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)

I consider it inappropriate that Jossi used the above quote by Rothbaum that I posted as evidence against me. The post was a sincere attempt to analyze a general problem in Wikipedia and should hence not have been used against me. Andries 03:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Jossi, I think you could help a lot if you removed all your off-topic comment then I do not have to state again and again that the evidence that you provided is off-topic. Andries 02:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the evidence I provided is pertinent to the case. At this point is in the hands of the ArbCom to decide if these are off-topic comments or not. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, one arbcom member has already made a statement about the scope of the arbitration which I think supports my view that many of your comments are off-topic. Andries 02:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If you refer to Fred's statement above, I would disagree with your interpertation. Fred used the term "at a minimum", and not "only". As I said above, it is now in the hands of those members of the ArbCom that will work in this case, to evaluate the evidence and assess if it is pertinent to the case or not. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Then I will continue to give rebuttals to complaints that are off-topic and I will hold you and SSS108 responsible to a great extent for my many words beyond the recommended maximum that I use. Andries 02:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said, the evidence may be not off-topic. Note that you could save a lot of space by simply refering to the evidence title and number (i.e. "Counter-evidence to Jossi's evidence 3.6.1 Example 1") rather than copying and pasting the evidence presented by others into you evidence section. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

<<<Andries, your evidence section is now more that 6,800 words. I would suggest you take accept my suggestion and rather than copying and pasting evidence from other sections, you refer to these by number and title. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:06, 18 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)

Thank you, Pjacobi. SSS108 ^talk-email 05:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You may be mistaken

Andries: You say Both SSS108 and Jossi have accused me of being a self-admitted POV pusher by referring to the now removed statement on my user page that I opposed an uncritical approaced to cults and new religious movements..

Note that I did not refer to your userbox in my evidence. You may want to correct that statement. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You did say it elsewhere [1]. Andries 22:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I amended my comment to reflect that you did not use the user box as evidence against me (which I by the way never wrote). Andries 22:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That is not enough, Andries. I would appreciate if you correct that statement further, as I did not refer to this at all. Please add the diff, and correct your statement. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I will add the diff, but I do not understand it anymore. What were you referring to when you wrote "You may have not "broken the policy" but you are surely using Wikipedia to advocate your point of view, as stated by you several times including recently on your own user page."? Andries 22:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if I understand this thread, however, Andries are you saying you did not create that userbox? If that is the case, kindly tell me who did. SSS108 ^talk-email 06:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

SSS108, I did create the userbox, but it was not in a template, so other could not use it. Andries 08:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You are splitting hairs, Andries. Nevertheless, I can see that you keep ignoring my suggestions to remove copies of other's evidence from your section and reduce your 7,000 words to 1,000. IMO, this reflects poorly on you and I will not be surprised if the clerk decides to reduce your evidence to somehow fit within the limits. You can do that yourself and save the clerk's time and the enhance the ArbCom's ability to wade through all the evidence. As they say, given enough rope... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, I think your suggestion contradicts what the clerk wrote, "If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. " Andries 15:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"Cite" the evidence, Andries, not "copy and paste" the evidence. Cite, as in "Counter-evidence to Jossi's evidence 3.6.1 Example 1", etc. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I guess you are right. I have not finished providing evidence. The lists of my mistakes that you provided falsely suggests that I have higher fraction of mistakes than SSS108 and Jossi. To rebut this I will compile a list of mistakes by Jossi and SSS108 on several articles. Andries 13:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not about "mistakes", we all make them, Andries. This is about a pattern of editing behavior in both SSS108 and yourself. That is what this case is about. Hopefully the arbCom will be abble to provide some remedies to assist with the ongoing dispute. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, I think this is also about your and SSS108 pattern of behavior of not assuming good faith in case I simply made mistakes. This will be made clearer if I show your mistakes that happen to support your POV. To err is only being human. If you have the right to list my mistakes while not assuming my good faith then I certainly have the right to list your mistakes while assunming your good faith. Andries 17:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not an issue of having good faith or not. It is an issue of a pattern of editing behavior by the parties that may be construed as advocacy. Your evidence is already way over the limit, and the evidence phase is already two weeks old. The ArbCom will start moving into the workshop phase. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The first question that I asked here i.e. how much time there was for providing evidence remains unanswered. Andries 20:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, and how do you recognize advocacy? You cannot recognize advocacy by assuming bad faith when there are simply mistakes. Andries 20:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

By observing a pattern in an editor's behavior as presented by evidence, which will be weighted by the ArbCom to assess if it is indeed a pattern or just honest mistakes. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

To make a good assement it is necessary that the arbcome compares it with 1. the editing behavior that the editor makes on non-controversial subjects and 2. the editing behavior by other editors on controversial subjects. Nr. 1 seems impossible because nobody cares enough about my editing behavior on non-controversial issues, though I believe that my edits there have the same fraction of mistakes and in the case of nr. 2. I will point out some mistakes by you and SSS108 that happen to support your POV, but unlike you I will assume good faith as per Wikipedia guidelines. Andries 21:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The case is about the editing behavior of SSS108 and yourself in articles about Sai Baba, and related articles only, and the dispute around it, and thus the evidence presented. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it is impossible to distinguish mistakes from advocacy unless there is a reference which I am trying to provide on the evidence page. Andries 22:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever .... just remember that "When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. " and "Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective"– So far you have over 7 times the alloted space... Hardly being considerate. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)