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

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Editing Sai Baba related articles by the parties

1) Propose injunction on the parties not to edit Sai Baba related articles until ArbCom case is closed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I second this injunction. Andries is making mysterious edits on the SSB articles despite the RFA. I already discussed one of these mysterious edits on the project page: Ref. After a 3 and half month break, Andries recently made another edit (adding Anti-SSB material) to the SSB "Beliefs and Practices" article (choosing to link to an Anti-Cult site although a non-partisan link exists on the main SSB page): Ref and then added this very same material again on the main SSB page: Ref. Andries recently inserted a comment on an outdated thread (3 months after it was started), apparently in an attempt to change the way the thread originally read: Ref. Andries also inserted a superfluous citation on the SSB article although the citation already contained the proper references: Ref. Andries also stated on the Project Talk Page that he intends to make more edits on the SSB article: Ref. Therefore, the controversial edits are resuming anew despite the RFA. SSS108 ^talk-email 05:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason for a temporary stop of editing by adversaries (Andries and SSS108) because I think the latest edits that I made are constructive and did not lead to an edit war. Andries 08:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: The current placement of the proposal is correct. Non-parties as well as parties and arbitrators may make proposals. Comments on the proposals should be sorted into their correct subsection (Comments by Arbitrators, Comments by parties, or Comments by others), but the proposal should be at the head. --Tony Sidaway 16:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Who created and controls http://www.geocities.com/wikirefs ? Fred Bauder 14:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It was created by SSS108 because he opposed the convenience links in the references to online versions of reputable sources on the anti-Sathya Sai Baba websites http://www.exbaba.com and http://www.saiguru.net It is also controlled by SSS108. Andries 17:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It seems like a really good idea, but control by a partisan is not good. These seem to be authentic fair use but I am pretty sure they don't belong on Wikisource. Fred Bauder 13:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of anyone complaining that I have added inappropriate material on that site or that I am promoting myself in any way. I also stated that I was more than willing to turn the geocities site over to a neutral party. The problem is finding a neutral party to turn the site over to. SSS108 ^talk-email 06:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Andries agreed to the creation of the geocities site in mediation (Ref). SSS108 ^talk-email 06:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

No advocacy policy

1) The no advocacy policy of Wikipedia is not designed to be navigated around to "avoid breaking it". WP:NOT is to be embraced by editors, together with WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Gobbledegook. Fred Bauder 19:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Supported, but who is going to decide about this? It will be clear that I am sincerely convinced that I have not evaded policies. Andries 22:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, I think that this proposal is not concrete enough to be useful. Andries 22:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing bias by one-side selection of information

2) From Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial

A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. In this manner, the full range of views on a subject can be unfairly presented or concealed whilst still complying with Wikipedia:Verifiability. Verifiability is just one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The other two are NPOV and No original research. All three are necessary for an article to be considered compliant.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Not concrete enough to be useful. Andries 23:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean that you cannot cite a book at all unless you cite all view points immediately? Or that you cannot write about a certain subject regarding SSB unless all points of views are represented in the first edit? If this is disallowed then the SSB articles cannot grow and improve in the normal Wikipedia way. Andries 23:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. If one wants to cite information from a source and do so in a spirit of neutrality, then it would be expected that all viewpoints would be taken into consideration and presented accordingly. By doing this, the SSB articles would grow and improve in the "Wikipedia way". In my opinion, by failing to cite other view points "immediately", would suggest partisonship, POV pushing and a lack of research. SSS108 ^talk-email 23:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want every significant view point included immediately in Wikipedia then I suggest that the project is radically transformed. This is not the way any Wikipedia article works until now. Andries 18:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you cite an article that contains pro/con POVs, then it reflects badly on you to include only the con POV and ignore the pro POV. Once again, the fact that you cite almost exclusively the con POV proves you are POV pushing. Feel free to cite any diffs where you included Pro/Favorable POVs written about SSB. I think everyone would like to see them. I have had to go through the articles you cited and get favorable information because (for some myserious reason) you didn't want to include it. SSS108 ^talk-email 15:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did already in the evidence page. I included quite a lot of apologetic material in the early history of the article which I did not include on the evidence page. Andries 16:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's hope the Arbitrators have more success than I did sorting through your "evidence". It's very confusing. SSS108 ^talk-email 05:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding constant disputes

3) From Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles

When disputes arises as to what an article should say, editors should not adopt an adversarial stance. It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views. It is our job to work together, mainly adding or improving content, but also, when necessary, coming to a compromise about how a controversy could be fairly described.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This sounds like a quote from our guideline. It is not a matter of life and death for Wikipedia, just the facts. Fred Bauder 17:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

This sounds naive and unrealistic to me. Please note that for some people the subject is literally a matter of life and death. Andries 21:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC) amended 22:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Literally? You don't mean "figuratively"? — goethean ॐ 20:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant literally. Here is what The Times wrote on August 27, 2001 [..]three British men have apparently taken their own lives after becoming followers of the miracle worker. .full article The article is not exaggerating unfortunately. Andries 21:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does that news report have to do with the Wikipedia article? — goethean ॐ 21:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When a subject involves real deaths, such as this one, then Wikipedia editors with opposing views will sometimes behave as adverseries. To believe otherwise is unrealistic and naive Andries 21:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC) amended for grammar. 21:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a deliberately naive and unrealistic project, but when it is not abused, it nonetheless works OK. I wonder if you view your role as a Wikipedia editor as a potentially life-saving one. — goethean ॐ 21:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the Israel article or many other articles about which there are strong disputes. The reason for WP:NOT as it pertains to advocacy is that advocacy, either pro or con, is unacceptable, regardless of the subject and if there are lives or souls to be saved. That is not what this project is about. Bias has to be checked at the login page, as much as possible, and editors should not adopt an adversarial stance. Wikipedia is not a battleground of ideas, or a place for proselytizing or advocating our POVs. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page of the article Israel that Jossi uses as an example to support his view that "editors should not adopt an adversarial stance" provides ample evidence that his view is naive and unrealistic. Andries 16:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, one would expect a different response from someone who boasts about being an "long term" and "experienced" editor who is dedicated to maintaining a NPOV (as Andries claimed). SSS108 ^talk-email 00:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly because I am long term and experienced editor, I gave this answer. Andries 10:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andries' comment exemplifies the issue at hand: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a battleground of ideas. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No original research

4) From Wikipedia:No original research, Policy in a nutshell

Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Sounds like a quote. Fred Bauder 17:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I do not know whether this statement is meant for me, but if so then I want to state that I am an experienced long-time editor of Wikipedia and I know the policies well. I find such general statements about policies without being specific to the subject or dispute in question from somebody who is fully aware of my experience neither respectful nor useful. Andries 22:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC) amended for grammar 22:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Andries comments that he is an "experienced long-time editor". Despite his self-praise, there is plenty of evidence to support the fact that he will publish original research to push his POV. As a matter of fact, he allowed the original research of Anti-Sai Activists on the Sathya Sai Baba article for over 2 years. He also allowed the original research of Anti-Sai Activists for 22 months on the Allegations Against Sathya Sai Baba article. He did this until he was challenged. Which has already been discussed (Ref). SSS108 ^talk-email 06:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was not a single complaint about the use of sources on talk:allegations against Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 16:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, yes there were: Refs: [1] [2] [3]. These were brought to you attention on the SSB Talk Page. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content in biographies of living persons

5) The policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons addresses the editing and content of biographies of living persons.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Accepted Fred Bauder 18:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Writing style, biography of a living person

6) From Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Writing style:

Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.

The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, but that does not address adequately sourced negative material. Fred Bauder 19:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adequately sourced material is always welcome in our articles, regardless if it is positive or negative. The above portion from WP:BLP addresses the writing style, i.e. to write factually, in anunderstated manner and avoiding either a sympathetic POV or advocacy journalism POV. I would argue that this portion is highly pertinent in this case. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this proposal was copied from a recent arbCom case about a controversial religious figure. See Francis_Schuckardt#Writing_style.2C_biography_of_a_living_person ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

7) From precedent ArbCom case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Francis_Schuckardt#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox

Wikipedia is not an appropriate vehicle for extended presentations of particular religious viewpoints or controversies. Such material, if available on another site, is much more appropriately linked to with only a summary included in the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Skewed. We do want a full exposition of Sai Baba's views as well as of the controversies which surround him. What we don't want is advocacy or propaganda. Fred Bauder 19:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Francis_Schuckardt, there was a temptation to go beyond the beliefs and practices of Bishop Francis_Schuckardt to consideration of all the issues raised by the Second Vatican Council and his opinions regarding them. Fred Bauder 21:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

The above statement is not contained in WP:NOT. What does this proposal mean in practice? Please note that a reputable source (India Today) wrote that "Controversy could well be Sai Baba's middle name..[4] Does this mean that the article should deviate from reputable sources that have extensively treated the controversies? Andries 05:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is and has always been my opinion that Wikipedia should describe the beliefs and practices of religious groups. Andries 21:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC) amended to correct external link 20:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the matter is that there are literally hundreds of positive media articles written about SSB and Andries ignores them and instead focuses on Anti-SSB material. This itself makes the case that Andries is pushing his POV and has no other objective on the SSB/Prem Rawat/Guru/Cult articles than to push an opposing POV. Once again, is this the behavior of a "long-term" and "experienced" Wikipedia editor? SSS108 ^talk-email 00:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The stance in reputable sources since the year 2000 is largely critical. Andries 16:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The saibabalinks.org site contains archived media articles relating to SSB since 2000 (Ref)and these far out number critical articles. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this proposed wording was copied from a recent arbCom case related to a religious figure. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Francis_Schuckardt#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

8) Wikipedia is not an appropriate vehicle for propaganda or advocacy of any kind, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Support. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Critical information in biographies of living persons

9) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Critics provides for vigilance regarding malicious editing:

Editors should be on the lookout for the malicious creation or editing of biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics in case you represent a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.

Criticism should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Copied from the guideline Fred Bauder 21:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Again, many recently published reputable sources have been highly critical of SSB. Here is an overview of the articles in recently published reputable sources If this critical stance is not reflected in the article then I think that the NPOV policies are broken. Andries 22:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, Andries himself admitted that most of the people who published these critical articles were either holding an Anti-SSB POV or were sympathetic to those holding an Anti-SSB POV. Of course, these critical articles pale in comparison to the hundreds of favorable media articles written about SSB. I added several media links to the SSB Wikipedia article because Andries exclusively had Anti-SSB media articles, ignoring the hundreds of positive ones. Once again, this argues against Andries claim that he is a "long-term" and "experienced" Wikipedia editor who is supportive of a NPOV. SSS108 ^talk-email 00:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of poorly sourced negative material

10) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons provides that unsourced or poorly sourced negative material may be removed without discussion, such removal being an exception to the 3 revert rule Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_criticism. This policy is based on the proposition that any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material is potentially harmful to both the person or organization maligned and to Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 16:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Editing your guru's article

11) Editing an article concerning a guru you are a disciple of is governed by the principles in Wikipedia:Autobiography. Briefly, such editing is discouraged due to inherent bias. If you do edit, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research remain in full effect.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Oppose, see below for reason in the section "Editing your ex-guru's article" article. Should user:Ed Poor be forbidden to edit the article Unification Church? Sounds very strict and overreacting to me. Andries 17:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I remember Ed Poor choosing not to edit Unification Church. Fred Bauder 17:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He still edits Unification Church related articles[5] [6] but he wrote that he put voluntarily certain restraints on his own editing behavior on these articles, such as not immediately reverting. Andries 22:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC) amended for grammar. 22:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Fred, does this means that if you are a Christian, a Buddhist or an Orthodox Jew, you are discouraged of editing Pope_Benedict_XVI, Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama, and Samson_Raphael_Hirsch respectively, due to "inherent bias"? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it would apply to close associates and staff. Fred Bauder 17:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then the wording needs to be changed. As it stands now it referes to being a disciple. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing your ex-guru's article

12) Editing an article concerning a guru you are are an ex-disciple of is governed by similar principles as espoused in Wikipedia:Autobiography. Briefly, such editing is discouraged due to inherent bias. If you do edit, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research remain in full effect.

Comment by Arbitrators:

A person who has broken off a relationship with a guru is no longer under their influence, except in a reactionary sense. Fred Bauder 17:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you are implying, Fred about "being under their influence"? Do you consider to follow a spiritual guide, Guru, or religious figure an inherently negative thing that "influence" a person in such a way that limits his/her ability of editing articles about these subjects? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is as good as the guru. If the guru is a callow 13 year old, it is rather ridiculous. If the guru is a person with a wealth of experience and wisdom whose teachings include thinking for yourself, it is quite another matter. However in both instances biased editing about their master can be expected. Fred Bauder

Forgive me Fred, but are we discussing in this case the possible benefits, pitfalls, and otherwise complex aspects of the Guru-shishya_tradition? We would be better off leaving these to those scholars that have studied the subject. IMO, this ArbCom case does not need to treat editors that are disciples or critics of gurus, any differently than editors that are card-carrying members of the Communist party, activists in the Republican party, or Peace Now activists. Each and everyone of them would have their strong biases, and can edit Wikipedia as long as they abide by WP's content policies, thus this ArbCom case needs not to make a specific distinctionon the nature of the possible bias of the parties: Bias is bias, and advocacy is advocacy, regardless of the subject and the beliefs held by them. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are more discussing this version of the guru-shishya_tradition. Fred Bauder 04:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the ego-decimating principle of Guru-shishya_tradition#Prapati? That is only the most extreme form of that relationship, and uncommon. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, that is true, but even I will admit that some critical former members tend to interpret things too much in a negative light. Andries 17:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering Andries almost exclusive negative focus on SSB/Prem Rawat/Guru/Cults, I would say Andries is one of these "critical former members" who interpret things "too much in a negative light". SSS108 ^talk-email 00:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Oppose, generally only (ex-)members have the combination of knowledge, interest, and the documentation to make detailed, informative, referenced articles. And of course, it is crazy to forbid ex-followers while allowing followers at the same time. Andries 17:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only added this to provide a counterpoint to the other proposal. If we are to discourage disciples to edit articles about their guru, we ought to also discourage active critical ex-disciples to do the same. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the situation is different. However the personality type may be the same. Fred Bauder 01:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, I am perplexed by your comments... Are ArbCom cases the place to analyze and assess editor's personality types? Are ArbCom members psychologists, religious scholars, or sociologists? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are what we have to be. Fred Bauder 04:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, can you please explain your comments: "But the situation is different. However the personality type may be the same...We are what we have to be"? Thanks. SSS108 ^talk-email 00:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, I do not think that there is a special personality type that gets heavily involved in gurus and cults. It is mainly a matter of coincidence, I believe. Andries 23:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find the proposed remedies to be unbalanced, if there will be restrictions on "editing your guru's article" and not "editing your ex-guru's article". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a principle analogous to Wikipedia:Autobiography. If you are under the influence of someone it is inappropriate to be advancing their cause on Wikipedia in a biased way. An ex-devotee is presumably no longer under the guru's influence. However a second problem may arise of an excessive negative point of view. To respond to SSS108 it has been long observed that, as in the case of those who have rejected addictive substances, those who reject addictive activities may apply themselves to the anti position in much the same manner they applied themselves to the activity. This is assumed to rise from their underlying personality. The Arbitration Committee, whatever our formal qualifications, must deal with the users and behavior which we encounter as best we can. Some of us do have formal qualifications and experience which aid in understanding what is going on. I did study both psychology and sociology and continue to read the literature from time to time. That background is combined with an extensive period of observation of religious groups in Denver during the 1970's, particularly the Divine Light Mission. Regardless, the goal is not to be right, but to craft a decision which will allow those editing the articles to move forward productively. The reference to the problems discussed in Wikipedia:Autobiography is for the use of the editors, matters to consider as you observe yourself and your editing. Fred Bauder 17:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, but I would argue that you comparison of being a student of a guru or teacher, and being "under the influence" or "being addicted" deserves scrutiny as may attest to a certain bias on your part. I would expect that arbitrators that have such opinions, keep these to themselves and remain impartial. And if that impartiality is not possible, there is always the option of recusing themselves from a case. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In reading what wrote above, it may be construed that I question Fred's impartiality. That is not the case. It is just an observation, that arbCom members have their POVs and are expected to raise above these when dealing with issues about which they have a POV, as it is obviously the case here, as per Fred's comments. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to question my impartiality, but while I never joined a spiritual movement I was not hostile to them, but friendly. Then, as now, I was rather independent in my thought, so never made any particular choice. I probably came closest to joining Ananda Marga. Fred Bauder 16:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am just concerned about your association of "disciple" with "influenced" and "addiction", as it was different that any other human association, such as being an ACLU carrying card member, an activist in the Green party, a devotee of Jesus Christ, or a grupie of Star Wars. I would argue that making a statement about "editing your Guru's article", is unecessary as it forwards the POV that disciples/students of spiritual teachers are different that any other people that follow or have other strong political views, religious beliefs, or otherwise, as it pertain to their ability to edit Wikipedia reasonably and within policy. My suggestion would be to change the wording of something along the lines of :

"Editing articles about subjects in which you are personally heavily involved is governed by similar principles as espoused in Wikipedia:Autobiography. Briefly, such editing is discouraged due to inherent bias. If you do edit, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research remain in full effect."

I would appreciate if you would consider that change to the wording. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi and Fred, I think that heavy involvement with a living guru is quite different from a member of e.g. the ACLU. The term under the influence for somebody who is more than superficially involved with a living guru is highly appropriate. Andries 17:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not so different from a person heavily involved in a political party, a religion, or being an critical activist like you are as it concerns the subject of this dispute. One could easily argue that you are "under the influence" of a traumatic experience, as you have described it., and as such you could be as influenced as any other person heavily involved in a any subject which that person considers to be highly important. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No, Jossi, that is a flawed comparison. The term under the influence is normally used for an external influence, not for an internal psychological process. It is not a black and white matter, but I continue to hold the view that the term under the influence of SSB is appropriate for committed current followers among others because SSB encourages complete prapati/surrender to him. Andries 19:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue, Andries, that as a very active critic, you are as much "under the influence" of your traumatic experience, as a we can have it as it pertains to your ability to edit articles in Wikipedia about the subject while avoiding biased editing. I would further argue that it is naïve to think that a person that dedicates so much of their time and energy in criticizing his ex-guru, as you are, is in no less of a difficult situation as a devotee doing the opposite. In particular if you have a stake as high as it can be construed from your own comments, your activities as a critic, and so forth. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to hold the view that your reasoning is flawed. Yes, I am influenced by my experience with SSB, but I am to a large extent no longer under the influence of SSB; there is some residue of SSB's Hindu belief system in me. Clearly SSB's words are no longer scripture for me as they are for committed devotees. Of course, we are all influenced by external sources, but the degree of influence of SSB on a committed devotee due to the devotee's uncritical acceptance of everything that SSB's says (he is after all God) makes it of a different magnitude. Andries 20:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disputing that. Jesus is also God for Christians, and we do not limit Christians to edit Jesus Christ. And if you ask an Evangelist they will tell you of their pride to be influenced by Jesus. And before your bring the argument that Jesus is not alive, go a and tell that to a devout Christian that will tell you that Jeus is alive and very real for them. Nevertheless, what I am arguing Andries, is that your ability to edit related articles in an unbiased manner is as compromised as of a devotee. In particular being such an active critic. Or are you arguing that you are in so much control of your feelings against your ex-guru, after your self-described "post-cult trauma", that you are any different that an "influenced devotee" when it comes to your ability to be neutral about the subject? Furthermore, I would say that any person that has a strong involvement in any area of human endeavor, and in which his/her worldview is dependent of, will have a similar difficulty. That is why I am suggesting that the wording of "editing your Guru's article" is changed to "Editing an article about which you have strong involvement", so that it applies to all editors that have strong vested interests in a subject. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that my "ability to edit related articles in an unbiased manner is as compromised as of a devotee" then how do you explain that the article beliefs and practices in the Sathya Sai Organisation of which I am the main author contains only one critical sentence (added last week)? You cannot, unless you come to the conclusion that your assumption is flawed. Andries 22:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that you, a highly active critical ex-follower of this guru, can remain neutral while editing, but a devotee of the same guru cannot? Is that your argument, Andries? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had already stated that I opposed Fred's proposal. Both critics and followers can and should excercise restraint when editing Wikipedia. I think there is ample evidence that I have excercised such restraint. Andries 22:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Andries. So would you back the proposed wording change, from "editing your Guru's article" to "Editing an article about which you have strong involvement", that states that both pro and con editors need to excercise restrain when editing such articles, and be conscious of their bias when doing so? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something like that could work, but it is not enough. I would have been a lousy editor when I was a SSB devotee even if I excercised restraint, because I did not understand the view of opponents. Adverseries should actively try to understand their views and opionions. Andries 23:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that attempting to understand (or at least acknowledge) opposing views is commendable. But I do not not think that you can argue that a highly active critical ex-devotee is in a better position to excercise restrain than a devotee. Both face the same dilemma and difficulty. Acknowledging these, as you have done above, is promising. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In behavioral terms what is involved is behavior on the part of followers which for all practical purposes cannot be distinguished; they act out a common script expressing a common point of view, meatpuppets, in Wikipedia parlance. This behavior occurs in a number of contexts, including radical politics and fundamentalist Christianity. But this is a Hindu context, so one may speak of those who have adopted a guru's teachings and perspective. Fred Bauder 13:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not only on fundamentalist Christianity, ot radical politics, Fred. It happens in many articles about which there is controversy, such as Israel, Illegal immigration to the United States, to name a few. I continue to argue that making a specific distinction in this case is inapropriate. The meatpuppet concern could as easily be applied to a group of ex-disciples. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison breaks down when you bring up editors to Israeli related articles. They may share a pro-Israeli viewpoint, but almost always come at the subject in individual ways. There is quality aspect to this matter related to the intensity of the subject's identification with the views of the group. Fred Bauder 15:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the issue I am concerned with, Fred: Your assertion that a disciple of a spiritual teacher does not have the ability to come at the subject in individual ways. I have such a teacher, and I am very proud of being my own person, bearing full personal responsibility for my actions, thoughts, and otherwise. I paint, play music, write computer code as well as poetry, and I am an avid reader and conttributor to this project in a myriad of subjects. Hence I find that a general characterization of "disciple of teacher=group mentality="influenced"="addicted", etc. is inappropriate, and one that I believe is not for an ArbCom member to make or assert in these dicussions. The wider community Wikipedia does not get involved in making assertions about people beliefs and worldviews, and I do not see the ArbCom should act any different in this respect. As stated in WP:NPA, "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." is unacceptable.

Nevertheless, I agree with you that the intensity of an editor's identification with the views of a group of like-minded editors has a bearing on this issue, but my argument is that there no distinction between the strong identification of an editor that is a disciple of a spiritual teacher, and an ex-disciple editor that is an vocal critic and activist against his former group association. Otherwise this proposed ruling will be seen as a precedent and used to:

warn Jews about editing articles about the Holocaust, while not warning white supremacists about the same
warn Castrists about editing Cuba, but not warning anti-castrists
warn devoted Christians not to edit Christianity, but not warn Islamists
Warn adherents of a religion about editing the article about their religion, but not warning apostates about the same
etc.

My argument is that yes, there are possible problems when we edit articles about which we have passionate views about, (and you would agree surely, that most editors will be drawn to edit these, rather than the occasional random article), but that a distinction made between supporters or critics should not be made in this respect. Both passionate pro and con editors need to abide by Wikipedia content policies and face the same challenges.

So I would want to propose that the text at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Proposed_decision#Editing your guru's article is changed to "Editing an article about which you have a strong involvement", as to not make such innapropiate distinction as argumented above. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the statement "Editing an article about which you have a strong involvement" is too vague to be useful. I have no strong involvement in SSB anymore so the statement excludes me. It would be a different matter, I have to admit, if I would edit the artile Active critics of Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 19:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What if the person in question is a Christian who is arguing against SSB? In this instance, the person is "under the influence" of his own religion and is arguing against other beliefs that oppose his. On the recovery page (Ref) (that Andries himself claimed he created: Ref), he fully associates himself with Dr. Johannes Aagaard (a Christian Counter-Cult Activist and President of the Dialog Center), published links going to Biblical warnings against "False Teachers" (Ref) that went to: 01 and 02. Andries linked to the Christian Fundamentalists Anton and Janet Hein-Hudson and even had an evangelical Christian banner put on the recovery page that was subsequently removed after I pointed it out (Ref: Bottom Screencap). Reinier Van Der Sandt is openly a Christian who has never even seen or visited SSB and if Andries is not the webmaster (claiming that Reinier is) then Andries is associating himself (once again) and dispersing his Anti-Sai material directly in association with an evangelical Christian. I guess nobody is taking into consideration these facts? SSS108 ^talk-email 18:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is your basic guilt by association. I did not see evidence of Christian related bias from Andries. Fred Bauder 01:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, I don't think it is guilt by association. After all, Andries claimed he created that recovery section himself. Nobody pressured Andries into creating that recovery section. I think Andries has been very careful about pushing a Christian related bias on Wikipedia although he does promote the Dialog Center and other Christian Counter Cult links against Gurus. The fact remains that on Andries recovery section, he clearly pushes a Christian agenda. Why would Andries link to a fundamentalist Christian site with 2 pages of Biblical passages against "False Teachers" if he didn't believe in it himself? Why would he put a banner to an evangelical Christian site on his recovery page saying "For help to ex-devotees" if he is not a Christian? In my opinion, that is not the behavior of a non-Christian.SSS108 ^talk-email 04:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created the recovery section initially, but some additions were made by others later e.g. the addition of the Dialog Center. Neither I nor Reinier are Christians. Of course, it will be clear that most Christians will dislike Sathya Sai Baba and some Christians will actively opppose him. SSS108 is so miguided by his glaring misinterpretations that he even accuses Eileen Barker of a pro-Christian bias. All of this could have been easily resolved by polite private e-mails, but even this is difficult with SSS108 because he threatens to publish all the e-mails on his homepage and he often does publish these e-mails on his homepage interspersed with his misguided hostile comments that show an excessive and near-paranoid scepticism and distrust. If SSS108 behaves like that then he cannot expect me to send him e-mails to explain all of his misinterpretations. Andries

A reasonable explanation, but I can see SSS108's reason for concern. Fred Bauder 16:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think SSS108's concern are highly exaggerated and based as usual on glaring misinterpretations. The statement that Reinier is a Christian is as far as I know completely untrue. I would be surprized if there were more than 5 among my 13,000+ edits on the English Wikipedia that could possibly interpreted as showing pro-Christian bias. I cannot remember having made one. Andries 20:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Evidence#No_indication_of_Andries.27_alleged_pro-Christian_bias. Andries 08:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, what Andries fails to mention is that (on his own site) his fellow Anti-Sai Activists have published emails from proponents and devotees without their permission along with "misguided hostile comments that show an excessive and near-paranoid scepticism and distrutst". Andries sees no problem when he or his Anti-Sai associates do this. However, when I do the very same thing (except with a disclaimer stating that emails sent to me may be published on my site at my discretion), I am castigated and blamed.
On July 12th 2004 [7], March 16th 2006 [8] and on April 17th 2006 [9], Andries claimed that he compiled the recovery section. He did not say he and others compiled it. Andries took full credit for it himself. If Andries and Reinier are not Chrisitans, then one is left to wonder why a banner to an evangelical Christian site was placed on the recovery section that Andries created. Why is Andries linking to Christian Counter Cult Activists, associating himself with the President to the Dialog Center and linking to a fundamentalist Christian Site, citing 2 pages with Biblical passages against "False Teachers"? Reinier also publicly advocated for classes he took on SettingCaptivesFree.com, which is a fundamentalist Christian Site that requires its participants to solve their devil-induced-addictions through faith in Jesus Christ (View Their Doctrinal Statement: PDF). Now Andries can call me "paranoid", etc., but the fact remains that I have entirely valid reasons for my comments and doubts. I can also back my opinions with facts taken from Andries recovery section that he claimed he created going back to July 2004 and as recently as April 2006.
Another perfect examples of Andries misrepresentations of the truth is when he said "he even accuses Eileen Barker of a pro-Christian bias". Of course, I never accused Eileen Barker of this. I rightly pointed out that INFORM (founded by Eilieen Barker) is funded by mainstream churches and their Patrons & Board of Governers are mostly either Bishops, Priests or members of Orthodox Churches. An easily verifiable fact: Ref: PDF File. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Critics of SSB do not show excessive scepticism only because they question his extraordinary claims or criticize the writings of devotees who defend his claims. The oppponents of SSB form an oppositional coalition and of course they welcome Christians as part of this oppositional coalition. It is true that I am the main author of the recovery section and that I think that only I deserve the credit for this. Nevertheless others have made minor additions, such as adding the Christian Dialog Center. The problem with SSS108's "proof" that he cites is that he does not know the somewhat complicated and chaotic background and that he sees deception where there is only coincidence and mistakes. The problem with SSS108's proof is further aggravated by the fact that I do not like to explain all this in detail to him (even if I know all the details which quite often is not the case) because on his website he distorts everything that I write. Andries 20:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andries, why aren't you giving your explanation to the ArbCom then? It doesn't matter if you think I am going to distort your explanation on my website. My website is not important here. Give your explanation here for ArbCom to hear. I think they deserve an explanation. SSS108 ^talk-email 04:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Andries used this same excuse (without success) in mediation in which he accused me of publishing emails and making "misguided comments" about them. Needless to say, Andries actually expected me to publish his email and when I did not publish it within a day's time, he complained about it on a Yahoo Group. After I published it, come mediation, Andries complained I published it! A no win situation. View my response in mediation. SSS108 ^talk-email 04:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was not a regular e-mail but an affadavit submission. Andries 08:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, another example of Andries flip-flopping. Andries accused me of publishing "emails" from him on my website [10]. Andries said, in mediation: "Further what I personally see as a major problem is that Moreno publishes all my e-mails on his homepage with all kinds of suggestive and misguided comments. How can I properly communicate with him if he behaves in such a way?" The only email that Andries ever sent to me that was published on my website was his bogus affidavits submission. Since Andries is now contending that the affidavit submission was not, per se, a "regular email" (a new claim he never made before), then Andries needs to tell us what other "emails" he sent to me that were published on my website with "misguided comments". Something I already addressed in mediation[11] SSS108 ^talk-email 16:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant to write is that you have published the e-mails of many others on your homepage with all kinds of intellectually dishonest and unfairly skepticial comment and that it is your explicit policy to have the right to publish e-mails send to you. Which such threatening examples and history of your behavior I think I have very good reason not to send you any e-mails. I would like to discuss with you in a polite private way to clear up your many misintepretations, but clearly this is something that you make impossible. Andries 16:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing of personal information

13) If a user has made their real name freely available either on Wikipedia or on a personal website which they have linked to [12], it is not an offense if they are referred to by that name by other users, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_user:Will_Beback and http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/joe-gerald-moreno.html.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 13:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I agree, but I basically acknowledge the right of SSS108/user to revoke use of his real name, but this should be done consistently and s/he should not continue to reveal her/his real names even after s/he has requested other users not to mention her/his real name any more. Andries 21:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would not have to had made that proposition if Andries and his Anti-SSB friends started attacking me on Wikipedia and forwarded my name to others so they could attack me as well. SSS108 ^talk-email 00:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Wikipedia in other languages

14) Content and editing on Wikipedia articles in other languages such as The Dutch Wikipedia must be dealt with at that Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agreed, but I will write on the talk page of the Dutch article that there have been complaints in the English language Wikipedia about the contents of the Dutch article. I will refer there to the complaints by SSS108. I do not have the energy, time, and interest to improve the Dutch article now. Andries 16:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Reasoned discussions by adverseries before dispute resolution

15) Adverseries should give a reasoned on-topic motivation on the talk page why certain edits or statement in the article are not good for the article, peferrably by referring to guidelines and policies. Or by writing down why an edit or statement in the article is unencyclopedic. Adverseries should only resort to dispute resolution about a certain edit or statement in the article when they continue to disagree after fruitless discussions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think some guidance can be useful to define the parameters of the discussion which can then be more productive. Fred Bauder 16:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

proposed by user:Andries. Andries 22:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Loss of focus

16) Creation of a number of articles dealing with essentially the same subject results in loss of focus and reduced quality.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 16:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agreed to a great extent. Some articles should be merged, partially to increase maintainability. The history of the set of articles on SSB has shown that some were and are neglected and poor in quality. Andries 22:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

External links to be avoided

17) Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, a section of a guideline, discourages linking "any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research....or a website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link." "If the subject of an article has an official website, then it should be linked to even if it contains factually inaccurate material."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. This only a guideline and need not be followed if an appropriate reason exists to not follow it. 17:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Wikipedia does not strive to neutral, but NPOV. Recently published reputable sources have clearly been not neutral about SSB, but quite critical. Please note that I neither own nor maintain the website http://www.exbaba.com Andries 22:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue at hand is not the exbaba.com site (nor has it ever been the issue at hand). Rather, it is the hetnel.nl/~exbaba site (which is the primary domain loaded by the exbaba.com in-frames index). The exbaba.com domain is simply a "shell" for the largest Anti-SSB website on the world-wide-web: hetnet.nl/~exbaba (which, for 3 years, Andries claimed to be the webmaster for and is currently listed as being the "Main Representative, Contact and Supervisor": Ref). SSS108 ^talk-email 00:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not claim this but the webmaster of exbaba.com / hetnet.nl/~exbaba (Reinier van der Sandt) claimed this. Andries 17:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions: 1) Why would Reinier claim you were the webmaster for three years if you were not? 2) Why would Reinier not list his name on the main page whatsoever, for three years, if he was really the webmaster or affiliated with the site? 3) Under whose name is the hetnet.nl/~exbaba site registered (I am not referring to the exbaba.com site)? 4) Why would Reinier list you as the webmaster for one week (an unnecessary action) and keep your name on the site for three years as the webmaster, failing to update the webmaster information, when the site was being updated with hundreds of articles during that time? I have asked these questions before and you have not answered. Please answer all four questions. SSS108 ^talk-email 15:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to e-mail Reinier to get an answer to these questions. Andries 16:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I just sent Reinier an email asking him the very same questions asked earlier. Since I had to use the formmail, I was unable to retain a copy of the email for myself. Any other concerned party can send the email to home.orange.nl/~rvdsandt/formulieren/mailform.html. I would also like to point out Andries unwillingness to cooperate in answering these questions despite being the "Main Representative, Contact and Supervisor" for the site in question. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to know why Reinier did something then you should ask Reinier, not me. Do not blame me when you ask questions to the wrong person. Andries 10:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andries, I am making a very serious assertion against you about your webmaster status on the largest Anti-SSB site on the world-wide-web. For 3 years, you were listed as the "webmaster" for the site. This pertains directly to you and if you were truly sincere in setting the facts straight, one would think you would be more than willing to give the pertinent information considering that Reinier does not talk to me. Not only are you are unwilling to provide this pertinent information to vindicate yourself of the perception that your are not being entirely truthful, you are also refusing to provide access to your contribution tree and a transcript to your speech on the "Tabloid" show. It is my contention that your speech on the "Tabloid" show does not reflect your personal defection account that you push on Wikipedia. Since you made the claim that you are entitled to push your personal defection account based on your appearance on the "Tabloid" show, I think you should provide the transcript for everyone to see how honest you are. After all, you don't have anything to hide. Do you? SSS108 ^talk-email 14:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to know why Reinier did something then you have to ask him. If he does not talk to you (for very good reasons I believe) then I can and will speculate about his behavior here if you can guarantee me that this will not be published or linked to on your homepage interspersed with your usual glaring misinterpretations and near-paranoid hostile comments. It is true that the focus of the TV show was not my personal defection story, but more voiced in general terms. Andries 16:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then I request someone else to email Reinier the four questions since Andries is unwilling to help and fulfill his role as a "contact" for the site. It is amusing that Andries accuses me of "glaring misrepresentations and near-paranoid hostile comments" when his site is replete with these very things. My site has never been threatened with legal action for defamatory content like Andries site has, by his own admission [13]. I am sure the details of this legal threat are going to be kept "secret" because Andries foresees me misrepresenting that facts (which sounds rather "paranoid" to me). SSS108 ^talk-email 05:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding pushing his personal defection story on Wikipedia, on the evidence page, Andries said: "Also, a lot of the information that I posted in the internet testimony was also published by a reasonably reputable source i.e. a broadcast by a Dutch TV news programm i.e. Tabloid on (SBS 6) in which I told my story" (Ref). Now, however, Andries just said that: "It is true that the focus of the TV show was not my personal defection story, but more voiced in general terms." Just another example of Andries flip-flopping. If Andries contends he is not flip-flopping, he should provide a transcript to his words on that Dutch TV show. He only spoke for 2-3 minutes and it should not be an inconvenience to his time. I guess the new excuse is going to be that I am going to "misrepresent" his words (which seems to be the new "paranoid-like" tactic and excuse although this information is not for me but ArbCom). SSS108 ^talk-email 05:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Reliable sources

18) Editors are responsible for evaluating sources and deciding which are the most reliable and authoritative. "Ask yourself: Do the sources have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?", Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Evaluating_sources, "Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?", Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Issues_to_look_out_for. "Partisan political and religious (or anti-religious) sources should be treated with caution", Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Partisan_websites. "Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in. All reports must be evaluated according to the processes and people that created them.", Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Evaluating_reliability. "Caution should be used when using company or organization websites as sources", Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Company_and_organization_websites.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed, only guidelines but central to this matter. Fred Bauder 17:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I basically agree. If even a Hindu magazine or New Age magazine that could be expected to have a pro-SSB bias, is critical about SSB then this is notable and could possible be included in the article. Please note that an article by the New York Times about Sathya Sai Baba contains a factual blunder. The Wikipedia guidelines mentions the New York Times as one of two examples as a reliable source. Considering this, I find it diffcult to have faith in this guideline. I think the judgement or wording error that the guideline makes is not to acknowledge that certain subjects, like cults and new religious movements that are basically cultures and worlds in their own right require specialized reputable sources. Andries 21:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, for example, there is a specialized literature of philately, generally used by experts in the field. Likewise there is a specialized literature of religious studies. The New York Times tries, but they cannot be expected to get all details right. Fred Bauder 12:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous "factual blunders" in articles opposing SSB. If Andries thinks that certain information in the New York Times cannot be cited because it contains "factual blunders", then I propose we extend this to Anti-SSB articles that also contain "factual blunders"...but that would constitute original research. Right? SSS108 ^talk-email 00:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others: