Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:27, 14 February 2009

You are an admin again

Welcome back to the land of administrators, Thatcher. :-) --Deskana (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Zomg! I didn't remember you gave away the tools :) -- lucasbfr 16:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back. By the way, I noticed both of your sandboxes were deleted. Should they still be listed on the page? Enigma 17:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a convenient link if I want to create them again to use them for something. Thatcher 17:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see this.  :-) Risker (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back. :) –Juliancolton 02:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back also. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

Thatcher, Are you the admin for the article http://en.wikipedia.org/Sathya_Sai_Baba?

When looking at the second arbitration discussions http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2 I came across your name. I wanted to bring to your notice recent serious malicious edits to this article.

• Malicious Edits History::

• From Jan 8th 2009 to Jan 17 2009 there were more than 190 edits to the article by User_talk:White_adept in just 10 days based on unreliable critical sources.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&offset=20090112194443&action=history

  http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&offset=20090113095053&action=history

  http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&offset=20090115120459&action=history

  http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&offset=20090117105156&action=history

• Sources used for the Malicious Editing:

• "The Findings by Bailey": This is the critical work of Bailey's on Sai Baba. It was already discussed in the earlier Mediation By BostonMa that this source cannot be used.
• Robert Priddy: Second arbitration passed a ruling saying Priddy cannot be used. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Robert_Priddy
• Basava Premananda: This is another source full of POV views and is not a reliable source. Please see Mediation by BOstonMA. http://en.wikipedia.org/User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Premanand_as_a_Source
• He uploaded videos from Youtube of fake materialisation.

• Major Restructing article with out discussion:

• Comparison of the changes: Criticism section on Jan 7th 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=262058572&oldid=262058463#Criticism
• This is the Criticism section after White Adept changes: http://en.wikipedia.org/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Criticism_and_controversy
• Restructured the Criticism segment with out any discussion in the talk page about restructuring the criticism section. Added unreliable sources and POV views.
• Added a POV subsection "Murders in the Ashram" based on Basava Premananda and Robert Priddy. Added gruesome pictures to this sunsection again based on Basava Premanada. http://en.wikipedia.org/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Murders_in_ashram
• Added another POV subsection "Reports of Sexual abuse" based on the unreliable source "The Findings". http://en.wikipedia.org/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Initial_report_-_.27The_Findings.27
• The whole article is written in negative critics perspective.

Improving the article: I have spent a lot of time familiarising with earlier discussions. I firmly believe that using Jossi Proposals and arbitration ruling will help in improving the article. I even added the arbitration rulings in the talk page.

• The Problem:

• The article is imbalanced filled with unreliable sources and critics POV views. Its is in a much worst shape than it was during first and second arbitration due to User_talk:White_adept edits.
• Now to remove these unreliable sources will involve serious edit warring with this user. But the article is filled with unreliable information and should be changed. Please advice.

Radiantenergy (talk)14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Many months ago I was involved in managing a dispute at that article. I am not interested in becoming involved again. Sorry. Thatcher 16:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Even if you cannot get involved please let us know whom to report this issue. I don't know who is the admin for this article? This article is totally biased breaking many arbitration rulings. Any suggestion from you will be greatly appreciated. : Radiantenergy (talk)14 February 2009 (UTC)