From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

  • Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
  • Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if they so choose. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

For this case, there are 6 active arbitrators and none are recused, so 4 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision Information

Proposed principles

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.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC). First choice. reply
  2. Fred Bauder 20:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. FloNight 00:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. James F. (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. Charles Matthews 16:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

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.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC). Second choice. I believe that we should constrain the definition of conflict of interest to clear cases, and treat disputes such as this one as NPOV problems. reply
  2. Fred Bauder 20:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. FloNight 00:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. James F. (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. Charles Matthews 16:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

NPOV and sources

2) 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.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Fred Bauder 20:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. FloNight 00:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. James F. (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. Charles Matthews 16:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Activist editing

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

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Fred Bauder 20:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. FloNight 00:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. James F. (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. Charles Matthews 16:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

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.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Fred Bauder 20:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. True, but this is a content ruling. James F. (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
  1. Charles Matthews 16:11, 11 February 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.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Fred Bauder 20:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. James F. (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. Charles Matthews 16:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. FloNight 02:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Editing by Andries

3) With respect to Robert Priddy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Andries has editwarred extensively and repeatedly inserted links to an attack site maintained by Robert Priddy [1]. His edits to Sathya Sai Baba (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) are generally responsible, requesting verification rather than aggressively deleting or reverting [2]. They include this edit adding sources, this edit suggesting a merger with The Sathya Sai Baba movement, [3], copyediting, adding source, and this one requesting a source for SSB being described as a philosopher. This query was soon reverted by Kkrystian ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with the comment "Rm "citation needed" notice. Andries not believing SSB is a philosopher is not a reason to question this fact. SSB is undoubtedly a philosopher. His philosophy relates to ethics, theology & society" [4].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. James F. (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. Charles Matthews 16:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. FloNight 02:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Sources used by Andries

3.1) Sources such as this BBC transcript, cited by Andries in this edit contain material which may be appropriately used, there are charges of sexual abuse of boys, but also material which may not be, the allegations of sexual abuse by a particular boy. Andries has sometimes used such material inappropriately, resulting in poorly sourced and irrelevant information being included in the article [5] [6] [7] [8].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. Content ruling, I feel. James F. (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
  1. Not sure that the cited examples of appropriate/inappropriate material are good ones. Kirill Lokshin 18:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Charles Matthews 16:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Andries runs an attack web site

4) Andries ( talk · contribs) is the proprietor of Ex-Baba.com, described as "Website of concerned former devotees of Sathya Sai Baba". The site contains articles, testimony, links to the traditional media, and other content critical of Sai Baba, his organization, and his followers.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. James F. (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. Charles Matthews 16:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. FloNight 02:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Wikisunn

5) Wikisunn ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has to date edited only pages related to Sathya Sai Baba, takes strong pro-Sathya Sai Baba point of view, maintaining "Only those authors / webmasters whose claims match with the realities happening in Sai Baba's ashram can alone be considered as reliable sources." User_talk:Thatcher131/SSB#Unresolved_problems_in_Sathya_Sai_Baba.27s_Article (near the end). This extended dialog between the regular editors to the articles illustrates their positions. The posts by Wikisunn display a tendency to discount reliable sources if they differ from his own conclusions, "I know there are alot of authors / Webmasters either praising or defaming Sai Baba. But they can be treated as reliable source only, when the real facts / reality matches with their claims. By that what I meant is, if there is no truth in their statements and there is no connection between what they are saying and what is really happening in Baba's ashram then they are not reliable sources."

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. James F. (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. Charles Matthews 16:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. FloNight 02:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Editing by Wikisunn

5.1) Wikisunn in this edit removes well sourced information from an article in The Times which accurately attributed to The Times the opinion that Sathya Sai Baba's teachings were "a collection of banal truisms and platitudes". Wikisunn commented "I seek administrator’s help, please stop Andries from reverting this article again, adding vulgar quotes on Baba (breaking NPOV), non reliable sources. These edits were discussed in Thatcher's page" ( User talk:Thatcher131/SSB). He has inserted information based on unreliable sources [9].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. James F. (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. Charles Matthews 16:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. FloNight 02:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Robert Priddy

6) Robert Priddy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a former Sai Babe devotee who wrote a favorable book, Source of the Dream - My Way to Sathya Sai Baba (1997). He later left the movement and wrote an unfavorable book, The Sathya Sai Baba Enigma (2004). The Sathya Sai Baba Enigma is only held by one large library world wide according to Worldcat; it is published in India and is not available for sale on Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Second choice; prefer combined 6.1.1. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. Second choice. James F. (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Robert Priddy's web sites

6.1) Robert Priddy maintains several web sites: http://home.no.net/rrpriddy/Nos/index.html is a conventional author's web site with links to many of Priddy's works. http://home.chello.no/~reirob/ titled SATHYA SAI BABA stories, myths and deceits http://home.no.net/anir/Sai/ and http://home.no.net/abacusa/ are attack sites containing large amounts of opinion and what appears to be personal experience and unverifiable original research.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Second choice; prefer combined 6.1.1. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. Third choice. James F. (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:
Robert Priddy

6.1.1) Robert Priddy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a former Sai Babe devotee who wrote a favorable book, Source of the Dream - My Way to Sathya Sai Baba (1997). He later left the movement and wrote an unfavorable book, The Sathya Sai Baba Enigma (2004). The Sathya Sai Baba Enigma is only held by one large library world wide according to Worldcat; it is published in India and is not available for sale on Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk. Priddy maintains several web sites: http://home.no.net/rrpriddy/Nos/index.html is a conventional author's web site with links to many of Priddy's works. http://home.chello.no/~reirob/ titled SATHYA SAI BABA stories, myths and deceits http://home.no.net/anir/Sai/ and http://home.no.net/abacusa/ are attack sites containing large amounts of opinion and what appears to be personal experience and unverifiable original research.

Support:
  1. First choice. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. First choice. James F. (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. Fred Bauder 16:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. Charles Matthews 16:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. FloNight 02:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Robert Priddy edit war

6.2) There was an edit war at Robert Priddy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over the inclusion of the "SATHYA SAI BABA stories, myths and deceits" web site as an external link, involving Andries and SSS108, and to a lesser extent other editors. Andries and admin Pjacobi ( talk) argued on the talk page that the link was important to Priddy's notability as a SSB critic. SSS108 and admin Thatcher131 ( talk) argued that including the link violated the previous arbitration case, specifically Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Removal_of_poorly_sourced_information. In response to Thatcher131's opinion and warning [10], Andries edited the article to describe the contents of the website (unsourced criticism of Sai Baba) in lieu of linking to the web site [11] [12]. Thatcher131 blocked him for 24 hours and banned him from the article for one month [13]. See Talk:Robert_Priddy#Weblink_restored for discussion of the link.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. James F. (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. Charles Matthews 16:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. FloNight 02:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

SSS108 runs several attack web sites

7) SSS108 ( talk · contribs) is the webmaster/proprietor of several web sites and blogs that attack Sai Baba's critics, including Robert Priddy Exposed, Sanjay Dadlani Exposed, Sanjay Dadlani References, and others. Some blog posts reference other wikipedia editors by name and call attention to their editing activities [14] [15] [16] SSS108 also runs http://www.saisathyasai.com/, described as "A PRO-Sai Site exposing the lies, deceit & dishonesty of critics of Sri Sathya Sai Baba", which claims to debunk negative stories about Sai Baba and expose "the lies, deceit and dishonesty of former followers, ex-devotees, critics and skeptics of Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba." See also User:SSS108/ArbCom Answers To Thatcher.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. James F. (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. Charles Matthews 16:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. FloNight 02:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Sathya Sai Baba

8) Sathya Sai Baba is a prominent Indian holy man with many hundreds of thousands of followers worldwide. He has substantial support from prominent persons in the Indian government. His spiritual teachings advocate devotion to God, truth, right conduct, peace, love, and nonviolence [17] [18], see also "A Friend in India to All the World" New York Times archives, originally published December 1, 2002. There is however, substantial evidence that he is a pedophile who preys on young male devotees and makes sexual advances to young men [19] [20] [21]. There is also substantial evidence that the miracles he performs are performed by sleight of hand [22]. These charges have had little effect on his popularity, except in some Western countries, with some devotees maintaining that despite the probable truth of the allegations, he remains worthy of worship [23].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. Content decision; and it is not, in any case, the ArbCom's role to render an opinion in external legal disputes of this sort. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Per Kirill. James F. (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. Charles Matthews 16:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. FloNight 02:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Abstain:

Critics of Sathya Sai Baba

8.1) There are a number of persons, most former devotees, who have written alleged exposés of Sathya Sai Baba or who maintain websites critical of the guru [24] [25]. Numerous boys and young men have reported his sexual advances in various venues.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. Whether or not it is true, this is an external content ruling. James F. (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. FloNight 02:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
  1. This doesn't seem particularly useful; the sites relevant to the case are already mentioned elsewhere, and the fact that there are others isn't all that relevant. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Charles Matthews 16:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Counter attack

8.2) Supporters of Sathya Sai Baba have mounted a vigorous counter-attack against his critics, see a site maintained by SSS108, User:SSS108/ArbCom_Answers_To_Thatcher#Answers_By_SSS108. Also http://robert-priddy-exposed.blogspot.com, http://sanjaydadlaniexposed.blogspot.com, http://sanjay-dadlani-references.blogspot.com and http://martinalankazlev-exposed.blogspot.com

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. I find this relevant to COI considerations in the case; i.e. the existence of some centralised campaign. Charles Matthews 16:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. FloNight 02:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. Whether or not it is true, this is an external content ruling. James F. (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
  1. As in 8.1. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Travel advisories

8.3) A travel advisory has been issued by the United States Department of State, "U.S. citizens should be aware that there have been unconfirmed reports of inappropriate sexual behavior by a prominent local religious leader at an ashram (religious retreat) located in Andhra Pradesh. Most of the reports indicate that the subjects of these approaches have been young male devotees, including a number of U.S. citizens." [26]. See also this UNESCO press release.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. Not relevant to anything here. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Whether or not it is true, this is an external content ruling. James F. (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. Charles Matthews 16:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. FloNight 02:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Abstain:

SSS108

9) SSS108 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits Sathya Sai Baba with a positive point of view, sometimes editwarring to preserve a positive point of view or minimize negative information [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]; sometimes inserting information from unreliable sources "scientist" who observed SSB's aura [37] (See this comment) hagiography [38] statement by Indian government officials [39] [40] [41]; sometimes removing reliable sources [42] and relevant external links [43]. Here he removes queries regarding original research. SSS108 maintains a website which attacks critics of SSB User:SSS108/ArbCom_Answers_To_Thatcher#Answers_By_SSS108.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. James F. (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. Charles Matthews 16:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. FloNight 02:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Kkrystian

10) Kkrystian ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits Sathya Sai Baba with a positive bias [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49]; sometimes adding unsourced information [50] [51] [52] and sometimes removing relevant external links [53].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. James F. (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. Charles Matthews 16:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. FloNight 02:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Ekantik

11) Ekantik ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits Sathya Sai Baba in a constructive way [54] [55] [56]. However he admits ownership of critical blogs Gerald 'Joe' Moreno Deception, Gerald 'Joe' Moreno Deception On Wikipedia and Sai Baba EXPOSED!

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. James F. (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. Charles Matthews 16:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. FloNight 02:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Freelanceresearch

12) Freelanceresearch ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who edits with a positive bias towards Sathya Sai Baba, has inserted original research from an unreliable source [57].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. James F. (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. Charles Matthews 16:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. FloNight 02:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

1) {text}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed remedies

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.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Fred Bauder 20:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC), second choice Fred Bauder 20:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. (To Charles:) This is now clarified. Note that I fear this will lose us of Andries' efforts entirely, but better that than the situation continuing. James F. (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. No supporting diffs, and 'activism' is against policy? If the editing has been disruptive, that should be said. Charles Matthews 16:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
After extensive reading of diffs on Sathya Sai Baba, I still oppose this remedy. I would support one based around 1RR on SSB topics. Charles Matthews 23:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  1. Banning from RFCs but not talk pages is rather counterintuitive. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. No reasonable prospect that Andries' behavior would change after a year. Fred Bauder 18:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. FloNight 02:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Abstain:

Andries banned

1.1) Andries is banned indefinitely from editing Sathya Sai Baba and related articles or their talk pages.

Support:
  1. First choice Fred Bauder 20:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. First choice. James F. (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. FloNight 02:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. Charles Matthews 09:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Abstain:

Andries on 1RR for SSB topics

1.2) Andries is restricted, on any article related to Sathya Sai Baba (broadly interpreted), to one revert in any 24 hour period. He is cautioned to use Talk page discussions in search of consensus versions, rather than to revert, and not to revert as a minor edit. He is reminded to adhere closely to Wikipedia:Biographies of living people. This remedy to apply initially for a period of six months, and to be reviewed at the end of this period (to continue, to be lifted, or to become a total topical ban).

Support:
  1. Charles Matthews 23:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Third choice Fred Bauder 22:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. FloNight 02:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Abstain:

Sources

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

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Fred Bauder 20:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. James F. (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. Charles Matthews 16:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. FloNight 02:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

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.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Fred Bauder 20:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. James F. (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. Charles Matthews 16:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. FloNight 02:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Prior remedies clarified

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC) Added "and related articles." reply
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. James F. (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. Charles Matthews 16:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. FloNight 02:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Open remedy

5) 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.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Fred Bauder 20:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. Not sure where this is going; we do this whether or not we say so explicitly. Is this merely meant to flag this fact up to people? Either way, I "support". :-) James F. (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. Support this; we may well need further motions in this case. Charles Matthews 16:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. This alerts users to ArbCom customary practice and is not really needed. FloNight 02:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Wikisunn banned

6) Wikisunn is banned indefinitely from editing Sathya Sai Baba and related articles or their talk pages.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. James F. (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. Charles Matthews 16:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. FloNight 02:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

SSS108

7) SSS108 is banned indefinitely from editing Sathya Sai Baba and related articles or their talk pages.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. James F. (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. Charles Matthews 16:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. FloNight 02:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Kkrystian banned

8) Kkrystian is banned indefinitely from editing Sathya Sai Baba and related articles.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. Seems too heavy-handed. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Too strong. James F. (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. FloNight 02:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
  1. Charles Matthews 16:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Kkrystian reminded

8.1) Kkrystian is reminded that all edits must be supported by reliable sources.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. James F. (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. Charles Matthews 16:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. FloNight 02:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. Wimpy wimpy, another POV warrior. Fred Bauder 16:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Abstain:

Freelanceresearch banned

9) Freelanceresearch is banned indefinitely from editing Sathya Sai Baba and related articles or their talk pages.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. James F. (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. Charles Matthews 16:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. FloNight 02:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC) I don't believe we have enough to support this. reply
Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Users banned by this decision may be blocked for an appropriate period of time if they violate the ban. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. James F. (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. Charles Matthews 16:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. FloNight 02:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

  • The majority is 5. As of now, proposed principles 1, 2, and 3 pass. (Principle 1.1 also has the required number of votes, but appears to be an alternative formulation of 1. One arbitrator has indicated a preference for 1 over 1.1, while the others have not indicated any preference. Therefore, I am reading 1 as superseding 1.1 but would welcome clarification from any arbitrator.)
  • Proposed findings of fact 2, 3, 4, 5, 5.1, 6.1.1, 6.2, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12 pass.
  • Proposed remedies 1.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 pass.
  • Proposed enforcement 1 passes.
  • It has been indicated at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee that three arbitrators, who are listed as participating in this case but have not voted, have recently gone onto inactive status. If this becomes official before the case closes, arbitrators are requested to advise whether the majority should be recalculated. Newyorkbrad 04:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply
    In other cases, Morven, Raul654, and SimonP, none of whom voted in this case, are being treated as inactive. If that is done, there are 6 participating arbitrators, the majority is 4 (or 3 on any proposition as to which one arbitrator abstains), and proposed findings of fact 1 and 8.2 and proposed remedy 8.1 also pass. Newyorkbrad 21:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
    That'd be correct, yes. James F. (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

  1. Close. We are done here. FloNight 02:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Close. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. Close. Kirill Lokshin 17:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. Close Fred Bauder 16:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. Oppose. We have no solution for Kkrystian, the two ends of the spectrum of remedies both failing. Wait until that's decided. (*prod*) James F. (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC) Close; revised majority is sufficient, if non-optimal. James F. (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply


Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Proposed_decision&oldid=508978567"