This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Conflict of interest

1) Editors at Wikipedia are expected to work towards NPOV in their editing activities. It is not possible to simultaneously pursue NPOV and an activist agenda. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest codifies the principle that editors may not edit articles about themselves or organizations they represent due to this inherent conflict. However, the conflict of interest policy is of deliberately limited compass and does not prohibit editors from working on articles about entities to which they have only an indirect relationship.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Proposed.[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Conflict of interest

1.1) Editors at Wikipedia are expected to work towards NPOV in their editing activities. It is not possible to simultaneously pursue NPOV and an activist agenda. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest codifies the principle that editors may not edit articles about themselves or organizations they represent due to this inherent conflict. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization.

Comment by Arbitrators:

A somewhat stronger version, borrowing wording from Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Close relationships. Kirill Lokshin 06:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I deny that I have a conflict of interest with the exception of defamation of critical former followers and linking to www.exbaba.com, the website that I am affiliated with. I was and am fully committed to write a balanced article on SSB. I fully recognized from the start that Wikipedia is not a website for activism. Of course, I am biased, but that is a different matter. If people think that I am an activist on Wikipedia then why would I take the effort to describe the beliefs and practices of the Sathya Sai Baba movement (that I started under the title Beliefs_and_practices_in_the_Sathya_Sai_Organisation ) without or with hardly any criticism? [1][2] Andries 20:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, Andries has admitted he has a "Conflict Of Interest" and "Strong POV" about Sathya Sai Baba on his user-page: [3][4]. It is my opinion that Andries is not committed to writing a balanced article as evidenced by his exclusive negative agenda on the SSB-related articles and his wholly negative views about SSB. Andries is also unwilling to abide by a proposition (that seeks to reduce edit-warring by obtaining collective consensus) that all the other editors have agreed to [5][6][7]. Despite being banned from the Robert Priddy article, Andries still believes that he is right and ArbCom and Admin are wrong [8][9]. All of this argues against Andries willingness to cooperate and write "balanced" articles. As stated before, it appears Andries created these sub-categories so he could add critical links to his and other Anti-Sai sites. The "beliefs and practices" page was no different. It had numerous critical links and that is the reason why Andries originally created it [10]. SSS108 ^talk-email 22:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To say that I created the article beliefs and practices article in 2004 [11] that was then already quite a long article without a single word of criticism only because I could insert links to critical websites not only shows a lack of good faith, but worse, it borders on paranoia. Again, I admit that I am an activist outside of Wikipedia, but I also have an intellectual interest in the matter, both inside an outside of Wikipedia. Andries 09:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I admit that I have a conflict of interest regarding SSB? Andries 09:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andries "Conflict Of Interest" and "Strong POV" about Sathya Sai Baba on his user-page: [12][13].

Andries, if you did not provide a "single word of criticism" in the "beliefs and practices" article [14], then why did you reference the article to critics like Sanjay Dadlani, Brian Steel, Robert Priddy? You also linked to critical websites. I have plenty of good reasons not to accept your edits in good faith, especially considering your former webmaster status to the largest Anti-Sai website on the internet [15]. It's not "paranoia" when I can support my comments with factual information taken from your edits. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles linked to critical websites because these critical websites also contained information about beliefs and practices of the SSB movement, such as the article by Reinhart Hummel that Jossi (talk · contribs) recommended here as a source. I used the articles by critical former followers Robert Priddy, Brian Steel and Sanjay Dadlani as sources because I believed and still believe them to be the best researched sources for the subject. Another reason was of course that I knew this highly informative online material well and found it very convenient to use. I now admit that they do not fulfill the Wikipedia reputable sources criteria and I did not object to them being removed as sources for that article. Again, as so often, I notice in your complaints accusations of deception when a more plausible explanation is available. See Hanlon's razor. If you objected to using these articles as sources then you should have complained on the talk page. The only editor M Alan Kazlev (talk · contribs) who ever did the effort of making complaints found me very reasonable, fair and open to criticism. Talk:Beliefs_and_practices_in_the_Sathya_Sai_Organisation [16]. Again, I was not well-versed in Wikipedia policies in 2004. Andries 18:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC) amended[reply]

You just made the case for me. Although you did not say a "single word of criticism", your intent was to reference the article to critics. Thank you. Of course, this is not the first time you have attempted to blame your biased editing on not being familiar with Wikipedia policy. You did the same thing on the true-believer syndrome article where you completely dismissed the original research of O'Clery and Holbach (as recently as April 4th 2006) although you removed other "unsupported references" [17][18]. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, SSS108, I cannot find in the difs that you provided that I ever admitted that I had a Conflict of interest in the SSB article. I think that discussions with you are very tedious, and unconstructive. I find almost everything that you write completely unconvincing, though even I will admit that you make occasionally a good point. Andries 18:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To show ArbCom how Andries is still pushing forward with his Anti-Sai agenda on Wikipedia, take at a look at this edit on the Narayana Kasturi article [19]. Andries has an obsession with the word "hagiographic" and although it is sourced to a relevant source, Andries insists on including a link to Mick Brown's article (that deals with the Sai Controversy) simply because he made a single reference to Kasturi's work as a "hagiography". Bapp's work is a scholarly source and his reference is sufficient for this rather trivial issue. Needless to say, Andries wants to include controversial links on as many articles as he can find. These types of petty squabbles and POV pushing have no end in sight. SSS108 ^talk-email 15:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

NPOV and sources

1) Wikipedia's NPOV policy provides that articles should utilize the best and most reputable source[s]. NPOV cannot be synthesized by merely presenting a plurality of opposing viewpoints, each derived from a polarized source. Instead, NPOV requires that high-quality, neutral sources be used for the bulk of the article, with more polarized sources utilized only when necessary to illustrate the range of opinion. Wikipedia:Reliable sources provides that scholarly sources are to be preferred, and offers advice on evaluation of non-scholarly sources. Wikipedia holds that particular attention to sourcing is vital for controversial subjects, and that exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

Wikipedia's prohibition on original research provides that editors may not synthesize viewpoints or draw conclusions of their own from primary sources or other raw data. Instead, Wikipedia articles document what reliable sources state about their subjects.

Especially in controversial cases, citations should be complete enough that readers may evaluate them, and specific enough that the supporting material can be easily retrieved and identified.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Proposed.[reply]

Comment by parties:

The "best and most reputable sources'" are highly critical of SSB. Wikipedia articles should summarize what such sources say. There is not a single scholarly biography of SSB. Examples of the "best and most reputable sources" are the BBC (The Secret Swami broadcasted on 17th June 2004 in This World [20]) , and India Today (A God Accused December 04, 2000 by Vijay Jung Thapa, Lavina Melwani, and Syed Zubair Ahmed [21]), The Times (Suicide sex and the guru by Dominic Kennedy on August 27, 2001), The Daily Telegraph (Divine Downfall 28 October 2000 by Mick Brown). On the other hand, I can understand of course, that an article that consists mainly of opposing viewpoints regardless if they completely follow all the policies is not very informative. The article should reflect the fact that the reputable sources, such as the ones mentioned hereabove, that have investigated the matter found the accusations convincing. Andries 21:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Jossi mentions Mother Theresa gives me the opportunity to point out the differences in the availability of sources between SSB and Mother Theresa. In the case of the latter there are reasonably reputable biographies available (I have read several of them years ago). In the case of SSB this is not the case, so this leaves secondary source newspaper and secondary source BBC documentary as the best available sources. Andries 00:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Non-withstanding the tremendous controversy surrounding this person (my opinion of which I prefer to keep private), to assert that the best sources for an article about him are a BBC documentary and a couple of newspaper articles while there are hundreds of sources available, is at best naïve. This is akin as saying that the best source for the article on Mother Teresa or Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama, is Christopher Hitchens. Not that I am comparing these people, but just as an illustration that may be useful: surely critics of Teresa and the Dalai Lama believe Hitcheks to be the best source, for obvious reasons. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Activist editing

1) Wikipedia is not a soapbox for propaganda or activist editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Proposed.[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sathya Sai Baba is weakly sourced

1) The Sathya Sai Baba article, despite containing many citations, remains weakly sourced due to the quality of the references used and the uninformative nature of the citations. The Arbitration Committee notes that Jossi has compiled a list of more suitable references.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Proposed.[reply]

"uninformative nature of the citations"? Kirill Lokshin 05:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many of them are incomplete. Some lack information on the publisher and the year of publication. Some that are periodical references lack the article title or author name. Some lack page numbers. Some have website links but seem to imply that they are also available in print without citing the print publication. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I had inserted more complete citations (See threaded discussion version with more complete citations including page numbers), but they were removed by Pjacobi (talk · contribs) )(See e.g. [22][23][24][25]) in spite of my protests (see threaded discussion and another threaded discussion), though I agreed with Pjacobi that some citations were overly long . Andries 21:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of the article by Lawrence Babb I am unconvinced that Jossi has provided a list that can be used for better referencing of the article. See also User_talk:TalkAbout#Babb_Redemptive_encounters. I admit that some of the titles may be used for the article The Sathya Sai Baba movement (which has since it start by me in 2004 always been a separate article) as I had already stated. I would recommend other editors who have more faith in Jossi's list to spend the time and money to check whether I was correct or not. Andries 00:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi mentions two articles as sources written by Reinhart Hummel and Donald Taylor. The article by Hummel is already used as source and another article by Donbald Taylor is also already used as source. Andries 00:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also would like to note that I have introduced the article by Reinhart Hummel as a source that Jossi recommends. I also introduced an article by Donald Taylor as a source. Andries 01:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One sentence from Taylor's and once mention from Hummel? Surely these sources deserve better exposure. For example, Hummel's article is pretty interesting [26] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that more of what Reinhart Hummel and Donald Taylor wrote could be used in the article. I cannot read Danish. Sorry. Andries 01:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor's article is in a book edited by Richard Burghart Hinduism in Great Britain, and should be in English. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh then it is already used as a source too, especially for the related article Prema Sai Baba. Andries 01:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Books by SSB often do not mention the their publication year. Andries 00:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

You may be mistaken, Andries. Just a couple of examples below:

• An article by Hummel Reinhart: "Guru, Miracle Worker, Religious Founder. Sathya Sai Baba." Update: A Quarterly Journal on New Religious Movements (Aarhus, Denmark) 9 ( 3), 1985: pp. 8-19 -- A portrait of the Sathya Sai Baba movement which describes the role of the leader and what he claims to stand for, i.e. an incarnation of Sai. Looks at Sai Baba's childhood and family background, the activities of the organization, its meditation practices, and analyses the phenomenon from a functional approach.
• An article by Taylor Donald. "Phenomenal: The Significance of Miracles in the Sathya Sai Baba Movement." Religion Today 3 ( 1), 1986: pp. 9-11 -- Discusses the nature and function of the miracles in the Sathya Sai Baba movement, as well as their role in sustaining the power and authority of the leader.

An excellent and informative article could be written if these and many other sources available are explored. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reinhart Hummel is a Lutheran Pastor and Director of Evangelische Zentralstelle fur Weltanschauungsfragen since 1981. Hummel argued that Sathya Sai Baba is Anti-Christian and is the Anti-Christ. Hummel clearly has a self-admitted bias and fundamentalist Christian POV and is not reliable for this reason, in my opinion. As a matter of fact, the relevant article has been published on Andries Anti-Sai site. SSS108 ^talk-email 22:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andries

2) The Arbitration Committee notes that Andries has participated at Wikipedia for nearly three years, during which time perhaps half his edits have been to Sathya Sai Baba and related articles. Andries has declared that he is an ex-follower of Sathya Sai Baba, and is affiliated with an activist web site critical of Sathya Sai Baba. In the course of his editing, Andries has been blocked for 3RR violations on two occasions, and has been blocked once due to a violation of a prior arbitration remedy. He has been involved with two mediation attempts centered on the problems at the Sathya Sai Baba article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Proposed.[reply]

Comment by parties:

With regards to the block for violation of the arbitration remedy, please note that I had requested clarifiction from the arbcom that was ignored and that I reported myself for violation of arbitration only because I wanted clarity about what I considered and still consider a flawed interpretation of the arbitration remedy. [27] Andries 22:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only remember a mediation by BostonMA (talk · contribs). Andries 21:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andries is unwilling to accept the ArbCom ruling and continually attempts to re-interpret the ruling so he can circumvent it. As one can see, Andries still refuses to accept the ruling. Unless ArbCom gives Andries a point-blank answer, this issue will never be resolved. Besides the mediation with BostonMA, a second mediation attempt was made with Wisden17 Ref and Andries behavior was deemed to be uncooperative and that is when I filed the first RFA. SSS108 ^talk-email 22:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had already commented on this aborted mediation attempt in the previous abritration case. Andries 09:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Andries' editing privileges restricted

1) In light of his ongoing activism at Sathya Sai Baba and the repeated failure of lesser dispute resolution mechanisms, User:Andries may not edit any articles in any way related to Sathya Sai Baba for a period of one year. During this time, he may not initiate or respond to any dispute resolution actions related to such articles, including but not limited to requests for comments, Mediation, or postings to the administrators' noticeboard. He may, however, engage in discussion and make suggestions at the relevant article and user talk pages.

If necessary, this remedy may be enforced with blocks of escalating duration beginning at up to 7 days.

This remedy is not to be construed as license for others to engage in hagiography at Sathya Sai Baba.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Proposed.[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agaim, I did not engage in activism. I request that UninvitedCompany proves that I engaged in activism in the Sathya Sai Baba article. I also request him or her to prove that I have repeatedly and seriously violated Wikipedia policies which would justify the harsh sanction that s/he proposes. Andries 21:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andries, when you controlled the article for 2 years, the entire article was proof of your Anti-Sai activism. The external links section with link-spamming to your and other Anti-Sai sites and the prevalence of original research proves that abundantly. Even recently you attempted to promote Brian Steel (an Anti-Sai Activist) by citing him. You are an Anti-Sai activist. Are you saying you are not? You even appeared on a program speaking against SSB, whose contents you refused to translate for ArbCom on my request. All of this proves you are an activist. Perhaps if you defined "activism", and explained how you do not engage in it, that would help. SSS108 ^talk-email 22:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that I am an activist outside of Wikipedia, but apart from that I also have an intellectual interest in that matter. I did not engage in activism in Wikipedia. The book by Brian Steel that I cited was a reasonably reputable source and written by Steel when he was still a devotee. Your attempt to prove that I am an activist in Wikipedia by saying that I use a devotee book for the article is unconvincing. Regarding the original research and "link spamming" this has already been treated in the previoous abritration case and I will not repeat it here unless requested by arbitrators. Andries 09:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you do Andries. No need to make a huge argument because ArbCom is smart enough to see through your denial. Your past link-spamming to critic's site is proof of your activism on Wikipedia. The fact that you continue to argue for Steel's book, but then argue against "reasonably reputable sources" written by Murphet, etc., is proof of your continued activism and bias. You solicited the petition against SSB on the article and on your user page (as well as citing and linking to an anonymous and defamatory letter against SSB) [28]. You solicited the BBC documentary on your userpage [29]. Your pushed your personal defection story numerous times. I could go on and on about your numerous attempts to push your Anti-Sai Activism on Wikipedia. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider links to www.exbaba.com and www.saiguru.net on the article Sathya Sai Baba "link spamming", because they are informative, relevant to the article, and also contain reputable source material. Wikipedia allows considerable freedom on userpages. What matters are my edits on the article Sathya Sai Baba, esp. the edits made after the previous arbcom case, because I assume that the amnesty from the arbcom that we received is still valid. UninvitedCompany and other Arbcom members, please let me know if this amnesty has been retracted. I do not consider the book by the gullible Howard Murphet that is so full of uninvestigated miracle stories that are quite easily accepted as the genuine as a reasonable reputable source. Andries 19:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can the arbcom members who support this motion please provide evidence that I have seriously and repeatedly violated Wikipedia policies after the amnesty that I received in the first arbcom case? I would be surprized if anybody was able to find one single edit in which I seriously violated Wikipedia policies in SSB related articles since the previous arbcom case. Andries 01:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Sources

2) Editors involved at Sathya Sai Baba are encouraged to use better sources and improved citation style.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Proposed.[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Ektanik to edit under a single user name

3) User:Ekantik is instructed to make all future Wikipedia contributions related in any way to Sathya Sai Baba under a single username.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Proposed.[reply]

Comment by parties:

Almost all of his contributions related to SSB were made by Ekantik (talk · contribs). He only voted to keep the article of the SSB critic Robert Priddy with his sockpuppet, Gaurasundara (talk · contribs). Andries 22:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. I have never contributed to the SSB article with any other username except "Ekantik", nor do I intend to do so. I therefore think that this proposal is invalid. Ekantik ^talk 02:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Prior remedies clarified

1) The remedies at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba regarding poorly sourced information remain in force and apply to all editors working on the Sathya Sai Baba article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Proposed.[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Open remedy

4) The committee reserves the right to amend these remedies as required and to issue additional remedies as necessary to provide a positive environment for collaboration on the Sathya Sai Baba article, even if no additional case is brought forward.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Proposed.[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: