Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/December 2006/Tanaats

Case Filed On: 23:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedian filing request:



Other Wikipedians this pertains to:



Wikipedia pages this pertains to:

Questions:
Have you read the AMA FAQ?
 * Answer: Yes

'''How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)'''
 * Answer: Content dispute

'''What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.'''
 * Answer: I've been involved in exhaustive discussion on Talk:Anti-Cult Movement, which very soon involved both sides repeating the same arguments over and over again, so I bowed out of the discussion to file an RFC, which I did (see Talk:Anti-Cult Movement and Talk:Anti-Cult Movement).

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?
 * Answer: Help in doing DR correctly and most effectively.

Summary:
I'm having quite a dispute on Anti-Cult Movement. There are two armed camps in the discussion of "cults": the "cult critics" such as the late Margaret Singer, and the proponents of the concept of New Religious Movements (NRM) such as Eileen Barker. The "cult critics" support the theory that there are such things as "cults" of a destructive nature that use unethical, deceptive, and that use powerful psychological techniques to recruit and retain members. The advocates of the theory of NRMs take any equally strong position that there is no such thing.

I am a cult critic.

The whole proposition that an Anti-Cult Movement (ACM) even exists as an "amalgam of cult critics and their organizations" is a theory of the NRM proponents. Yet that article is written with a strong POV that it is a known fact that an ACM exists -- this is asserted by statement or strong implication throughout the article. This is strongly POV in favor of the NRM position. After endless debate on the Talk page, the first sentence was changed to take out (most of) the POV. However the article is still rife with "POV by implication".

All I want is that the "spin" be taken out of the article so that both sides of the "is the ACM" debate can be fairly represented in the article, so that the readers can decide for themselves without have to wade through a lot of spin.

Jossi, one of the other disputants, is an Admin with a million edits to his credit, and also an AMA member himself. He is also a member of a group that is often criticized by cult critics. His POV is as strong as mine. I am rather new to WP and I feel a bit outgunned going up against an Admin/Advocate. FWIW, and  have much more experience at WP (and therefore carry more "weight" in a dispute as I understand) and they are already on the Talk page arguing on my side of the dispute.

The AMA page says that I can seek an Advocate even at very early stages of a dispute. This is all new to me, and I would appreciate some knowledgable assistance.

If at all possible, I would like to discuss this "off-wiki". My email address is:
 * tanaats AT fastem.com

Thanks.

Followup:
When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?
 * Answer:

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?
 * Answer:

On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?
 * Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?
 * Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?
 * Answer:

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?
 * Answer:

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?
 * Answer:

AMA Information
Case Status: closed

Advocate Status:
 * Pending Advocate Addhoc Æon  Insanity Now! EA!  01:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry for the delay in responding. At this juncture, I should mention, there are currently problems with my browser, which prevent viewing diffs. Accordingly, I may require help at some later stage, possibly continuing my input on a 'second chair' basis. Addhoc 13:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi. No problem, there have been significant developments in the dispute anyway so the wait was useful.  Hey, would you mind continuing this on email for privacy?  If that's ok, I'm at tanaats AT fastem.com.  Thanks. Tanaats 16:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The dispute resolved itself. You can go ahead and close this request.  Thanks. Tanaats 06:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, Addhoc 11:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)