a 3 revert complaint against the anon user. They should be stopped soon. :) Steve Crossin (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That user has been blocked for 31 hours. However I suspect they have gone and are now using another IP. But I'm fighting for you :) Steve Crossin (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help Steve. I'm sure yours can be a frustrating position to "baby-sit" some of this back and forth stuff, but I commend your patience and diligence. Timothy6 20 (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, it was very frustrating. I was nearly begging for an admin to check the 3RR violation noticboard, they like broke it to 10RRs. Eventually it was taken care of. But it's a page on my watchlist, which means I have to watch over it. Which I did. If you have any more troubles, let me know, just note I cannot take sides, but must look at the policies in question. WP:RS was being violated, blogs are not a reliable source, so I stood ground. However did not wish to violate 3RR myself. Steve Crossin (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, so how do you keep 3RR violaters' edits from remaining without yourself committing the 3RR? That is, it seems that someone can revert three times, and unless you have multiple people reverting his, then the offenders' edits stand. What are your thoughts? Thanks again. Timothy6 20 (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wait until they have racked up a few edits of violating 3RR, then I use the rollback button. Rolls back ALL their edits that they make, that is, until the last edit by another user. Other than that, I think if someone is repeatedly violating 3RR, there is reason that you can stop their edits, but I am not sure. Steve Crossin (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Sovereign Grace Ministries has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Will ^(talk) 15:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Will, I have read the appropriate links on editing but don't understand how you feel my edit was less than constructive. I did, in fact, provide an edit summary, as well as ongoing discussion on the "discussion" page for this particular entry. If you still feel this, please let me know specifically how you think I can be more constructive in my edits. Thanks. Timothy6 20 (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Hi "Look2008", in regards your edit that suggests that SGM has expunged Larry Tomzack from their history, are you aware of any evidence of this? I don't think that they have any sort of official written church history. Therefore, I'm not sure that it's completely fair to suggest that they are trying to "cover up" his role. What are your thoughts?" Thanks for this question... I don't think the affirmation is being made that they "cover-up", but that they omit. It's less a statement of sinister intent and more a statement of basic fact. If you follow PDI history from founding until 1998, Tomczak was huge. He and Mahaney loomed large and were the driving force behind it. Now there is no reference to him. It's an ommission. A glaring one. But I'm not saying it's a cover-up! Your thoughts....? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Look2008 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose what I am getting at is this, SGM doesn't seem to have produced any written (paper or internet) history of itself, whether it be to their beginnings in TAG, CJ's earliest roles, or many other people that were highly influential early on. So maybe the issue is simply that, that they need to produce some sort of historical account. But I simply think that the underlying implications in the claim that they "omit" any reference to Tomzack needs to be qualified quite a bit before leaving it stand so simply. But again, if there is a full history that they have produced that omits Tomzack's role(s), than I whole-heartedly agree with your assessment; but do you know of one?

BTW, Thanks for the dialogue, I appreciate this so much more than the anonymous "undo"ers. Timothy6 20 (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question... I'll respond when I am home later. I'm off to the circus. Look on http://sguncensored.wordpress.com/2008/03/03/fear-and-loathing-in-my-in-box in the meantime for my comments - I'm "Joe" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Look2008 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt at Mediation- SGM

As you are a party regarding this article, I would ask that you give a statement here. I am attempting some informal mediation, and I would ask that all parties be civil. The page has been fully protected for one week, in an attempt to solve this dispute. You can also post a message on my talk page. Regards, Steve Crossin (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up Steve, and thanks again for your work! Timothy6 20 (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator comments pending

This is just a general note, I am going to be delivering my thoughts soon. It is not binding, nor will it be the end of discussion. It is my suggestion, I have spent a long time thinking about this, and have also received advice on this matter. I would ask that you consider my thoughts, and respond to them accordingly, please keep an open mind. Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Commments

Thanks! I just think some people were missing the point that this is a fairly academic debate more than passing judgement on the rights and wrongs of SGM. I hope you have a good day too - don't get hooked on your computer! Look2008 (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Just a note, I have made a recommendation on the Sovereign Grace talk page, I recommend you review it. Please, I must stress, my recommendation is not binding, only the Arbitration Committee can make binding decisions. That said, I have done my best to make a fair recommendation, and I would like you to review this, and give your comments below my statement. Thanks again, Steve Crossin (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment, I suggest you re-read my suggestions The inclusion to the link to the blog may be conditional,. that they give some details on which churches are involved, and the allegations against them. Please understand the complexity of this case, and that I have tried to take everyone's thoughts into consideration. Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve, thanks again for all you are doing, it is certainly an unenviable, and yet admirable, position, so thank you. I do understand that you are trying to be fair in your decision and again, I appreciate that very much. As far as my request for clarification is concerned, I believe it is the same request that is being echoed by many on the blog itself. That is, are you saying that if the blog simply compiles a list of who they have grievances against, and a list of accusations (regardless of verifiability), that the link would then be recommended? Or are you saying that they must provide more than unverifiable, anonymous accusations that would in any newspaper, periodical, or other news medium be considered as libel or slander? That is my question.

My main concern, more than the reputation of any one person or group of people is that the name of God not be maligned. This group of bloggers don't seem to have any interest in following biblically prescribed means of confrontation or reconciliation, and I do understand their frustration, believe me I do, I really hate any wrong that may have been committed, and I trust that God will vindicate them, but I simply don't find it honoring to God to go about it the way they have.

Regardless of the outcome, I do want to thank you so much for all the time you have taken to address this issue. Timothy6 20 (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious: have you spoken to your church leaders about this? What has been their response? Look2008 (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have spoken to them about it, we have actually had a few conversations about it, ranging from their reaction to allegations made about them and/or other pastors they know, to what their advice is for me regarding interaction with the bloggers and how to respond to criticism in general. I don't feel comfortable, however, going on record here discussing their responses (it's just not my place). If you really wanted to chat offline, I would be fine discussing it further. Thanks. Timothy6 20 (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd ask that you send me an email as soon as possible regarding your request as I am trying to reach a consenus, need to know what you are requiring. Also read this. Thanks, and post a message on my talk page. Cheers. Steve Crossin (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve, I read Novareproject's comment and think my latest response to Push4cush applies to Novareproject's comment as well. I think the most important line in Novareproject's comment was this, "I searched for citations for several days but could find no sources which speak negatively about SGM save for the blog in question". Please let me know if you have any additional questions.

Thanks again for your help. Timothy6 20 (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could I ask what you propose to happen? What they need to do to get the link added? What evidence do they need to show, in your opinion? note I'm trying to reach a middle ground here. Steve Crossin (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal? Really, I don't think the blog should be linked at all. There is no way to verify which blog posts, which comments from which users, are reliable and accurate. Additionally, please reference my most recent response to Push4cush on the talk page.

However, I do believe that some of the stories are true. I believe that those responsible for wrongdoing should be put in the spotlight, as it were, and held accountable. My vote is for a section for criticism, though again, only with proper sourcing in keeping with Wikipolicy. The problem with all this, though, is they don't offer any substantiation, any verifiable claims, any proof at all. I really sympathize with them, but I don't think the answer is to encourage pseudonymous, slanderous (until proven guilty) claims against living people and groups of people.

But I am open to further dialogue and persuasion. I just haven't seen a single argument made yet for why the Wikipolicy on reliable sources and/or external links should be excepted in this case.

That's my proposal. What are your thoughts? Timothy6 20 (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts are in your email I sent you. Steve Crossin (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]