Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:45, 27 December 2006

• ]

A request for Arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting Arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom).

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and (exceptionally) to summarily review new evidence and update the findings and decisions of a previous case. Review is likely to be appropriate if later events indicate the original ruling on scope or enforcement was too limited and does not adequately address the situation, or if new evidence suggests the findings of fact were significantly in error.

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. If your case is accepted for arbitration, the arbitrator or clerk will create an evidence page that you can use to provide more detail. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person against whom you lodge a complaint.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other. Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four net accept votes are cast; that is, four more accept than reject votes. When a case is opened, a notice that includes a link to a newly created evidence page will be posted to each participant's talk page. See the Requests section of the arbitration policy page for details. "Recuse" means that an Arbitrator has excused themselves from a case because of a possible, or perceived, conflict of interest. Cases which have not met the acceptance criteria after 10 days will be removed from this page.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Please do not open cases; only an Arbitrator or Clerk may do so.

See also

• Arbitration policy
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy/Past decisions
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case - Recommended reading: An (unofficial) guide to presenting effective Arbitration cases.
• Arbitration enforcement - Any user can request help here if it involves the violation of an ArbCom decision
• Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
• Developer help needed
• Arbitration template

Current requests

Sathya Sai Baba

Initiated by Thatcher131 at 18:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Andries (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SSS108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ekantik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also edits as Gaurasundara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ProEdits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• M Alan Kazlev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Freelanceresearch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I am aware of the request and have commented below about how I see the dynamics on the article.Freelanceresearch 01:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Kkrystian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I confirm that I am aware of the request. Kkrystian 16:42 (UTC+1) 21 Dec 2006
• Savidan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Thatcher131

This is a request to reopen/reconsider the previous ruling in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba decided in September, 2006. Since that time, User:Andries has edit warred at Robert Priddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over the insertion of a link which apparently violates the ruling. He was warned by Tony Sidaway in September . Andries requested clarification here in October but the discussion was moved to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba after 10 days without comment from the committee. He has continued the edit war and was warned by me today in response to a complaint filed at Arbitration enforcement, and challenges my warning.

User:SSS108 has continued to edit war at Sathya Sai Baba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), exhibiting signs of article ownership (reverting across multiple intermediate versions to "his" version), and removal of apparently well-sourced negative criticism. While SSS108 has edit warred, and very little progress has been made in part due to his frequent reversions and personal comments on the talk page, the situation is complicated by the fact that the other regular editors appear to be partisans, making it difficult to take action. See my comment on the talk page .

I believe that further action from the committee is required, in the form of enforceable remedies, as the parties have apparently not benefitted from the previous advice and amnesty.

My role

I am one of the few admins who acts on requests made for arbitration enforcement. Today I warned Andries not to replace the link, and I protected Sathya Sai Baba pending a chance to investigate the recent edit war there. I have not edited the articles and have had no interaction with these editors other than regarding arbitration enforcement matters.

Update

After my warning , instead of linking to Robert Priddy's personal anti-Sai web site, he described its contents in the article without linking . I have blocked him for 24 hours and banned him from the article for a month . Thatcher131 19:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have placed all editors of Sathya Sai Baba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on one revert per day parole. It seemed like the best way to stop the edit warring while allowing much needed editing to continue. I issued a 48 hour block for SSS108 for edit warring and personal attacks but suspended application of the block to see if he can work with the other editors on what seem to be rather minor issues without further edit warring or personal comments. In response, a new single-purpose account Freelanceresearch (talk · contribs) noted that "there is more going on in the background with attacks on pro-Sai editors and anti-Sai Baba POV pushing in other wikipedia articles than you are aware." Thatcher131 13:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Need for clarification

It appears the original decision was not clear enough. For example, at Robert Priddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an uninvolved editor has restablished the link to Robert Priddy's web page, even though he concedes it is an attack site based on original research and personal experience . It seems the directive here in the prior case is not clear enough.

Activists' off-site actvities

After some investigation I have learned that Ekantik (talk · contribs) is well known on the internet as an anti-SSB activist and maintains several attack blogs, including some directed at SSS108 (talk · contribs) which specifically reference and criticize his wikipedia editing. See Gerald 'Joe' Moreno Deception; Gerald 'Joe' Moreno Deception On Misplaced Pages; Sai Baba EXPOSED!.

User:SSS108 is also well-known on the internet as a pro-SSB activist and maintains web sites which attack SSB critics. See http://www.saisathyasai.com. He also runs several attack blogs, some of which specifically reference the wikipedia editing behavior of SSB's critics, see http://robert-priddy-exposed.blogspot.com; http://sanjaydadlaniexposed.blogspot.com; http://sanjay-dadlani-references.blogspot.com; http://martinalankazlev-exposed.blogspot.com.

User:Andries is a well known activist critic of SSB and runs a critical web site www.exbaba.com .

User:M Alan Kazlev is Martin Kazlev, an SSB critic and target of an attack blog. However, his wikipedia edits seem to avoid the subject.

User:Freelanceresearch, a new acount since the first arbitration case, is an SSB follower and is also apparently a known internet activist per comments here, although I don't any other details at this point.

Now, it may generally be true that only on-wiki behavior is subject to examination. However, the proliferation and interlinking of these web sites, and the constant and reciprocal criticism of one side by the other, shows that these individuals are mainly here to perpetuate a long-running conflict. Plus, the specific referencing of wikipedia editing on these blogs, I believe, does bring this external behavior within the scope of arbitration. And further, these editors frequently refer to these off-wiki blogs and web sites. Here, SSS108 asks me "How am I supposed to work in good faith with such a person?", which is a very good question, but which cuts both ways, of course.

Statement by Andries

Request for clarification, originally submitted in September 2006

(See here for the ignored and filed request for clarifiction with comments from SSS108 and Tony Sideway )

1. Does not linking to purportedly unreliable websites also include the homepages of critics with their own articles of Sathya Sai Baba e.g. Robert Priddy (see ), Basava Premanand, Sanal Edamaruku, Babu Gogineni, the late Abraham Kovoor, and the late H._Narasimhaiah? If the answer is yes, how can this be reconciled with a seemingly contradictory guideline WP:EL that states "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if there is one"? See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_mediation/Rejected/13#Robert_Priddy and talk:Robert Priddy for a description of this dispute. (amended 09:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)) (amended 20:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC))
2. Does not linking to unreliable website also include wikipedia user pages such as user:Andries See #Do unreliable websites also include the websites created and maintained by user:SSS108 especially for Misplaced Pages. In certain cases such as this one the webpages on this website are simply copies that SSS108 took from the webpages of exbaba.com
3. Is it okay to use webpages with copies of reputable sources on purportedly unreliable websites as convenenience links in the references. See e.g. here If the answer is no, how can this be reconciled with a seemingly contradictory guideline Misplaced Pages:Citing sources regarding intermediate sources that states "A common error is to copy citation information from an intermediate source without acknowledging the original source." (amended 11:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC))
4. This may not be the place for it, but I also want to express my concern about the number of disputes between SSS108 and me on the Sathya Sai Baba article and related articles that seem to increase in the course of time. If it continues like this, then I will file two requests for comments per week without any end in sight. Regarding Pjacobi's request to step aside, I would like to point out that I am by far the greatest content creator on all articles related to Sathya Sai Baba during the past years. In the weeks that I was away from the article no new content or hardly new content was added to any of these articles. Andries 16:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC) amended 18:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Andries 13:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC) added question about contradictory guidelines. 11:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC) added new point expressing concern about the number of disputes. 16:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC) 18:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Other statements by Andries

• I noticed that two arbitrators accepted this case by referring to the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest guideline, but I deny that have a conflict of interest. I sincerely wanted and still want to present an encyclopedic article about SSB. Of course, I have my bias and what I see as an NPOV encyclopedic article will be completely different from what user:SSS108 has in mind. Andries 20:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment on statement by user:Jossi. I do not believe that Jossi has provided in the previous arbitration on this subject a list of sources that will have much added value for the article Sathya Sai Baba. Here is the thread from the previous arbitration. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya/Workshop#Lack_of_reliable_sources. I believe that the list that Jossi provided is fine material for the article Beliefs and practices in the Sathya Sai Baba movement. I also find Jossi's complaint that editors are not looking for good sources exaggerated when considering the fact that the article has 96 references which is far more than the average article on Misplaced Pages. I tend to trust the annotated bibliography of ex-devotee Brian Steel for sources. Part 1 Items of a scholarly or academic nature or provenance Part 2 Work Critical of SSB and his Mission by non-devotees (including ex-devotees) PART 3 A Basic Bibliography of Works about Sathya Sai Baba by the Sathya Sai Organization and his Devotees Andries 21:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• My edit warring on Robert Priddy was due to an interpretation of the previous arbcom decision that clearly contradicted the Misplaced Pages generally accepted practices of including links to homepages of the subject in the article about the subject. I tried to resolve this dispute in all possible manners including an ignored request for clarification here, mediation, and third opinion. I finally submitted user:Andries for violating the arbcom decision at arbcom enforcement. Andries 22:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment on statement by Freelanceresearch (talk · contribs) . I admit that I called her inappriopriately "sincere but brainwashed" in 2004 when she first started editing the SSB article based on her prolific abusive off-Misplaced Pages postings on yahoo group sathyasaibaba2 and I admit that it was inappropriate that I then requested user:Bcorr to block her, merely based on a few edits of self-addmitted original research mudslinging against the critics of SSB in the article Sathya Sai Baba and her off-Misplaced Pages behavior. Nevertheless that was years ago and in contrast what she writes here I was not well-versed in Misplaced Pages habits, and procedures. She also revealed her own name (or pen name) on Misplaced Pages so I think that her complaint that Proedits (talk · contribs)/Robert Priddy revealed her real name (or pen name) is unfounded. I also think that my behavior was then very moderate when compared to her behavior.

Andries 18:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• I admit that the entry is not concise and well written. I agree that this is partially due to the constant POV warring and the fact that there seems to be no native English speaking skilled writer involved. Nevertheless the current Misplaced Pages entry is a miracle of accuracy, balance, and completeness when compared to some reputable sources. For example, the entry by David Burnett on Sathya Sai Baba in the book ‘’New Religions: A Guide New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities’’ (2004) by Dr. Christopher Partridge is riddled with mistakes and serious omissions. Examples of mistakes available on request. Andries

Statement by SSS108

The statement about me by Thatcher131 if not entirely correct. I have not removed well-sourced negative criticisms from the Sathya Sai Baba article. Just recently, the most vocal critic and defamer of Sathya Sai Baba (Ekantik aka Gaurasundara) began editing the article and has been reverting secondary-sourced content to primary-sourced content (despite even Andries pointing out that this content was a primary souce ). I did not remove this content, but referenced it to secondary sources . Ekantik insists on including the primary source (which is no longer on Unesco's website). Hence the edit-warring.

I did remove the stand-alone reference by salon.com on the basis that the article was published in an online-webzine that is admittedly liberal, opinionated and a tabloid. The salon.com article has not been published or referenced by any other secondary sources. Therefore, I removed it as per my understanding of WP:RS. I was not alone in this opinion . This issue was raised on ArbCom and they did not respond to it. The full dicussion regarding this contentious issue can be Found Here. Since Fred Bauder was the sole Admin voice stating that the salon.com article could be included , I have not removed it.

Since known critics of Sathya Sai Baba (Andries and Ekantik) are currently editing the article, I have been forced to defend what I perceive as POV pushing and the watering down of information that compromises the basic facts that Sathya Sai Baba has never been convicted of any crime, has never been charged with any crime and has never had even one single complaint lodged against him, first-hand, by any alleged victim in India. Andries recent ban because of his behavior on the Robert Priddy article supports my claim that he is a relentless POV pusher who will defy ArbCom and Admin to push his Anti-Sai agenda on Misplaced Pages. Even after being blocked, Andries still claims that he is right .

Robert Priddy's home-page is already listed on his Wiki-page (home.no.net/rrpriddy/). Priddy's life history, life events, schooling, personal writings, personal beliefs, poems, jokes, essay's, etc., are all located on the home-page link that is currently on his Wiki-page, which Priddy entitled himself, "Welcome To Robert Priddy's Home Page". See For Yourself or View Cache. Andries is attempting to argue that Robert Priddy's Anti-Sai websites are also his "homepages". The link that Andries wants to incude is one of 3 Anti-Sai sites run by Priddy that specifically and exclusively attack Sathya Sai Baba. These Anti-Sai Sites do not contain relevant information about Robert Priddy. They exclusively contain defamatory, speculative and unsubstantiated allegations against Sathya Sai Baba.

It is important to point out that these Anti-Sai websites are not just "critical" websites, they contain defamatory and potentially libelous information. Andries even conceded that his Anti-Sai Site was threatened with legal action . After being threatened with legal action, both Andries and Priddy's Anti-Sai Sites now contain a disclaimer that states that the information on their Anti-Sai websites may not necessarily be true or valid.

I believe that all of the current controversial material (except the salon.com article) are well-sourced and will not seek their removal. I have been hoping that other editors would step in and re-word the critical content in a neutral, understated and encyclopedic way, as outlined in WP:BLP. Since the controversy section is so contentious, I do not seek to edit it by myself and have kept my distance from it as much as possible.

I hope this clarifies my position in relation to the Sathya Sai Baba article and my dedication to improving the article, as outlined in WP:BLP and WP:RS, and keeping a watch over it due to the critical elements attempting to edit it. Thank you. SSS108 20:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Activists' off-site actvities

The list by Thatcher is not a complete list. In my response to him, I provided a full list of relevant links to critics and my websites: View Full Response With List Of Websites SSS108 18:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Savidan

I don't know anything about Sathya Sai Baba; I do know a lot about the poor quality content that tend to result when single-purpose accounts from different points of view converge on the same article. I came across this article because it is ceaselessly listed on the Religion RFC page. I came there, tried to clean up the text in a few places, and very quickly found out why the page is always up for a RFC.

Before I go any further, I should probably state that my personal experience with this article has perhaps unfairly resulted in a negative perception of SSS108. Had I gotten around to the other changes I wanted to make, it's quite possible that I would have been doggedly reverted and harangued by the anti-SSB crowd. However, that is not what happened.

Basically, my experience has been that (as much as he claims that the current version is hopelessly biased against SSB) SSS108 has taken up "ownership" of the article and doggedly resists any changes. He often refuses to take responsibility for his reverts, saying that I should "take it up with Andries" etc. If non-controversial changes have taken place following the edit he wants to revert, he reverts those too. He invites you to "discuss" the changes with him on the talk page, but invariably the result was that he shaddow responded to a few of my comments and then declared that I should seek RFC because he wasn't persuaded (hence why the page is always on ther Religion RFC page).

I am extremely concerned with the quality of almost all of the sources given in the current article, both those given by pro- and anti-SSB editors. Few of them seem to go to extremely reliable or neutral sources. I'll give one example, one that has already been fixed:

Several pro-SSB sites, and one article in the Island Lanka Newspaper, make the claim that Frank Baranowksi, a kirlian photographer, photographed the Baba's "aura," thus demonstrating his divinity. I'm not even an expert on the subject—I did take a history of science class last year—and even I know that any reputable scientist thinks that kirlian photography is just crap. Anyway, the Island Lanka article and the pro-SSB sites describe Baranowski as a "scientist" and a "Professor" (they differ on whether he was a professor at Arizona State University or the University of Arizona"). So I do a google search for this guy, don't find anything about him being a professor, but do find an article about someone who was an undergraduate at ASU and went on to become a radio host who specializes in pseudoscience. SSS108 produces an obituary about a Frank Baranowski who was a radio host and apparently taught some classes at a community college. Freelanceresearch produces a link to an archived version of his website that also doesn't make any claim to him being a professor. However, SSS108 continued to insist upon describing him as "Professor Frank Baranowski, a scientist specializing in kirlian photography," making me file a RFC, etc.

To comment on two recent disputes: I think it's laughable that salon.com and UNESCO are not considered WP:RS, especially given the quality of some of the third-world newspapers and other websites deemed acceptable. There is no reason not to cite both the archived version of the UNESCO site as well as a few secondary sources quoting it.

Anyway, I'd be interested in trying to clean up the rest of the article, but I don't want to have to file a RFC every time I find false information in the article, or every time I try to clean up the extremely bad writing style (which often appears to be the result of pov-warring by people are not fluent in English). I'd suggest that the arbcom take action this time, and not rely on amnesty. That said, I do agree with Thatcher131's concern that merely blocking SSS108 (the most exgregious violator), might result in an article slanted in the other direction. I should also state that I don't care about the external links, or any of these editors off-wiki activities.savidan 22:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Freelanceresearch

Since coming to this Sathya Sai Baba article I think over a year ago, I have felt that Andries was trying to control the article like he owned it. I was immediately attacked by him when I first came here and his comments are on on my talk page. I was a beginner who did not know about the POV rules and Andries did, yet he has continued for years to push his anti-Sai Baba agenda on not only the Sai Baba article but other wikipedia articles as well and changes the rules to suit his arguments.

SS108 stepped in because there were many complaints against Andries and SS108 is the only person who has been able to deal with him as I do not have the patience for his games. Until Jossi came along and provided more stability toward fighting POV pushing, SS108 was pretty much alone in trying to keep the article balanced as I had decided not to edit the article until the POV pushing was brought into line and I did not want to play edit wars with people pushing an agenda.

Robert Priddy came in at one point and started attacking both joe and Me, even mentioning my REAL name on wikipedia and lying about me being banned. No one called him on it or andries on his POV pushing (using atheists as "credible sources" against SSB) and when I confronted I was the one ganged up on by Pjacobi, Guy and Ekantik who secretively tried to have me banned JUST so they could say I had been banned. These are the kinds of toxic games being played by those with an agenda which does not match the "real world" facts and it must not be played on wikipedia.

BTW, I have made minor edits to a few other articles but I do not edit much because I do not know much html or wikipedia editing procedures, my browser is not very compatible with wikipedia altough it is better since I upgraded it in June and I do not have that much time. Plus, I have four years worth of research backgound into the Sathya Sai Baba issues.

Regarding Savidan's comments on Baranowski above, he forgets to mention Baranowskis' web page (as well as obituary which was posted by SS108 and was in the Phoenix newspaper) does say he is a PhD, addresses him as Dr. Baranowski, and that he was teaching at the community collge before his death. The last time I looked up the definition of professor it said a person who teaches college. Freelanceresearch 01:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by M Alan Kazlev

Like all of you here, I find this situation on Misplaced Pages, where there are strongly polarised opinions regarding a particular subject, whether it be some guru, political ideology, or anything else, which lead to a sort of trench warfare, with both sides clawing for every inch of ground, to be counterproductive and tedious.

My background in this matter is as follows.

I was a devotee of Sai Baba for more than two decades, and therefore was originally sympathetic to the arguments of SS108, who contacted me when I had inadvertently been caught in the crossfire of the flamewar between certain followers and certain critics of SSB. Having assessed and corresponded at length with representatives of both sides (SS108 on the SSB side, and several ex-devotees regarding the side that is concerned about the allegations), as well as looking at what both sides had written, I came to the conclusion that the allegations made concerning Sai Baba are factual, but that Sai Baba is not simply a fake or con-artist. Rather he belongs to an ambiguous category in which both truth and falsehood are inextricably mixed (as explained on my website etc)

I have observed that SS108 uses tactics of slander, libel, and smear against ex-devotees in order to discredit their reports of sexual abuse by SSB. Again, this is explained on my website, with especial reference to Robert Priddy.

Once I was considered to be no longer a naive devotee of SSB, SS108 decided to try to attack me, and has a rather amusing blog dedicated to me.

My only interest re the SSB page is that both sides of the argument should be presented, without bias, and there should not be censorship or bullying of any kind. This would allow the reader who is unfamiliar with this subject to come to their own conclusions. M Alan Kazlev 04:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by non-party Jossi

As presented in the previous ArbCom case, there are substantial secondary sources for a good encyclopedic article, that have not been explored due to the insistence of involved editors to editwar about sources that may not be the best available.

There is a tendency in these articles to base the dispute upon a mistaken need for balance, that attempts to balance the points of view of proponents (in this case devotees of SSB) and critics (in this case ex-devotees of SSB). That is not what WP:NPOV is about. A balanced biographical article is one that presents the viewpoints about a person as described in reputable published sources. Clearly, there is from both sides an intent to advocate their points of view through their contributions, deltions, and overall editing behavior, in violation of WP:NOT.

My assessment is that this dispute raises out of the confusion of attempting to have an article that presents "both sides of the argument" related to the involved editors, rather than researching and presenting the significant viewpoints published in reliable sources. Unless involved editors spend more time researching rather than editwarring, the article will remain in its current messy state. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Despite comments by Andries to the contrary, I am still of the opinion that not all sources available have been explored. Here is a partial list previously submitted:

• New Religious Movements in Western Europe: An Annotated Bibliography, Elisabeth Arweck, Peter B. Clarke; Greenwood Press, 1997
• Hinduism in Modern Indonesia: Between Local, National, and Global Interests, Martin Ramstedt; RoutledgeCurzon, 2003
• Hindu Selves in a Modern World: Guru Faith in the Mata Amritanandamayi Mission, Maya Warrier; RoutledgeCurzon, 2005
• Many Globalizations: Cultural Diversity in the Contemporary World, Peter L. Berger, Samuel P. Huntington; Oxford University Press, 2003
• Water, Wood, and Wisdom: Ecological Perspectives from the Hindu Traditions, Journal article by Vasudha Narayanan; Daedalus, Vol. 130, 2001
• Anomalies of Consciousness: Indian Perspectives and Research, Journal article by K. Ramakrishna Rao; The Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 58, 1994
• Odd Gods: New Religions and the Cult Controversy, James R. Lewis; Prometheus Books, 2001
• Media and the Transformation of Religion in South Asia, Lawrence A. Babb, Susan S. Wadley; University of Pennsylvania Press, 1995
• South Asian Religions in the Americas: An Annotated Bibliography of Immigrant Religious Traditions, John Y. Fenton; Greenwood Press, 1995

The article Sathya Sai Baba movement could be re-merged with the main article (Andries un-merged these on October 21, 2006), with the addition of material from secondary sources that are abundant (in addition to the list above, there are 450 books on the subject listed in my local University library search), and avoiding too much reliance in disputed sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by non party Dseer

I have a friend who is devoted to SSB and do not consider SSB a fraud. However, I also tend towards an anti-cultist position and believe from experience that ex-followers are not arbitrarily less credible than proponents. Nor do I exclude the possibility of genuine spiritual states being co-mingled with less desireable behavior, as M Alan Kazlev has offered an explanation of referenced in various sites which applies to many, not SSB. My only interest also re the SSB page is that both sides of the argument should be presented, without bias, and there should not be censorship or bullying of any kind. I also have suggested that accepted facts be listed first, and then assertions from the respective sides. This would allow the reader who is unfamiliar with this subject to come to their own conclusions, which may be different in each case. Having corresponded with M Alan Kazlev, I also want to state that he does want both sides to be heard on such topics (this can be proven by looking at his entire website) even when he has formed an opinion, is open to change based on new information. Although SS108 may find the charges against SSB without merit which is his right, and suspects Kazlev is involved in an anti-SSB conspiracy, regardless of whether his charges against the others are valid, I can affirm these assumptions are not true in the case of Kazlev. That does not mean I do not think SS108 is not sincere in that belief, just in error. I also believe this article should be kept structured and concise in the interest of the reader, who needs to make their own determinations, and not become a vehicle for partisans on either side. Misplaced Pages recognizes that material originating from all sides in a dispute on religious groups must be viewed with caution. --Dseer 21:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Ekantik

I feel that I have not been treated fairly in this issue by SSS108 in particular. I recently joined Misplaced Pages (as of August 2006) but have very quickly become familiar with WP policies and guidelines. I have contributed to many articles and much of my editing have been in connection with articles on Hindu religion and Indian cinema, although I later created a legitimate sockpuppet to concentrate on Hindu religion articles. I admire the scope and the goals of the Misplaced Pages project in its entirety and am committed to making enormous contributions to help improve the project. My editing on the SSB article have been consistent with my editing on many other articles that mainly consist of removing POV, dealing with vandalism, uncontroversial page moves, and the like. I am a regular editor of other controversial pages (cases in point: Shah Rukh Khan and Rani Mukherjee) but no other editor on any page I have worked on has a serious problem with my edits.

Although I am a critical apostate of Sathya Sai Baba, I am also committed to improving the article from its current messy state and this has been my intention from the very beginning, and the few edits I've made on that article reflect this. These are the events as I see them: Unfortunately SSS108 insists that he is unwilling to work with me because he believes that I cannot adhere to NPOV due to my status as a critic and apostate. Using the same standard, SSS108 (and Freelanceresearch, come to that) is unqualified to work on the SSB article because he has declared himself as an advocate and proponent of SSB although this is ambiguous and full clarification is required. I have several times declared my intention to improve the article by providing both "positive" and "critical" information for inclusion in order to bring some balance, but SSS108 cannot bring himself to accept this. Following from this, SSS108 has been notably hostile to me on Misplaced Pages; refusing to answer my questions, making several personal attacks, creating a section on his talk page to make personal attacks, being stubborn in reference to personal attacks, unable to assume good faith, posting my real name against my express wishes, referencing off-wiki disputation, and endless edit-warring that is a notable characteristic of his edit history. Even after receiving a serious warning and having been served with a 48-hour block (suspended) as a result, he has continued to complain about me on Admin talk pages with more personal attacks. I firmly believe that he has no basis for his claims because he has tried and failed to find fault with my edits on Misplaced Pages. Consequently, he is attempting to portray me as a biased and POV editor by referncing my off-wiki activites as "proof" that I cannot make neutral contributions.

Even though I have expressly declared (despite his long-running on and off-wiki attacks on me) that I am willing to assume good faith and work with him in editing the SSB article, he is insistent and refuses to work with me. Based on my little experience with him here on Misplaced Pages, I have noticed his propensity to accuse anyone who disagrees with him of having an agenda and POV to push. He has insinuated that Savidan has a propensity to side with critics (diff) and very recently accused an Admin (Pjacobi) of having an agenda (diff) after speaking rather rudely to him (diff). We must remind ourselves that SSS108 is a single-purpose account who has a problem with anyone and everyone who disagrees with him, even going as far to construct attack-blogs against them. I am under no illusions here; I firmly believe that this ArbCom case will give SSS108 an opportunity to defame me on Misplaced Pages even further. The only problem is that with all of his general uncivility, resistance to good advice, and disruptive editing, several editors have despaired of him despite numerous attempts to help him correct his ways.

I must also confess that I feel rather unnerved about being dragged into an ArbCom hearing so soon after my joining Misplaced Pages through no real fault of my own. However I hope that this case will get to the heart of the matter and we can all get on with our business. - Ekantik 06:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 Clerk note: In formatting this request I have removed statements that SSS108 and Tony Sidaway made in October that were reintroduced here by Andries. The statements may be seen at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba, or Andries may provide diff links.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)

• Accept, to look at conduct of all editors involved in this article, POV and COI. Charles Matthews 22:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Agree with Charles's proposed scope. James F. (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Accept Fred Bauder 14:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Accept, based on evidence of unacceptable conduct. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Jayjg 22:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Requests for clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process. Place new requests at the top.

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba

Please have a look at Robert Priddy. IMHO User:SSS108 is boldy misinterpreting the ArbCom ruling. It doesn't apply to the article Robert Priddy (as he is neither Sathya Sai Baba nor an affiliated organization). And if I'm not completely mistaken, the ArbCom ruling only applies to User:Andries and User:SSS108. --Pjacobi 22:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Robert Priddy is a former SSB devotee who wrote a hagiography, then became disillusioned, left the group, and wrote an attack book. While a typical author's web site might be expected to contain information about past and future projects, a calendar of book signing appearances, etc, Priddy's web site contains attacks on the SSB movement drawn from personal experience and original research and appears to violate the ruling in this case (which I think applies to content, not the editor who adds it). A clarification would be appreciated. Thatcher131 22:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This is because Priddy's notability today is mostly rooted in its attack site. Like Tilman Hausherr and http://www.xenu.de or Jack Chick and http://www.chick.com. --Pjacobi 22:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If Priddy's self-published observations and opinions about SSB make him notable and get a link, does NPOV require that we link to the self-published observations and opinions of a pro-SSB web site that is critical of Priddy? Thatcher131 01:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably, although I would take a look at it first. If it contains plainly false and defamatory material we should probably not link to it. if it just contains assertions that Priddy is a sorehead and exaggerates Baba's faults; it might be OK. I think there is an underlying problem with any of this material being encyclopedia however. A brief note that Baba is suspected of molesting young male devotees ought to suffice as well as a note that it is suspected that he uses slight of hand to produce his miracles. Problem is, like Little, Big the further in you go, the bigger it gets. Fred Bauder 14:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly not comfortable that the anti-Priddy web sites are suitably encyclopedic. Are you saying Priddy's article can link to Priddy's site criticizing SSB? I certainly agree with you about the general direction these articles should go with negative allegations; unfortunately that is not happening under the current decision with the current editors. Thatcher131 14:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher131, if you think that Robert Priddy's criticism of Sathya Sai Baba is not notable then this should be solved with an AFD (the previous one failed). It should not be solved by omitting the one fact which Priddy makes notable i.e. his websites critical of Sathya Sai Baba. Let us follow generally accepted policies and practices for the article Robert Priddy too. Andries 06:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The websites critical of Robert Priddy authored by SSS108 are highly defamatory and contain hardly anything than original research. They should not be linked to because Priddy is not a public figure in the sense of e.g. Sathya Sai Baba who himself blurred the distinction between private life and public life with his claims of being an embodiment of truth, purity, and love and attracted followers with these claims. In addition, it would be at best inconsistent to forbid in the entry Sathya Sai Baba critical websites containing partially original research and partially reputable sources, like www.exbaba.com and www.saiguru.net, while at the same time allowing websites with only defamatory original research at the entry Robert Priddy. Andries 20:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like a new case involving these articles is being accepted, so this dispute can be addressed there. Newyorkbrad 18:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Pjacobi makes the mistake in that he comparing people who have been referenced in reliable and reputable sources with Robert Priddy who has not been referenced by even one single reliable or reputable reference. Pjacobi attemtped to argue for Priddy's attacks against SSB by citing Indymedia (a public forum where people can post whatever they want whenever the so choose under any name they so choose. This doesn't sound encyclopedic to me. Let these distinctions be known. SSS108 04:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Are admins allowed to place a user on 1RR? Is a fourth arbitration case necessary?

After his third arbitration case, Instantnood was placed on indefinite (both regular and general) probation. Instantnood violated his probation by POV-pushing at Single-party state. I reported him on the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard, and Eagle 101 blocked him for 24 hours and placed him on 1RR.

My first question: Are admins allowed to place a user on 1RR, or is only the Arbitration Committee empowered to do so? If only the Arbitration Committee can place a user on 1RR, can they only do so as a remedy during an arbitration case involving said user?

Instantnood's POV-pushing sparked an edit war between him, Huaiwei, and several others. During the heated discussion on the talk page, Huaiwei has made personal attacks on Regebro, and Regebro has made comments which are, at worst, personal attacks on all Singaporeans, and, at best, incivili and assumption of bad faith. In addition, Nightstallion's use of rollback in a content dispute may constitute abuse of administrator privileges.

The ongoing mediation will probably fail; in fact, the Mediation Cabal rejected the case. Regebro has filed an RFC against Huaiwei, and Thadius856 has filed an RFAr against Huaiwei (not related to the dispute on Single-party state).

My second question: is this dispute serious enough to warrant filing of an arbitration case? I believe arbitration is neccesary to review the conduct of all involved parties, impose binding sanctions, and put a stop to the conflicts between Huaiwei and Instantnood, as other attempts at dispute resolution have failed, and Instantnood has repeatedly ignored consensus. However, since arbitration is not a laughing matter, and I don't want to waste the Arbitration Committee's time, I would like to get some consensus before filing an arbitration case.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, it is time for you to stop reapeating the claim that Instantnood was POV-pushing on Single-party state. He wasn't, as I explained to you, and as you half-admitted in the discussion on the arbitration enforcement page. Instantnood has surely done many things wrong. None of these he did on Single-party state. The only things that have been done wrong there are personal attacks by Huaiwei, and an editwar also started by Huaiwei. Start an arbitration case if you want, but stop threatening to start them and stop trying to blame the dispute on somebody who is hardly even a part of the dispure. Or in short: Please lay off the intriguing. --Regebro 19:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your questions, No, Yes, and No; and, Perhaps.

More clearly (;-)): no, admins can't (yet) decide to place a user on 1RR (this is the "law" of policy, not us - if you want to make it so, try to convince the community into making it policy, though personally I think it unlikely to make it, and not a terribly good idea without quite a significant level of suffrage required of the deciders); yes, the Commmittee is the only body currently "allowed" per policy; no, the Committee can (and does) make extraordinary remedies in exceptional circumstances (that is, apply remedies without the fag of having a case), and, more normally, can "tack on" additional remedies as and when it suits us to former cases on subsequent (and, normally, consequent) matters concerning the individuals in the previous case.

Arbitration is indeed "not a laughing matter". As to the specific circumstances you highlight, I think that you should attempt mediation in good faith rather than writing it off before it has had the chance to suceed (or fail), which your phrase "mediation will probably fail" rather suggests.

James F. (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

RPJ case and the Spartacus site

A finding of fact in the RPJ case mentions the site spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk (founder John Simkin), characterised as propagandistic in relation to uncritical inclusions as factual of material on the Kennedy assassination. The Spartacus site contains unrelated historical material on many subjects. Having heard from John Simkin, and having myself linked to Spartacus pages on numerous occasions, I would like to clarify that (as far as I'm concerned) the FoF in the case is not intended as a blanket condemnation. Editors should exercise good judgement as to tone and factual reliability of these pages, case by case. Charles Matthews 20:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and have posted on this matter at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (news). I have used the site in the past, and I certainly don't think it should be banned from Misplaced Pages, and the ArbCom finding should not be interpreted as such. It is still a site that needs to be treated with caution and not depended on too heavily, especially in controversial articles. - SimonP 02:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

While I would not use the site for any purpose; the question of whether a site is a reliable source depends on the nature of the subject and how it is treated by the site. In the RPJ case, which focused on aggressive advancement of conspiracy theories of the JFK assassination, most of the problem with use of the site as a source was caused by use of selected pages from the site to advance contentious points. Fred Bauder 13:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)

Archives

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (extremely sparse, selective, and unofficial)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution