Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba/Evidence

What is the the time schedule for presenting evidence? Andries 06:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I request that all complaints in this page make it clear why they are related to the article in question. Most of the comments by user:Jossi and user:SSS108 are unrelated to Sathya Sai Baba, but it takes me a lot of time and effort to proof that. The burden of proof here that an edit that I make is relevant for the article Sathya Sai Baba is not on me, but on the editors making these comments. Andries 07:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I request that the arbitrators make a preliminary decision about the question whether it is okay that I continue to mention the real name of user:SSS108. I think that his real name is relevant and that SSS108's complaint that I should not divulge his real name very strange and exaggerated as I explained on the evidence page. I think it is important because the real name of user:SSS108 is mentioned in the main text of some older versions of the article Sathya Sai Baba and he repeatedly reverted to these versions himself. In addition user:SSS108 is the self-admitted webmaster and author of the largest apologetic website regarding Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 11:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines

Please respect the guidelines of maximum 1,000 words in your evidence section. Thanks.

Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective.

• Andries: 2,400 words
• SSS108 : 1,400 words

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment about systemic problems in NRM articles

I don't see a 100% fitting place to put this statement, so the Evidence talk page may be least off-topic:

There is a systemic problem with Wikipedia articles about new religious movements, also called cults by some editors. They are overwhelmingly edited by members and ex-members (or anti-cult activists), the involvement of scholars in this field, like User:Fossa, being the exception.

So, strictly speaking, it is a permanent violation of Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved -- but of course this principle has limitation, I don't think we should forbid physicists to edit article on physics or catholics to edit article on catholicism. But in the case of NRM the debate is typically heated and if you have the articles on your watchlist, it is a real pain. Some arguments brought forward are very esoteric and cannot be understood at all by outsiders, whereas members and ex-members (or members of struggling factions) never get tired to discuss them until the talk page archive count enters the three-digit-range. From more are less recent wikiEN-l discussions I want to name the A Course in Miracles articles, or the New Kadampa Tradition. Also list and categories are part of this struggle, like Category:Cult leaders and List of groups referred to as cults.

Now going on to user conduct: Both sides have very bad editors, coming only for a short time, place their -- often personal attacking -- comments, revert wholesale, etc. These are comparatively easy to deal with, and fortunately for them and for Wikipedia, they don't stay very long.

Then we have more long-term one-issue-editors, like SSS108 (talk · contribs) (contribution tree), whose only involment with Wikipedia is watching that The Article stays/gets "right", for some value of right.

Both from the apologetics and the apostats (I always use these expression in ironic and sort-of symphatizing way, please don't RfC me for this), Wikipedia has recruited valued editors, like User:Jossi (admin here) or User:Irmgard (admin on de:). Usually their neutrality is still disputed by the other side, but at least they know to behave and how to write good articles.

OK, finally to Andries (talk · contribs) (contribution tree): IMHO he 's somewhere in the middle of this scale, with generally good knowledge and adherence to policy, but of course he's here for a issue which he considers very important.

Sorry wasting this much bytes for nearly off topic rant, but I'm watching this for some time, and I'm essentially hopeless on the general issue.

Pjacobi 22:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I do admit that there is a general issue in Wikipedia with cults and new religious movements and that the article Sathya Sai Baba is just an example of it. On the other hand, some groups, like ISKCON and the Unification Church that have or had the reputation to be highly controversial have not attracted strong controversy in Wikipedia. Like Pjacobi, I have no idea what to do about the systematic problems with the cult and new relgious movements in Wikipedia. Here is a quote that may explain some of the causes of it

From Susan Rothbaum 1988 Between Two Worlds: Issues of Separation and Identity after Leaving a religious Community, in the book edited by David G. Bromley part III: Disaffiliation from Alternative Religious Groups, Falling from the Faith: The Causes and Consequences of Religious Apostasy. Newbury Park: SAGE Publications, (1988) ISBN 0803931883

"As leavetakers reclaim their power to make an individual response to situations, they may feel a compelling need to tell the truth as they see it to the leader and those remaining in the group. As [John] Hall [in his article about the Peoples Temple] (this volume) notes "When individuals leave for reasons that involve conflict over sacred things, they may well find themselves locked in cognitive opposition ... with their former spiritual comrades". Having given their hearts and lives to groups that were supposedly dedicated to the truth, leavetakers find it intolerable that those groups should continue to operate and attract new members under what now appear to be false pretenses."

Andries 23:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC) (amended)

To Andries

May I remind you that this Arbitration case is about your editing as well as SSS108 behaviour in Sai Baba and related articles? I have tried to provide evidence of the behaviors I have observed in as respectable manner as possible. Your testimony about my behavior in a different article (that by the way shows your selective and out of context quoting), as if that would undermine the testimony provided, is rather childlish, and does not help your case whatsoever. I would advise you not to go that route, as you may be digging a deeper hole for yourself. You may be be better off, refactoring that out of your section. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, I will seriously consider your request, but I want to remind you that you started with mentioning my behaviour on other articles than Sathya Sai Baba that I think are sometimes only remotely related. And the edit on another article by you that I mentioned was I think related to the Sathya Sai Baba. I assumed that everybody who posted on arbitration pages would be a party to the arbitration (except arbcom members and clerks of course), but may be I misunderstood. SeeUser_talk:Fred_Bauder#Scope_of_arbitration_on_Sathya_Sai_Baba_and_user:Andries_versus_user:SSS108 Andries 00:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not a party to this arbitration case, but a third-party. Third parties can provide evidence in ArbCom cases. Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed comments about your behavior. Andries 00:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this statement of yours not a bit disingenuous? "I admit that I am part of an oppositional coalition against Jossi's teacher". Are you attempting to personalize this in this manner as if my testimony is in any way related to that fact, and you want to diminish it? I have tried to produce my evidence in a manner that is respectul and without personalizing it. I would appreciate you do the same. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Scope of the Arbitration

From User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Scope_of_arbitration_on_Sathya_Sai_Baba_and_user:Andries_versus_user:SSS108

"We will, at a minimum, look at the articles affected by the conflict between the adversaries named in the arbitration. Fred Bauder 18:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)"

The only articles in which adverseries user:SSS108 and user:Andries had serious conflict is

• Sathya Sai Baba

We also had conflict, but to a far lesser extent on

• Beliefs and practices in the Sathya Sai Organisation,
• true believer syndrome, and
• list of cults

User:SSS108 never seriously tried to edit the articles guru, post cult trauma, apostasy, and cult. SSS108 has complained about my behavior on these articles, but has never seriously tried to improve these articles. He only uses my behavior on these article there discredit me as an editor for the article Sathya Sai Baba. In other words I will treat the comments by user:SSS108, user:Jossi and others on these articles as off-topic. Andries 01:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC) (amended)

The evidence is provided so that arbitrators can assess the parties' edit patterns and behaviors. The arbitrators will look at the evidence provided and decide what to take into account and hat to ignore. And by the way, no one is trying to discredit you. ArbCom cases not about character assasination, but a way for the community through the Arbitration comittee to assist editors in dispute resoultion by providing remedies and passing decrees. In extreme cases, they may ban or put users on certain paroles. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is important to limit and define the scope of this arbitration. SSS108 even started mentioning the dispute that I had with user:Sam Spade on the article Nazi Mysticism that I edited long time ago which is completely off-topic. This arbitration case is not called user:Andries, but Sathya Sai Baba. I would appreciate a clarification of the arbcom members who accepted this case. Andries 18:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Both Andries and SSS108 would be better off reducing/summarizing their evidence. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Rest

I didn't realize people were posting on this page. I apologize that my article exceeded the 1,000 word limit, but I feel that I have made all the main points I wanted to make. Any additional edits will be clarifications or additional citations. Thanks. SSS108 ^talk-email 03:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Continuing Edits

I would like to know if there is any policy that limits the parties in a RFA from editing the pages that comprise the controversial issues to be arbitrated? For example, Andries is continuing to edit SSB related articles and adding more material, pushing his Anti-SSB POV: Ref (the last time he edited this page was about 3 and a half months ago). Andries is even mysteriously making comments to outdated threads (almost 3 months old), apparently in an attempt to change the way the thread originally read: Ref. What to do? SSS108 ^talk-email 19:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba#Temporary injunction (none). No temporary injunction has been put in place. You can request them at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba/Workshop#Proposed temporary injunctions. --Pjacobi 19:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

SSS108, If you object that I continue to edit the article then please request a temporary injuction soon. I intend to edit in more court cases soon. Andries 19:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)