Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:52, 26 December 2006

[[:|WP:RFAR, WP:RFARB]]

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).

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Wikipediocracy-related conduct		21 October 2024	4/3/2
Marine 69-71	Motions	26 October 2024	0/0/0
Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area		6 November 2024	0/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	10 Oct 2024	24 Oct 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently 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
Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions
Wikipedia: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

Purge the server cache

Current requests

Johann Hari

Initiated by David r from meth productions at Johann Hari page

Involved parties

Johann Hari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
David r from meth productions (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Felix-felix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

provide diffs showing that the involved parties have been notified on their talk pages

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by David r from meth productions

I have tried for over three months to reach consensus on the entry for British journalist Johann Hari with a wiki user called ‘Felix-Felix’.

Felix-Felix appears to be motivated by extreme hostility to Johann Hari, who he has described as “a little tyke”, “trivial”, and a supporter of “genocide” (because he initially supported the Iraq war based on his extensive friendships with victims of Saddam’s rule and visits to Iraq). He described the original wiki entry for Hari – which included accusations that he was soft on paedophiles, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, “fat”, “a Stalinist”, and “naïve” – as “a love letter”, which gives you some sense of how low his opinion of Hari is.

This user has repeatedly tried to insert false and libellous arguments into the article. To give just one example, he has tried to claim that Hari – a left-wing writer from a working class family – went to Harrow School, one of the most expensive and elite public schools in Britain. Even when it was pointed out to him that this was wholly false (Hari went to a nearby school!), Felix-Felix kept trying to insert this claim.

Which brings us to the question of adjudication. Felix-Felix has a perception that Hari is some kind of right-winger, and has attempted to delete from the entry the copious evidence that contradicts this claim. For example, Hari supports total nuclear disarmament by the US, Britain and all other nuclear states, and is a vociferous campaigner on the question of global warming. Felix has tried repeatedly to delete these facts, on the grounds that these positions are “uncontroversial”. I pointed out that far from being “uncontroversial”, the idea of total nuclear disarmament is widely regarded as a radical position and is supported by, for example, just 6 or 651 British MPs, and no US Congressmen at all. He refused to accept this and just kept deleting it without offering a counter-argument.

He is presently trying to delete all the major criticisms of Hari in the entry from prominent right-wingers (presumably because they contradict his false view that Hari is himself a right-winger). He has dismissed criticisms by Bjorn Lomborg, who was named as the ninth most important intellectual in the world by Prospect magazine, and David Starkey, who was later named as one of the 100 most important intellectuals in Britain by Prospect. He claims these figures are “spurious” and “unimportant”. However, he believes that a minor blog-based group called Medialens, who he happens to agree with, should be quoted at great length (without quoting Hari’s response).

I believe in quoting a range of critics from across the political spectrum (and as it happens I personally agree with the Medialens criticism of Hari). So I repeatedly offered Felix-Felix a compromise: we should quote Medialens at length, provided we quote other critics at length and quote Hari’s responses. He has consistently refused to do this. He insists that we quote the critics he agrees with, and almost none of the others, no matter how eminent, and give only a single sentence of Hari’s response. This seems to clearly contradict the rules on POV.

Nonetheless, I have been keen to try to achieve consensus on the page with Felix in any way I can. In the archive, you can see over six instances in which I say, “I’ll compromise on this, what will you compromise on?” and receive no answer.

I discovered on Felix's page, when alerting him to this request for adjudication, that he has been accused of vandalising other pages too.

There are specific points I would really appreciate adjudication on which I hope can be discussed if this request is taken up.

Statement by {write party's name here}

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/0/0)

Reject for now, please try mediation Fred Bauder 22:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reject; premature. James F. (talk) 13:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus and Ghirlandajo

Initiated by Guy (Help!) at 22:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[1]
[2]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Piotrus and Ghirlandajo, two long-standing contributors, are unable to settle their differences. An enforceable remedy is required to end the feud.

Statement by JzG

After a lengthy RfC in which Piotrus has made some steps towards resolution and Ghirla rather fewer, we have this [3] which almost immediately escalated into precisely the same futile calls for the desysopping of Piotrus by Ghirla.

Piotrus feels that Ghirla is inserting Russian POV into articles without adequate sourcing, and is edit warring about it. Piotrus has credible evidence to support this. In fairness, Piotrus is also making good-faith efforts to pursue a resolution on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Piotrus, and I think right now the dispute is mainly being maintained by Ghirla, but historically both parties have exhibited fault.

Ghirla feels that Piotrus is stalking him, forum shopping, throwing his weight around; Ghirla wants Piotrus deysopped. Consensus on the RfC is that this is absurd. Ghirla has some justification for feeling persecuted, evidence is provided in the RfC. There does seem to be an anti-Ghirla cabal of some sort. I don't believe, personally, that Piotrus is really pat of that, but he does seem to be causing Ghirla some problems, and it would probably have been better to let someone else report things rather than keep reporting Ghirla himself.

A remedy was suggested where they undertake to leave each other alone on pain of blocking. Ghirla is unwilling to accept this without an enforceable ruling. So here we are. And it's been a titanic waste of time and energy for many long-standing contributors, including the parties themselves, so I sincerely hope we can rapidly endorse the proposal brought in the RfC and get on with building an encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Apparently the parties have now agreed to accept mediation; perhaps we can put this on hold for now? Or maybe it will be helpful to have a ruling on the past, on which to build the future? Guy (Help!) 14:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Durova

I offered to play "template referee" at the ANI thread and got a cordial response from Piotrus, who accepts me as suitably neutral and welcomes my feedback on the PAIN and RFC issues.[4] So I've expanded my offer to general mediation. Currently I'm waiting for responses from the involved parties. Durova^Charge! 00:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus accepts my offer. I haven't heard from Ghirla yet but I'd like to be optimistic: he and I have collaborated occasionally and have always been on good terms (Piotrus is aware of this and doesn't mind). So I'm requesting the committee to give this an interval of 1-2 days before deciding on the arbitration proposal. I've referred enough other "business" to ArbCom lately - maybe here's a situation I can keep out of your way. Will update as soon as I hear word. Durova^Charge! 01:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(sorry to post in someone else's section, but) Ghirla has rejected the idea of enforcement (specifically by block) of any informal ruling; the PAIN post also post-dates these offers, I think. If both parties would accept Durova's offer this arbitration should indeed be unnecessary. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the named parties have accepted my mediation offer. Durova^Charge! 14:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Over at User talk:Durova/Mediation we're working out some ground rules for a community-enforceable mediation such as a potential admin recall and a mutual civility parole. Since Guy - who opened the request - and Ghirla and Piotr are all willing to try this, let's give it a spin. Third parties are welcome to provide input at User talk:Durova/Mediation/Input. Durova^Charge! 23:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ghirla

My position is neatly summed up in the ongoing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Piotrus and I refer all interested parties to this page. My prime aim in starting the RfC was to make Piotrus stop slandering my name on the public noticeboards and user talk pages, since I don't stoop to this sort of agitation these days. I can't see how ArbCom can realistically put an end to this sort of harassing without Piotr's own volition. Punitive measures are the last thing both sides of the dispute want. Since there was deep night here in Russia at the time Guy selected to submit his request, I am probably rather late in accepting Durova's offer of mediation. Nevertheless, this is one of the remedies that may be tried before going to ArbCom, which is quite busy without plunging into the maze of Polish-Russian relations in Wikipedia during the last two years. Additionally, I may be off-line during the next two weeks (Christmas vacations in my country), a situation which would make me vulnerable during the arbitration proceedings to biased statements by Piotrus and (even more) by a circle of his yes-men: Appleseed, Balcer, Darwinek, Beaumont, etc. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by Piotr's accusatory statement below, he already set out to veer this case towards revision of content and, rather than commenting on our personal interactions, put the emphasis on my relations with all other contributors, except himself. I suppose he can't concentrate on the Piotrus-Ghirla dispute and prefers to use this board for vilifying myself for the umpteenth time, because he knows that there will be scores of disgruntled ghirlaphobes (even those who don't know Piotrus) venting their grievances for the first time, as happens each time my name pops up on this page. I find the diffs pointing to my interactions with other wikipedians, presented by Piotrus, rather odd and quite irrelevant to the present case. If Piotrus wants the case to develop in this direction, he should initiate another request for comment or ask those users to discuss their grievances on my talk page, rather than producing totally unrelated diffs for the first time here, without giving me an opportunity to respond and without giving the community an opportunity to evaluate these diffs. If such is his intention, I would also produce multiple diffs of his incivility in relations with other contributors. Do we need to expand the scope of this case and to vilify each other's names here? I think the answer is obvious, but apparently some arbitrators think otherwise. So, you know better how to proceed, while I will be found on User:Durova/Mediation. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Piotrus

Well, JzG, who I believe is a neutral party here, said most of what needed to be said. I will however expand a little on a few points, to illustrate my take on this issue.

I don't find Ghirla's content edits to be disruptive enough to warrant any DR. Most of his edits have nothing to do with myself, and he certainly creates a lot of great articles (being, for example, one of the most frequent contributors to WP:DYK). He has indeed a very strong POV (although he never admits it) - one which I'd call 'pro-Russian' (just as I freely admit I have a 'pro-Polish' one), and he tends to occasionaly insert unreferenced highly POVed information into articles (or remove referenced one); however since almost nobody supports his most extreme claims (ex. [5]), and since he is quite observant of WP:3RR, after a short period of the your average 'edit sparring' he usually gives up and the rest of us are able to work in peace; thus despite his occasional attempts to 'POV push', we have been able to feature quite a few articles on even controversial Polish-Russian issues as the Katyn Massacre.

What I - and I believe many other editors - find very disrupting is incivility in Ghirla's comments and in edit summaries. Whenever somebody disagrees with him (and given his strong POV, it happens quite often), Ghirla assumes bad faith (ex. [6], [7], [8]) and in most cases, instead of discussing the content, launches a string of ad hominens (ex. revert warrior, troll, stalker, tagtroll, revisionist troll champion, anti-Ghirlandajo crusader, tendentious editor, Ghirlaphobe) occasionally peppered with obscenities (ex.[9], [10]), almost always bordering (and in my opinion, often crossing) the WP:NPA policy. When asked to be more respectful of WP:CIV and associated policies, he ignores such requests (usually removing warnings from his talk page, ex. [11] (and even from other users talk pages - although he doesn't shy from giving or restoring warnings to others himself), and continues the above behaviour, often accusing other side of attacking (i.e. criticizing) him (ex. [12], [13]) and adding threats (ex. of desysoping, [14]). This tends to create a vicious circle; the recent WP:PAIN incident described by JzG ([15]) is a perfect example of such a situation. Such a pattern has been continuing for years.

I believe that the only solution to this problem (other then all who disagree with Ghirlandajo leaving this project, like a valuable contributor recently did) is an ArbCom enforced civility parole (like this one) on Ghirla. As a sign of good faith, I will repeat my declaration from the RfC that I would be willing to enter under the same restrictions as well (I strongly believe that WP:CIV should be enforced at least as strongly as WP:3RR, and I am not demanding that others should behave more civil then I am). On the ending note, please note that Ghirlandajo has already been warned 'to avoid incivility or personal attacks' by ArbCom in the past; I believe Ghirla has failed to adhere to this past warning and it should now be enforced. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 12:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum 1 by Piotr: the number of users who have endorsed my statements in both RfCs as well as express similiar view in this RfArb is proof enough that this is not a conflict limited only to the two us.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum 2 by Piotr: Recent comments by Ghirla seem to indicate we may be able to resolve this without ArbCom ([16], [17] and at User:Durova/Mediation). I therefore agree with JzG that it may be a good idea to put this RfArb on hold and see if we can solve this without burdening the ArbCom (which has enough to do as it is). However, until a possible solution is reached at one of the above discussions (or both), I'd like to request that this RfArbCom is not discarded and is instead kept on this page on hold, preferably 'accepted' (so it can be revived quickly if needed) but before the 'evidence phase' (so we don't have to work on yet another page while pursuing other avenues of DR that have just become workable again but are not guaranteed to stay that way). Besides, I am not sure if a mediation can 'enforce' a civility parole/1RRs and similar solutions, even if they are agreed to by the parties of mediation, and thus ArbCom reconfirmation may be useful; also, the mediation is (so far) limited only to the two of us, ArbCom may save us time by ruling that the solutions we find are applicable to the concerns raised by other parties who commented here (or not, and impose additional conditions).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by W.marsh

In my one encounter with Ghirldango, [18], [19], he threatened to have me both blocked and de-sysopped basically for having the audacity to disagree with him, and then made allegations that were simply untrue (like that I was a passionate defender of the #wikipedia IRC channel, and then ignored requests for any evidence whatsoever to back up that claim). This really came out of left field since I had no idea who he was until he was just lashing out at me angrilly on AN/I. He never followed through on any of his threats, and given how routinely he makes the exact same threats towards most people who with whom he disagrees, I get the feeling he puts about as much thought into saying "you should be desysopped/blocked/whatever" as I put into saying "It's cold outside today".

If there's a "cabal" against him, it's just rational good faith editors who don't like unbelievably venemous and angry people being allowed to run amock. I think arbcom should take a hard look at someone who acts in such an inexplicable manner on a project where civility and cooperation is supposed to be important. I don't claim to know the whole of this dispute, but anyone who seems to go out of his way to be insulting to good faith editors needs some kind of review. --W.marsh 18:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)

I strongly urge the committee to reject this case, seeing as it is very close to resolving itself in RFC. Both parties have found important common ground[20] which could save us a lot more sweat and grief (please note Guy's addendum and Durova's staement above). Besides, by the time you get around to making any serious decision, the new ArbComm will have been sworn in. So please let's allow the dispute resolution process some more time to work.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Halibutt

In the first place I have to admit that I'm by no means neutral here. The reason is explained below. In my long history of contacts with Ghirlandajo, I've always admitted that he's a great editor, doing lots of good job on Russia-related topics. However, nothing changed during the last year or so in his attitude towards those whom he disagrees with - yours' truly included. As soon as any disagreement appears, Ghirlandajo is the first to resort to personal attacks, threats, offensive vocabulary, ethnic slurs, unfounded accusations, and all sorts of disruptive actions. Some of them were already pointed out during the two (?) failed RfCs, others were pointed out by various wikipedians at his talk page - apparently to no avail. Sure, he writes a plethora of great articles. However, when he starts dealing with anything that is not exactly pleasant to his sense of national pride, all hope for a constructive approach is lost.

At the same time he has a nasty habit of treating all attempts at finding some common ground as anti-Ghirlandajo crusade. While anyone has a right to feel the centre of the universe and target of some alleged conspiracy, such behaviour in wikipedia is surely not the most productive thing. Sure, I was hoping he could change his ways with time, but - as sad as it is - nothing like that happened. With time I got tired with trying to settle the things with Ghirlandajo. I simply got fed up with his blatant lies, accusations, all the filth he's been throwing at me, Piotrus and other respected editors, and simply decided to go on lengthy wiki-vacations. He's always been able to get away with any incivility, so I was basically left with two options: either to start responding in kind, or to withdraw. I chose the latter option.

Having said that, I admit that Piotrus is no saint either. However, I envy him for his patience in trying to deal with Ghirlandajo. I tried for more than a year - and gave up. //Halibu tt 19:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by K. Lástocska

Never mind, again....self-censorship is probably not a good idea here, this is still my opinion. K. Lástocska 20:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Polish. I am not Russian. I belong to no cabal. I had barely had any contact whatsoever with either Piotrus or Ghirla before I stumbled upon Piotrus' RfC and found myself in the middle of a battleground. What I found there disturbed me. The only concrete allegations against Piotrus with any basis at all were his unblocking of Molobo (over a year ago, and Piotrus apologized on RfC) and his one use of a word that could be considered an ethnic slur (in an offhand comment on someone's personal talk page.) The rest was ad hominem attacks, name-calling, accusations of conspiracy, vitriolic suspicion (apparently based mainly on nationality) of an entire group of editors, biased interpretations, making mountains out of molehills, and quite a bit of incivility. What really startled me was after I had the audacity to defend Piotrus and reprimand Ghirla for the name-calling etc. mentioned above, based solely on what I saw on RfC and its many links, Ghirla left a rather unpleasant message on my talk page "welcoming" me to, and I quote, "the ranks of the Ghirlaphobes." A bit of sleuthing around and I discovered that Ghirla habitually refers to anyone who criticizes him, disagrees with him, makes an edit he doesn't like, or just plain gets on his nerves as a "Ghirlaphobe" and part of an "anti-Ghirlandajo crusade." I and many others have also been accused of being "Russophobes", in my case he provided no evidence to back up his accusation. It strikes me as the sign of a rather arrogant person if someone thinks that everyone who disagrees with him must be on some organized mission, the specific goal of which is to make his life miserable. It is tantamount to saying that no ordinary person would EVER disagree with him, so anyone who does must be somehow in thrall to the Supreme Cabal or the Forces of Darkness. I find that somewhat ridiculous. Believe me, Wikipedia editors have better things to do than organize themselves into sinister international cabals to annoy one particular editor. Another thing that perplexed me about the RfC was Ghirla's frequent accusations of name-calling, incivility etc. on Piotrus' part, but the links he provided as evidence of this terrible behaviour brought forth no smoking gun, no damning evidence, no crimes. Even more disturbing, at the same time as he was accusing Piotrus of incivility, rudeness, name-calling and other nastiness, he was himself engaged in many of the same activities he was accusing Piotrus of. In my limited interaction with and observation of Ghirla, I have noticed that he is very quick to make accusations of trolling and bias, deletes any criticism from his talk page, frequently employs incivility and occasional obscenity, and essentially offends many of the people he comes into contact with. In contrast, I have come to know Piotrus as a reasonable, responsible, civil editor. Of course he is far from perfect, of course he has made mistakes, of course he sometimes loses his temper. We are all human, even Wikipedia admins. And of course he is not 100% free from bias, no one is. Also, Piotrus has repeatedly attempted to resolve this dispute and has openly declared his willingness to abide by whatever guidelines are set. These statements are only met with rejection and attacks by Ghirla. I may have essentially commited Wiki-suicide here, because I am certain that now I too will endure attacks, ad hominems, name-calling, accusations of cabalism, and perhaps vandalism. But I will not be silenced by intimidation. I had to say what I had to say, and now I have said it.

Addendum #2 by Lástocska: I would like to make it VERY clear that I have no desire to see either warring party blocked or de-sysopped. I am for reform, not revolution. :) I am also well aware that neither party is entirely blameless in this dispute, and I hope very much that a reasonable agreement can be reached over on Durova's Mediation page. K. Lástocska 20:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beaumont

Let me begin by noting that R.D.H.'s call for rejection is probably based on the assumption that both P and G endorsed - to some extent - his outside view and proposal. The idea that the two signatures could close that RFC came from JzG. Finally, having the two partial signatures, JzG judged it reasonable to initiate this request. In my opinion, after Ghirla's withdrawal from the RFC talk [21], it is difficult to hope that he would respect anything that eventually comes out of it.

Now, to the matter. The general description being given by JzG, let me focus on my personal perspective. As a participant of the RFC I'm a little bit tired. As you may have noticed, I was qualified as yes-men and, presumably, a minion of Piotrus (the text and link above), so do not assume I'm neutral here. That said, I'd like to note that one easily gets such a 'nice' qualifications when trying to disagree with Ghirla. And this is not necessarily a Polish-Russian issue, nor Piotrus-Ghirla one, as the following theoretically neutral disambig problem with User:Atlant shows [22], [23]. I refrained from commenting there precisely due to the lack of civility in the discussion. And that's why there is no surprise that Ghirla has an impression of an alleged group of "Ghirlaphobes" - they are created "on-line" by himself. Personally, I'm strongly discouraged by this, as it approaches Wikipedia to an usenet forum. Unbelievable and sometimes unprovoked rudeness paralizes possible collaboration. This is also why I think it is important to consider more general pattern of interactions, on both sides, if you wish. Links provided in the "steps DR" section above could be useful.

Another problem is seen when we come to the possible solutions designed by Piotrus and Ghirla themselves. While I observe that Piotrus' request amounts to stick more closely to some polices (WP:VER,WP:CIV), the Ghirla's idea reduces to "leave him alone, whatever he does in his scope". I ask myself, whether one can reserve his 'territory'; whether one can reject to disscuss the matter in a civil way on WP:VER basis; whether acting by force of discouraging is the wiki way. While Piotrus showed some positive declarations and an effort towards a solution, Ghirla rejects any concrete proposals so far (supporting general ethos of R.D.H's only). It is clear that Ghirla's input is more than respectable. But personally, I would like not to have to be confronted with users who are permitted to act as they want (even implicitely only), just because their input is so great. --Beaumont (@) 23:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Darwinek

I think this case should be resolved at last. I am tired of this conflict as it lasts maybe for second year. I won't write there some long essays as the "elders" have a real life too :). My relations and contacts with Piotruś were always nice, civil and constructive. My relations with Ghirlandajo were most often negative, uncivil and so on. One case for illustration. When I added {{unref}} to some of his completely referenceless articles he reverted my edits, resp. commented them as "silly" or "stalking". This user has no respect for basic Wikipedia rules and his rude behaviour also annoy other users and waste their time. I respect both users' contribution to this encyclopedia and it was huge but, you know, this problem doesn't stand on Ghirla vs. Piotruś issue it stands on Ghirla vs. other editors base. In the place where I live it would be resolved in simple way. Both guys would leave the pub and break their mouths but this is Wikipedia and it should be resolved clean and without blood on the floor. - Darwinek 14:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hillock65

Unfortunately, I have to concur with the previous statement, in that my first experience with user Ghirlandajo was mostly negative. In his very first reference to me, done in extremely bad faith, instead of welcoming and explaining how things work here he accused me of "nationalist simplifications" and renamed and moved the article that I wrote without any consultation whatsoever. That not only disrupted the links and disambiguation but interfered with other sites where he attempted to link it, done again without any warning. Things went downhill from there, as he started virtual crusade against the articles that I have written, focusing almost exclusively on my work - evidently as a punishment for having a different view on history from his. I have been here hardly a week and such a treatment from this particular user was quite a shock for me. I am encouraged, however, by his recent expression of willingness to cooperate on another article and hope this is not a single, unusual occurance but a sincere desire to turn things around.--Hillock65 21:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from 67.117.130.181

I recommend wikibreaks for those who are stressed. It really helps. Good luck with the mediation and happy holidays. 67.117.130.181 20:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment by Lástocska

Uh...wow, guys, Ghirla just left Wikipedia. Out of the blue. Right when it looked like Durova's mediation was getting somewhere....I guess this de facto resolves the dispute though....K. Lástocska 04:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Constanz

Since he has not left forever and we actually don't wish him to do this...

I completely agree that Ghirla's contributions to Russia-related articles are remarkable. But I still find his behaviour and (disputing) style unacceptable. Just some examples: the first time I met him (I happened to revert his edit), I was immediately accused of adding 'self-devised bullshit' [24]. Once I reverted an obvious sock puppet (now indefinitely banned) I ... got warned by Ghirlandajo that 'revert warring'(?) can earn me a block [25].

His attempts to remove other people's comments by declaring these to be personal assaults [26] can also be regarded as disruptive. And as a rule, he removes warning templates laid on his talk page [27], [28].

I also find childish Ghirla's habit of using every possible place in order to raise his accusations against a user, once he has started disliking one [29], irrespective of the real matter.

Lastly, I cannot accept his attempts to advance Soviet propaganda with the resulting useless lengthening of debates, where his side has failed to give any NPOV sources.[30] Constanz - Talk 08:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/1/0)

Recuse. Dmcdevit·t 23:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. With so many interlocking allegations, I find it easy to believe the RfC is in a stalled state. Arbitration here should look at editor behaviour and alleged stalking, wheel-warring, team editing, whatever; should stay away from content issues to the extent that is possible. Charles Matthews 23:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. - SimonP 16:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Fred Bauder 14:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. James F. (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sathya Sai Baba

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

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)[reply]

Kkrystian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I confirm that I am aware of the request. Kkrystian^talk 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

[31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]

Statement by Thatcher131

This is a request to reopen/reconsider the previous ruling in Wikipedia: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 [37]. Andries requested clarification here in October but the discussion was moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba after 10 days without comment from the committee. He has continued the edit war [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] and was warned by me today in response to a complaint filed at Arbitration enforcement, [43] and challenges my warning.[44]

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 [45].

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 [46], instead of linking to Robert Priddy's personal anti-Sai web site, he described its contents in the article without linking [47]. I have blocked him for 24 hours and banned him from the article for a month [48]. Thatcher131 19:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. [49] 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." [50] Thatcher131 13:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 [51]. 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 Wikipedia; 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 [52].

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 [53])

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 [54]), 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 Wikipedia: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))
Does not linking to unreliable website also include wikipedia user pages such as user:Andries See [55] #Do unreliable websites also include the websites created and maintained by user:SSS108 especially for Wikipedia. In certain cases such as this one [56] the webpages on this website are simply copies that SSS108 took from the webpages of exbaba.com [57]
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 [58]If the answer is no, how can this be reconciled with a seemingly contradictory guideline Wikipedia: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))
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Other statements by Andries

I noticed that two arbitrators accepted this case by referring to the Wikipedia: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)[reply]

Comment on statement by user:Jossi. [59] 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. Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia. 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)[reply]

My edit warring on Robert Priddy was due to an interpretation of the previous arbcom decision that clearly contradicted the Wikipedia 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)[reply]

Comment on statement by Freelanceresearch (talk · contribs) [60]. 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-Wikipedia 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 [61] and her off-Wikipedia behavior. Nevertheless that was years ago and in contrast what she writes here I was not well-versed in Wikipedia habits, and procedures. She also revealed her own name (or pen name) on Wikipedia [62] 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. [63] [64]

Andries 18:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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 [65][66][67] (despite even Andries pointing out that this content was a primary souce [68]). I did not remove this content, but referenced it to secondary sources [69]. 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 [70][71]. 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 [72][73], 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 Wikipedia. Even after being blocked, Andries still claims that he is right [74].

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 [75]. 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 ^talk-email 20:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^talk-email 18:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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^{(talk) (e@)} 22:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by M Alan Kazlev

Like all of you here, I find this situation on Wikipedia, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Wikipedia 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)[reply]

Statement by Ekantik

I feel that I have not been treated fairly in this issue by SSS108 in particular. I recently joined Wikipedia (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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia; 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 ^talk 06:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba, or Andries may provide diff links.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/0/0/0)

Accept, to look at conduct of all editors involved in this article, POV and COI. Charles Matthews 22:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Agree with Charles's proposed scope. James F. (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Fred Bauder 14:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for clarification

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

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba

Please have a look at Robert Priddy. IMHO User:SSS108 is boldy misinterpreting [76] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree, and have posted on this matter at Wikipedia:Village pump (news). I have used the site in the past, and I certainly don't think it should be banned from Wikipedia, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)

@@ Line 108: / Line 108: @@
 ----
-=== Satanism ===
-: '''Initiated by ''' <b>[[User:Coolblue9]]</b>
-==== Involved parties ====
-* [[User:coolblue9]]
-* [[User:The Haunted Angel]]
-; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
-provide diffs showing that the involved parties have been notified on their talk pages
-; Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
-==== Statement by [[User:Coolblue9]] ====
-The entry for [[satanism]] has become a fanpage for followers of Lavey and not a general informative unbiased entry of an encyclopedia. I found the page via Google when searching for info about satanism, and was amazed that such a biased article existed, so I decided to edit it to attempt to make it more acceptable, and express NPOV. It has been reverted to a fanpage again, and a check of the history shows that this has been going on for some months and that the original infomrative unbiased page has been removed many times.
-==== Statement by {write party's name here} ====
-:  (Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries.  Remember to sign and date your statement.)
-==== Comment by Sam Blanning ====
-Reviewing the article history and the talk page, so far this dispute consists entirely of two reverts (one by Coolblue, one by an IP, presumably the same) and a very short thread on [[Talk:Satanism]] started by the IP. There barely appears to be a dispute, let alone one that has exhausted [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]].
-Coolblue, arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution, and you haven't even really tried the first, which is talking to your fellow editors, so I suggest withdrawing this request, which will otherwise just be rejected as premature, and responding to Angel on [[Talk:Satanism]]. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 13:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
-==== Clerk notes ====
-: (This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)
-==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/3/0/0) ====
-*Reject. The article in question does need some work, but bringing this to Arbitration is very premature. - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 22:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
-*Reject. [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 19:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
-*Accept [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 16:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
-*Reject. [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 09:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
-----
 === Piotrus and Ghirlandajo ===

Revision as of 13:52, 26 December 2006

Current requests

Current requests

Johann Hari

Involved parties

Statement by David r from meth productions

Statement by {write party's name here}

Clerk notes

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/0/0)

Piotrus and Ghirlandajo

Involved parties

Statement by JzG

Statement by Durova

Statement by Ghirla

Statement by Piotrus

Statement by W.marsh

Statement by R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)

Statement by Halibutt

Statement by K. Lástocska

Statement by Beaumont

Statement by Darwinek

Statement by Hillock65

Comment from 67.117.130.181

Another comment by Lástocska

Statement by Constanz

Clerk notes

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/1/0)

Sathya Sai Baba

Involved parties

Statement by Thatcher131

Need for clarification

Activists' off-site actvities

Statement by Andries

Request for clarification, originally submitted in September 2006

Other statements by Andries

Statement by SSS108

Statement by Savidan

Statement by Freelanceresearch

Statement by M Alan Kazlev

Statement by non-party Jossi

Statement by non party Dseer

Statement by Ekantik

Clerk notes

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/0/0/0)

Requests for clarification

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba

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

RPJ case and the Spartacus site

Motions in prior cases

Archives