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)
Please respect the guidelines of maximum 1,000 words in your evidence section. Thanks.
≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
From User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Scope_of_arbitration_on_Sathya_Sai_Baba_and_user:Andries_versus_user:SSS108
The only articles in which adverseries user:SSS108 and user:Andries had serious conflict is
We also had conflict, but to a far lesser extent on
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)
<<<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)
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)
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)
Thank you, Pjacobi. SSS108 talk- email 05:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Please respect the guidelines of maximum 1,000 words in your evidence section. Thanks.
≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
From User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Scope_of_arbitration_on_Sathya_Sai_Baba_and_user:Andries_versus_user:SSS108
The only articles in which adverseries user:SSS108 and user:Andries had serious conflict is
We also had conflict, but to a far lesser extent on
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)
<<<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)
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)
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)
Thank you, Pjacobi. SSS108 talk- email 05:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)