Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba/Workshop

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.

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:

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 Andries recently inserted a comment on an outdated thread (3 months after it was started), apparently in an attempt to change the way the thread originally read: Ref.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)


 * 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)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 21:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

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
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)
 * Who created and controls http://www.geocities.com/wikirefs ? Fred Bauder 14:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * By the way, Andries agreed to the creation of the geocities site in mediation (Ref). SSS108 talk-email 06:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

=Proposed final decision=

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)


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


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 22:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Introducing bias by one-side selection of information
2)  From 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 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding constant disputes
3) From 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)


 * 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)
 * Literally? You don't mean "figuratively"? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 20:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * What does that news report have to do with the Wikipedia article? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 &bull; @ 23:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Exactly because I am long term and experienced editor, I gave this answer. Andries 10:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Andries' comment exemplifies the issue at hand: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a battleground of ideas. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 01:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No original research
4) From 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)


 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

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


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Content in biographies of living persons
5) The policy 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)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Writing style, biography of a living person
6) From Biographies of living persons:
 * 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)
 * 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 &bull; @ 00:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note that this proposal was copied from a recent arbCom case about a controversial religious figure. See Francis_Schuckardt ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 19:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox
7) '' From precedent ArbCom case Requests_for_arbitration/Francis_Schuckardt


 * 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 What Wikipedia is not.


 * 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)
 * In that case, 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)


 * 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.. Does this mean that the article should deviate from reputable sources that have extensively treated the controversies? Andries 05:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I disagree. The stance in reputable sources since the year 2000 is largely critical. Andries 16:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note that this proposed wording was copied from a recent arbCom case related to a religious figure. See Requests_for_arbitration/Francis_Schuckardt ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 19:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 19:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Support. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 04:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Critical information in biographies of living persons
9) Biographies of living persons 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 20:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of poorly sourced negative material
10) 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 Biographies_of_living_persons. 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)


 * 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 Autobiography. Briefly, such editing is discouraged due to inherent bias. If you do edit, Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research remain in full effect.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 17:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Actually I remember Ed Poor choosing not to edit Unification Church. Fred Bauder 17:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * He still edits Unification Church related articles 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)


 * 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 &bull; @ 17:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, but it would apply to close associates and staff. Fred Bauder 17:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Then the wording needs to be changed. As it stands now it referes to being a disciple. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 17:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Really, it could be generalized to some advantage. Editing an article about anyone or anything you have a close relationship with -- whether than relationship be mentor, guru, ex-guru, enemy, wife, husband, ex-wife, ex-husband, boss, ex-boss, person who banned you from Wikipedia -- requires you to be extra careful that you are attending to NPOV etc. I don't see any particular reason to single out a guru sort of relationship, other than (in this case) to point out the more general case. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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 Autobiography. Briefly, such editing is discouraged due to inherent bias. If you do edit, Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and 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)
 * 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 &bull; @ 17:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 &bull; @ 03:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we are more discussing this version of the guru-shishya_tradition. Fred Bauder 04:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the ego-decimating principle of Guru-shishya_tradition? That is only the most extreme form of that relationship, and uncommon. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 04:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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 &bull; @ 17:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But the situation is different. However the personality type may be the same. Fred Bauder 01:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 &bull; @ 03:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We are what we have to be. Fred Bauder 04:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Pardon me? ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 04:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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 &bull; @ 17:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a principle analogous to 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 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)


 * 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 &bull; @ 17:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 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 &bull; @ 17:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 Autobiography. Briefly, such editing is discouraged due to inherent bias. If you do edit, Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research remain in full effect."
 * I would appreciate if you would consider that change to the wording. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 17:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 &bull; @ 19:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 &bull; @ 22:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 &bull; @ 22:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 &bull; @ 23:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 &bull; @ 23:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 &bull; @ 15:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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 contributor 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 Wikipedia community 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 could 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 Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Proposed_decision 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 &bull; @ 19:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Your assertion that you are no longer involved, is in direct ontradiction with observed reality. As anyone can observe, you spend an extraordinary amount of time, energy and efforts, both on and off Wikipedia focused on your activism against SBB. You appear on TV, write manifestos, manage a website on the subject, etc, etc. That makes you as "involved" as you can be, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 19:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am no longer involved in SSB or affiliated organizations. Of course, I have written about the subject a lot. Is Eileen Barker involved with the Unification Church because she has written a lot about it? I do not think so. I do not maintain a website against SSB. Andries 19:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Vive la diference, Andries. Eileen Barker is a scholar and she was never a disciple of the Unification Church. Your association with SSB continues, this time from the perspective of a critical ex-follower, apostate, ex-member, etc. That is obvious. So, please do not asksus to accept that you are no longer "involved". You are most definitively so. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 19:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I do ask you to accept that I am no longer involved in SSB. Nagel is also a scholar and an ex-member of SSB and has written scholarly articles about SSB. Like me, she is no longer involved with SSB. Andries 20:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, I admit that I am an active critic of SSB, but I am not involved in SSB, nor was Joseph_McCarthy involved in communism. Andries 20:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The discussion here relates to "involvement" and you are very much involved with the subject of this dispute, as an activist against the subject of these articles. As such, what I am arguing is that you have as much as a potential problem (related to bias) in editing related articles as SSS108 may have. I find your attempts to deny that, or to compare yourself with neutral scholars to be disingenous to say the least. You are clearly not an "innocent bystander" in this dispute if one is to judge by your comments here and off-wiki about the subject. A better response from you would be "yes, I am involved as a ex-disciple that suffered a traumatic experience related to my dissafiliation, and therefore I am biased, but I make efforts to restrain myself as it pertains to editing articles on the subject despite that fact". That would be a more honest response, IMO. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 20:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the main dispute between us is not so much the intention behind your words, but is caused by your inaccurate wording. I am no longer under the influence of nor am I still involved with SSB. This is accurately worded and completely true. You wrote the opposite. I never said that I was neutral in this matter, though I tried from the start to edit Wikipedia according to its Neutral Point of View policies. Nor is Barker neutral, but it is clear that she tried to write most of her scholarly books neutrally. So in that respect there is no difference between us. Andries 20:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Andries. For me that statement of yours says it all. Anyone can see tat you are indeed involved, and your attempt to compare yourself to a scholar, that is a professor in sociology and is an emeritus member of the London School of Economics, is, what can I say? Disingenous? Self-serving? Self-deluded? ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 20:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I e-mailed Barker about mistakes in her leaflet about SSB. I may be deluded of course. How do I know? I do not believe it only because you say so. I also e-mailed John Kelly in the book by Peter van der Veer that you recommended for the SSB article about mistakes. They both e-mailed me back politely. Clearly scholars make errors too and in the case of SSB some of them (but not Barker or Kelly) clearly sometimes blundered. Andries 21:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not a content dispute, Andries. What I am arguing is that having an "anti" website in which Andries Krugers Dagneaux is stated to be its "main representative, supervisor and contact", and in which the same Andries Krugers Dagneaux writes about his traumatic experience and advises others about the perils of involvement with his ex-guru, all that on the basis of his personal experience, can only mean that Andries, as a person, is an interested party and very much "involved". As such he should be cautioned in no different terms as a current disciple with a diametrically opposed POV, about the need to restrain themselves and pay extra attention to comply with WP's content policies, to counteract their obvious biases. Please  note that I am not saying  that you are wrong in your criticism. Just that unless you fully assume your POV and bias, my confidence in your ability to edit WP  neutrally is greatly diminished.≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 21:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I object to the word "involved". There is ample evidence that I excercised restraint in editing the SSB related article. I was and am fully aware of the need to excercise restraint so I do not need to be warned or admonished for that. Andries 21:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Andries, note that Fred is proposing amnesty for both you and SSS108. See Amnesty (my highlights): "Amnesty (from the Greek amnestia, oblivion) is an act of justice by which the supreme power in a state restores those who may have been guilty of any offense against it to the position of innocent persons. It includes more than pardon, in as much as it obliterates all legal remembrance of the offense." I would be more humble againsty the background of that proposed amnesty, rather than claim that my sheet is whiter than of my opponent. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 21:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of evidence to support my view that my sheet is whiter than SSS108's sheet. I have no intention to be humble about that. Andries 22:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would have expected that Fred's very generous proposal for amnesty for you and SSS108 will be greeted with some humility and atonement,  but I guess I was wrong.  Well... I guess that it is human nature that given enough rope, we will always tend to hang ourselves... ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 23:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Jossi, you know that Barker in an interview compared the founder of the Unification Church with Hitler, because I had shown you this. And still you write here that she is neutral. Then I ask myself who is disingenious here. Andries 20:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * See Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Evidence. Andries 08:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 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, March 16th 2006 and on April 17th 2006 , 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * That was not a regular e-mail but an affadavit submission. Andries 08:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again, another example of Andries flip-flopping. Andries accused me of publishing "emails" from him on my website . 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 SSS108 talk-email 16:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Andries, thanks for clarifying your position 6 months after the fact. Of course, you had every opportunity to clarify this to BostonMA and you never did. I think this shows whom is truly "intellectually dishonest". Once again, you ignore the emails published on your own site that are filled with threatening responses. But I think this discussion is off-topic, so unless I am requested, I will not make this page any longer than it has to be. SSS108 talk-email 04:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 17:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

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, it is not an offense if they are referred to by that name by other users, see Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Evidence and http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/joe-gerald-moreno.html.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 13:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Fred, we also need to discuss and get a resolution on Dutch references that Andries cites on the SSB Wikipedia article (and has threatened to cite more of in the future ). The problem with these Dutch references is that one cannot understand the full context to them because Andries cherry-picks the sections he wants. No one else can read Dutch. My suggestion is that if Andires insists on using Dutch references, he translate the article is full so that others can assess whether the article presents more views than the one Andries cites and to obtain a more complete context. SSS108 talk-email 05:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There are many people here who can understand Dutch and according to the policy I only have to translate the excerpt that I use for the article. Translating the whole Dutch text is a lot of unnecessary work. Andries 07:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the policy needs to be different on controversial subjects where Andries is known to push his POV and who openly hold a negative and biased view against the subjects in question. It is also to be noted that all of the quotes that Andries takes from Dutch sources are wholly opposed to SSB/Guru/Cults. One would think that if these Dutch sources were truly balanced and fair, there would be two sides to the story. Apparently, that is not the case because the material Andries cites is one-sided and wholly critical. This would be indicative of bias and readers should be informed of this fact.
 * For instance, hiding behind his Dutch appearance on the "Tabloid" show, Andries attempted to convince ArbCom that he was justified in pushing his personal defection story on Wikipedia because: "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" . Now, however, after I requested a transcript to his words from the "Tabloid" show, not only did Andries change his position, saying: "It is true that the focus of the TV show was not my personal defection story, but more voiced in general terms", he refuses (for some mysterious reason) to provide a transcript to his words (as discussed earlier Ref). It is my contention that Andries words on the Dutch TV show would actually provide insightful information about Andries bias against SSB and compromise this facade that he can write neutrally, fairly and objectively about SSB.
 * In my opinion, Andries can do all of this because we don't know Dutch and he can cherry-pick his criticisms and exploit this loophole to his advantage. SSS108 talk-email 15:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Comment by parties:
 * proposed by user:Andries. Andries 22:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * Comment by others:

External links to be avoided
17) External_links, 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Feel free to e-mail Reinier to get an answer to these questions. Andries 16:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 . 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)
 * No, of course, I will not provide you the details. The only reason why you have not been sued for libel by several former followers whom you defame on your website is because of the complications as you do not live in the same country as them. Your own website correctly mentions Reinier van der Sandt as the webmaster of exbaba so I do not understand why you keep saying that I am the webmaster except as a strategy to get information out of me that you can further use to libel, misrepresent and discredit me and other former followers. www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/A-VanDerSandt/reinier-rfj-sandt-deception.htm Andries 18:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am glad you provided a link in case others want to see how I back up my comments and opinions with actual screencaptures, caches and admissions from Reinier himself. I keep saying you are the webmaster because you were listed as the webmaster for 3 years on the site. Which has already been discussed: Ref. If information is negative, but true, that is not libel. SSS108 talk-email 04:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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?", Reliable_sources, "Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?", Reliable_sources. "Partisan political and religious (or anti-religious) sources should be treated with caution", Reliable_sources. "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.", Reliable_sources. "Caution should be used when using company or organization websites as sources", Reliable_sources.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed, only guidelines but central to this matter. Fred Bauder 17:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)

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)


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Locus of dispute
1) The locus of this dispute is the allegedly biased editing of to Sathya Sai Baba and related articles, see User:SSS108/Andries POV Pushing. Andries is a former disciple of Sathya Sai Baba, a popular Indian Guru. A subsidiary issue is the editing of others to those articles, particularly that of, a disciple of the guru.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 14:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I agree that this is seen as a main issue, but I think that is only one of the main issues. Several people (user:M Alan Kazlev and the mediator user:BostonMA) wrote that I admit my mistakes and bias and improve when criticized. I think another main issue is the editing behavior of SSS108 on the SSB articles and especially his tendency not to have reasoned discussion (preferrably referring to policies and guidelines) about disputed edits but instead refer to the mediator (or the arbcom) directly. It is my opinion that only when discussion between adverseries about disputed edits become fruitless then formal dispute resolution (like Rfc, mediation, arbcom) should be followed. Andries 17:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point, but you know the /Evidence page is so useless (on the part of all 3 who have made major submissions) that I don't know where I would find evidence to support your contentions. Fred Bauder 17:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I can and will provide evidence to support my three points. 1. that SSS108 refers to the mediator/arbcom to decide too quickly and sometimes without a reasoned discussion and 2. that I have repeatedly admitted mistakes on the talk page of the SSB article and related to this point that 3. I try to improve when criticized. Andries 18:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Correction. I am not a disciple/follower/devotee of SSB. I was a follower 11 years ago and had philosophical differences of opinion with Eastern Philosophy in general (which constitutes a good portion of SSB's teaching). BostonMA had critical things to say about Andries (Ref). As shown on the evidence page, I had very specific reasons for my edits. I believe I made a strong case that Andries is the one who did not have specific reasons for his edits (Ref). The fact remains that we needed a neutral third party to resolve issues and we got it with BostonMA. SSS108 talk-[Special:Emailuser/SSS108 00:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That is exactly the attitude of SSS108 that I have a problem with. Instead of on-topic reasoned discussions about certain edits and statements in the article, he thinks that a neutral third party should make decisions. Andries 17:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Andries, cite examples. There were extreme differences of opinion regarding controversial edits. The fact of the matter is that even you agreed to mediation to resolve these controversial edit disputes. On many occasions, you agreed to seek the intervention of BostonMA help resolve these differences of opinion. There is no having "on-topic discussions" when your interpretation of Wikipedia policy changes with the POV being expressed. Examples: After 2 years of citing original research, you said original research violated Wikipedia's policies and should be removed, yet you failed to remove original research references on the main SSB article or any of the original research text and references on the SSB Allegations page (Ref). You even recently engaged in citing original research from Nagel's non-reputable source just so you could cite a book she referenced that was reputable (Ref)! Call it coincidence, but this original research happened to come from an Anti-Sai Activist and happened to link to an Anti-Sai Site that is a mirror site to your personal homepage. Not even one other editor agreed with your reasons for including that Nagel reference and it was removed and referenced directly, not indirectly as you attempted to do. I cannot reason with you when your interpretation of Wikipedia policy changes with the POV being expressed. There are many other instances as well. Upon request, I will cite them. SSS108 talk-email 15:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agreed with removing original research. I did not object to removing original research on both articles, unlike you. I did not repeatedly revert to versions containing original research, unlike you. What you call original research in the reference in the main SSB article are convencience links to online available reptutable source published on anti-SSB websites which are allowed. The complaints about the mirror site are nonsense. The only thing was that I wrote that it would take some time to remove the original research from allegations against Sathya Sai Baba after your  first complaints on talk:Sathya Sai Baba Andries 04:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you agreed, why didn't your remove it? I asked you to remove it from the SSB Allegations page and you did not. As a matter of fact, you didn't even try to remove any of the original research on the SSB Allegations page even after you said you were. And you need to recheck the diffs I provided. The original research references I was talked about were the referenced links to Steel, Sampath, Priddy, etc. Read it first. And I have provided proof that SaiGuru.net is a mirror site to your site (ref). Kindly exaplain why 98% of the links on the SaiGuru.net site are exact duplicates to material on your site? SSS108 talk-email 05:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You had 22 months to complain about the original research at allegations against Sathya Sai Baba and once you voiced your complaint after 22 months (at the wrong place) you expected me to correct it immediately. I wrote at the talk:Sathya Sai Baba that you were the first one to complain about it and that it would take me some time. If you considered it so important then you should and could have corrected it yourself. Please study the definition of a mirror_%28computing%29 before making highly erroneous comments again. www.exbaba.com and saiguru.net are not "a direct copy of a data set", nor is it "an exact copy of another Internet site". And please ask questions about the contenst of www.saiguru.net to its webmaster (Lionel Fernandez), not to me. Andries 16:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not going to go in circles with you about the original resarch issue. I think I have made my case clear enough and am not going to be engaging you endlessly about it. If you want to go into semantics, then let me rephrase: 98% of the content on your Anti-Sai Site is duplicated, verbatim, on the SaiGuru.net site. Better? Are you denying this as well? SSS108 talk-email 18:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Andries exhibits a high degree of animosity against his ex-guru
2) Andries exhibits a high degree of animosity against his ex-guru (Sai Baba), and by extension to gurus that he believes are "unreliable", given his personal experience which he describes as traumatic. His edits in WP on related articles reflects this personal conflict, and seem to be driven by a need to "tell the world" about his experience and a need to warn people about possible negative consequences of involvement with "gurus". This is perceived by editors as advocacy and in violation of WP:NOT.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Evidence as presented by Andries shows that the above statement about Andries' editing behavior is to a great extent untrue if not entirely untrue. Andries 05:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC) amended 22:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I wholly agree with Jossie. Even as recently as September 2005, Andries claimed that he felt "raped" by SSB. I will be making a page to support Andries animosity against SSB. SSS108 talk-email 00:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Temporary Page Regarding Andries Animosity Against SSB. Regarding Andries "tell the world" need, look at the last four points under Andries POV Pushing. SSS108 talk-email 14:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

SSS108, by own admission, edits exclusively the SSB related articles
3) SSS108, by own admission, edits exclusively the SSB related articles (See Contribs), watching these articles so that these stay "right". This carries its own set of problems, and antagonizes Andries in all but most trivial edits.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Andries as a thoughtful editor
4) Andries is a thoughtful editor who has devoted effort to considering the effect of biased editing.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 19:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * What I mean to write in that diff is that I pushed back when I thought that others tried to push their POV too much. It is not an admission that I broke any rule or guideline on that article. If I really wanted to push my POV in an incorrect way then I would never be so stupid to write it down so openly. I even wrote in the same diff that the section in the article apostasy of which I am one of the main authors followed NPOV policy. Andries 21:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is my opinion there is no doubt that Andries pushed his POV on the SSB related Wikipedia articles. The SSB Wikipedia articles do not have experienced editors who consistently work on them and keep an eye on them (as is done on the Prem Rawat/Guru/Cult articles). I feel this is one of the primary reasons why the SSB Wikipedia articles were exploited by Andries (as evidenced by the numerous Anti-SSB links, references and original research citations pre-mediation). SSS108 talk-email 01:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If they were intentionally exploited by me then why did I ask for a peer review or did I submit the article for Featured article status, as can be seen on the evidence page? And why did I ask others for opinions about the article? And why was I repeatedly praised for my neutrality on the article. If I intentionally tried to exploit the article to push my POV then I would never have done that nor would I have been repeatedly praised. Andries 21:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I already discussed this: Ref: 2nd Point SSS108 talk-email 05:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * He also admits to POV pushing. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 19:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As I go through this, I'll be on the lookout for going overboard or malicious editing. Fred Bauder 21:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that Andries is a good and intelligent editor is not disputed. What is disputed is his ability to remain neutral when editing articles related to what he describes as a traumatic experience. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 18:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles created by Andries
5) SSS108 has prepared a list, User:SSS108/Andries_POV_Pushing. of articles Andries has created which involve biased editing: Beliefs and practices in the Sathya Sai Organisation; Prema Sai Baba; Sathya Sai Organization; Allegations against Sathya Sai Baba (which has been subsequently deleted/redirected); Beliefs and practices in the Sathya Sai Organisation; History and origins of the Sathya Sai Baba movement; Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning; Tal Brooke (a fundamentalist Christian and critic of SSB who believes SSB is the Anti-Christ); Basava Premanand (a skeptic and critic of SSB: Andries soliciting an Anti-Sai website on: Ref, Publishing a link attacking me on: Ref); Materialization (Andries promotion of Anti-Sai links: Ref); David C. Lane (a skeptic and critic of SSB); True-believer syndrome (a skeptics terms); List of people who have been considered avatars; List of people who claimed never to sleep; Disengagement from religion''
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 17:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * The list is largely correct, but I disagree that I engaged in biased editing. And even if this is the case then SSS108 could and should have addressed the bias in the respective talk pages which he never did. I also disagree with SSS108's comments that I inappropriately solicited an attack on SSS108 in the article Basava Premanand. First of all, the link was to writings by the subject so that is completely appropriate and second the link was a rebuttal to SSS108's criticism of Premanand's writings. Andries 21:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The Basava Premanand link in question is specifically about me and I guess Andries has no problem linking to Premanand's writings where he libels me by accusing me of being sexually abused by SSB and counterfeiting newspaper articles, etc. If Andries has no problem with the link he added to the Premanand article, one can only wonder why he had problems when I added my link in defense. SSS108 talk-email 01:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The link to Basava Premanand's writings in the article Basava Premanand about you are fully appropriate according to WP:EL. Your website about Premamand is somewhat doubtful according to WP:EL in that article. Andries 17:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Premanand copied the content on my site and gave his responses. Since the link you put on Premanand's article contains content directly taken from my site, and addresses the content on my site, I think a rebuttal link to my site is entirely appropriate. Furthermore, even without that link, a link to my pages about Premanand could be added. After all, you did it with the original research of Brian Steel and Alexandra Nagel on the Prema Sai Baba Wikipedia article. Again, your interpretation of Wikipedia policy changes with the POV being expressed (as I have pointed out before). SSS108 talk-email 05:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it is not entirely appropriate according to WP:EL. Please remember that I criticize you mainly on this issue because I think that I am unfairly criticized on similar issues. Andries 08:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not using Wikipedia to push my story. Nor am I using Wikipedia as a "therapy" (Andries word) forum to exact what appears to be revenge on a former Guru about whom Andries openly and unremittingly thinks is a fraud, criminal, accomplice in murders, pedophile, homosexual, a cult leader and possibly the Anti-Christ. Andries still talks about his "cult" trauma as if he is still enduring it and has nothing but animosity against SSB (Ref). This is the person who claims he can write objectively and fairly about SSB because he is a "long term" and "experienced" Wikipedia editor. SSS108 talk-email 04:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Loss of focus
5.1) The creation of a number of articles which deal with parallel subjects has resulted in most of the articles receiving less attention than appropriate, most editing being done by the creator of the article, Andries.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 16:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * True, I support merging some articles with each other to increase maintainability (an essay that I hope I will write someday). Andries 16:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Lack of reliable sources
6) Much published material regarding Sathya Sai Baba and the organization associated with him, either in print or on-line, has been written and published by advocates, either pro or con. Much of the information in the remaining material is derived from such sources.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 18:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Verifiability Fred Bauder 11:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I would formulate it somewhat differently. The opinions about the subject are highly polarized. This includes the opinions voiced in reputable sources though they tend to side more with the critics since the year 2000. Andries 21:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The criteria for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. I agree that may sometimes result in an inferior article, but that is our policy. Fred Bauder 11:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I do not have the obligation to use reputable sources that I know to be erroneous. I do not like it if others use reputable but erroneous sources, but of course I am aware that I have no right to delete information based on those sources if properly referenced. Andries 11:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Users are expected to use judgement and discretion. If you know a source is erroneous don't use it and don't accept its use by others. Explain to other users why you have these opinions. Fred Bauder 12:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I can and will protest against the use of reptutable sources with erroneous statements, but I will not remove erroneous information sourced to erroneous reputable sources because this will most probably be interpreted as POV pushing and will be used against me. Andries 17:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There is hardly reliable biographical data about SSB with the possible exception of the Indian devotee book "Love is My Form" by Padmanathan (sp.) that I am unable to procure. Andries 08:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A "devotee" book is not a reliable source. It is by its very definition biased. Fred Bauder 11:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, true, Love is My Form is a biased book like all devotee books, but the difference is that this one is well-researched, I heard. I would agree with using it as a source as long as the clearly apologetic and hagiographic comments in the book are not used for the article. Andries 11:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It can probably be used for information that is not in contention. For example the name of the village he was born in, etc. Fred Bauder 12:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred, I think we agree completely. Andries 17:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not have access to the articles and books mentioned by Jossi hereunder. Please note that I followed Jossi's advice some time ago to include an article by Kelly in a book by Berger Peter van der Veer that is now included in Beliefs and practices in the Sathya Sai Organisation. I had heard of another article by Lawrence Babb and could include some of what he wrote in the article. I do not believe that the list of books and articles hereunder can provide much new information to the set SSB articles, because I am usually disappointed when I read what religious scholars etc have written and they usually write nothing that I do not know and often with mistakes. There is a book and a phd dissertation by Alexandra Kent about the SSB movement in Malaysia that I think would be a welcome addition. Andries 07:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You may not have access, but other editors may. My comment was related to the statement by Fred that there are no reliable sources on the subject. There are, if one is interested enough to go research a subject. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 17:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

And it is my opinion that Kasturi's books on SSB are similarly well researched. Although Kasturi is often cited in reputable sources, Andries refuses to allow information from Kasturi's books even with a hagiographic reference. The reason why Andries wants to cite material from the LIMF book is because it contains information that he thinks argues against SSB. Of course, if LIMF is "well researched", then this must mean we can include the voluminous amounts of miracles, manifestations, life events and first-hand accounts listed in it as well. Bring this up and Andries complains. There are Anti-SSB reasons behind all of Andries actions, without fail. SSS108 talk-email 01:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Narayana Kasturi Kasturi wrote a popular hagiography about SSB. The hagiography or material based on the hagiography is fine to describe beliefs and practices but not okay for a biography. 08:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Kasturi's books are cited in reliable references pertaining to information about SSB's childhood and life. Whenever a reliable reference makes any mention to an Anti-Sai Activist, you argue for its inclusion based on that reference. But when it comes to Kasturi, you argue against it and attempt to limit his writings to "beliefs and practices" when you know full well that Kasturi's book are not about "beliefs and practices". SSS108 talk- email 15:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Since there is no good neutral biography of SSB available, editors must make careful and difficult judgements about sources using their common sense. This selection of sources cannot be formalized in any Wikipedis guideline. We are not editing the Adolf Hitler article for which many excellent biographies are available. It is more like editing the Jesus article that use the information in the gospels about his life in a segrageted section, as I had proposed on the SSB talk page. Andries 22:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What I meant to say is that I find it against the spirit of the rules of Wikipedia to use a hagiography or material based on a hagiography for a serious biography. Andries 22:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * There are many other sources that have not been explored, probably because the editors involved have not researched the subject neutrally. I found a variety of scholarly books and articles that describe this movement. A sampling:
 * 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


 * ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 00:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This seems a promising approach. I especially recommend Peter L. Berger. (Although I have not read that particular book). Fred Bauder 11:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh... there is more, Fred. There are also several Encylopedias of Religion, in which the subject is mentioned. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 17:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Which encyclopedias? I have read several and found no interesting additional information in them. Andries 17:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Are we looking for "interesting" information, or for reliable information? I would argue for the latter. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 18:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would argue for both. For example, we are not interested in what SSB has eaten on a particular day (unless it is non-vegetarian) even if it comes from a reliable source. Andries 15:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

For example: "Religions Of The World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia Of Beliefs And Practices" by J. Gordon Melton and Martin Baumann. Because it cited Kasturi and Sandweiss as references and contains favorable information, Andries objected to it when I brought it up a long time ago to support referencing Kasturi. SSS108 talk-email 01:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand why this has been added to the proposed decision, when it has been demonstrated that this is not the case. reliable sources do exist. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 17:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Where is the proof that the books that you mention contain substantial information about SSB? I knew/checked two of the books (Van der Veer/Kelly and Hawley) that you mentioned and I was not impressed. There is not a single neutral scholarly biography about SSB. Andries
 * Fred, about your comment: "A 'devotee' book is not a reliable source. It is by its very definition biased." What is your opinion about an "ex-devotee" book? Do you consider such a book to be a reliable source or biased? SSS108 talk-email 05:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Merger
1) It is recommended that the set of articles dealing with Sathya Sai Baba be consolidated into one or two dealing with the biography of the person and possibly one dealing with the organization.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 16:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Removal of poorly sourced negative information
2) Negative information in an article or on a talk page regarding Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him which is poorly sourced may be removed without discussion. The three revert rule shall not apply to such removal. This includes links to critical websites which contain original research or which consist of personal accounts of negative experiences with Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him. It is inappropriate for a user to insert a link to a website maintained by the user (or in which the user plays an important role).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 19:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I disagree with the strict application of external links. An external link in the external link section or on the talk page that contains a mix of reputable sources, analysis, personal experiences, words by and videos of the subject of the article can be included. Other editors will not be able to find information if linking to websites with information about the subject is not allowed on the talk page. I do have a problem with links to webpages on the talk pages that are not relevant with for the article with critical information about Wikipedia editors and other living persons that are no public figures and not the subject of the article. Andries 21:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * External links to sites which contain poorly sourced negative material may be shot on sight without discussion. The three revert rule does not apply. Fred Bauder 12:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Support. It is also my contention that what Andries cannot argue for in the actual article itself, he attempts to argue for on the Talk Pages. One can even see how Andries includes the working external links to exbaba.com and saiguru.net on these pages. SSS108 talk-email 01:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Agree, as per WP:BLP, WP:EL, nd WP:NPA ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 00:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of poorly sourced information
3) Information in an article or on a talk page regarding Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him which is poorly sourced may be removed. This includes links to websites which contain original research or which consist of personal accounts of experiences with Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him. It is inappropriate for a user to insert a link to a website maintained by the user (or in which the user plays an important role)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 19:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Stubbification
4) Upon the application of Sathya Sai Baba or an authorized representative (for this purpose SSS108 is acceptable) Sathya Sai Baba and related articles may be deleted and replaced with a stub by any administrator. This is offered in order to remove poorly sourced negative information from the edit history of the articles. If substantial amounts of poorly sourced negative information are included thereafter deletion and stubification may be repeated.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 19:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * This sounds like a tedious procedure and overreacting to me. The accusations reported in reputable sources are so extremely serious (pedophilia, accomplice of murder, fake miracles, charlatanism) that it is quite difficult to libel SSB. Andries 17:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

ALL (without exception) of the sexual abuse victims have never even tried to filed a basic police complaint or court case against SSB in India (despite several alleged victims being very vocal on the internet). No one ever mentions this fact. It is also important to point out that Anti-Sai Activists boasted about their efforts in getting negative media attention on SSB. To date, not even one single child, or parent of a child, under 12/13 years of age has accused SSB of pedophilia. The word "pedophilia" (among Anti-Sai Activists, Anti-Sai Media and Andries) is used in the pejorative and colloquial sense of the word and does not reflect its actual definition. All of the non-anonymous alleged victims were 18 years of age or older, with the exception of a 16 year old who claimed that what happened to him was non-sexual. No one has proven that SSB was an "accomplice" to the 1993 police shootings (they have not even been ruled as "murders"). If all of this is not a potential case for libel, I don't know what is. SSS108 talk-email 01:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What I meant to say is that accusations against SSB are unlikely to violate WP:BLP because the most terrible accusations (incl. pedophilia, charlatanism, and accomplice of murder) have already been voiced in reputable sources. Do you seriously think that e.g. sexual abuse victim Jens Sethi could file a complaint at the local police after reading his internet testimony in which he described how he was treated by them? Andries 16:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

He shouldn't have been dispersing Anti-Sai propaganda at SSB's ashram in the first place and expect to be treated with civility. And he did not have to file the complaint at Puttaparthi. The central police department is located in Anantapur. SSS108 talk-email 05:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Amnesty
5) Andries and SSB108 are forgiven any offenses they have committed by introducing unreliable information into the article and encouraged to edit in compliance with Reliable sources and Biographies of living persons.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 19:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I cannot forgive SSS108 for his continuing persistance in certain issues in the SSB article. SSS108's offenses were not just made in the past but he continues to revert when I try to correct the bias and the selective quoting. Andries 18:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is why the probation for 1RR may be needed. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 18:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, probation should only be applied after it has been found that I engaged in disruptive or objectionable editing. It is not to be applied only because I consider the editing behavior of my adversary biased. Andries 18:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Andries needs to cite instances of my "continuing persistance in certain issues in the SSB article" and his claims that I am presently reverting his edits when he tries to correct biased and selective quoting. Give examples, Andries. Recent ones too. SSS108 talk-email 01:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I would include WP:NOT as well. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 00:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid a battle has been set up. It is easy to see that poorly sourced negative information may be "shot on sight". It is not easy to see that almost all positive information regarding Sathya Sai Baba is also drawn from unreliable sources, of which the principal source is Sathya Sai Baba himself. Consider the fantastic claim of immaculate conception. Just who says so? My own mother was a virgin, to hear her tell it. I guess virgin was her gender if not her practice. Fred Bauder 12:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * :D ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 14:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred to answer your question who said that SSB was received through immaculate conception. This was asserted by SSB's biographer Narayana Kasturi in his book Easwaramma and if I remember it well also by SSB himself and his mother according to the book by the prominent American devotee John S. Hislop Conversations with Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 21:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba's alleged "virgin birth" is also sourced in the LIMF book which Andries earlier claimed to be well researched. See the problem? SSS108 talk-email 01:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There are no easy answers for this article. And I am afraid that the same can be said for many other articles about cults, gurus and new religous movements in Wikipedia. Andries 17:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

1RR Probation
6) User:SSS108 and User:Andries are to be placed under probation for a period of one year and placed under 1RR for the duration of the probationary period on related articles.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Probation should only be applied if a user has seriously and repeatedly violated policies. I deny that I have done so, though I admit that I and SSS108 have ocassionally engaged in edit warring. The Wikipedia policy WP:BLP did not exist when I expanded the article. Andries 16:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * From Probation (my highlights): Probation at Wikipedia is a formal, procedural warning against a Wikipedia editor, generally regarding specific conduct on a group of articles. It generally follows an Arbitration Committee finding that a particular user has edited one or more articles in a disruptive or objectionable way (e.g., by edit warring). ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 17:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I deny that I have edited SSB related articles in "a disruptive or objectionable way.". I am the main author of the set of articles and have repeatedly been praised for my neutrality on the SSB article. Andries 18:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I hereby request Jossi to provide evidence that I have edited the set of SSB related articles in "a disruptive or objectionable way.". Andries

I don't see where Andries (or anyone else) has made the case that I have consistently been involved in disruptive editing in an objectionable way. I have made my case that if anyone has engaged in these things, it has been Andries (Refs:    ). Andries continues to engage in his questionable behavior, as can be seen on the Sathya Sai Baba Talk Page the Prem Rawat article and others. SSS108 talk-email 01:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * SSS108, here is the evidence that you requested that you have edited the set of SSB related articles in a disruptive way.
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Evidence
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Evidence (cases 1 until 4)
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Evidence
 * Andries 21:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 16:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Beliefs and practices in the Sathya Sai Organisation
Beliefs and practices in the Sathya Sai Organisation was created by Andries. The article after creation by Andries and minor edits by other users. On February 5, 2006 SSS108 made his first edit, linking to "SaiSathyaSai.com Gerald Joe Moreno's extensive website that specifically addresses the Anti-Sai Campaign." . SSS108 then removed a number of references on the ground that they were not needed. They were restored by Andries, who made a polite comment. Removed again by SSS108. SSS108 then removed all external links on the ground that there were "irrelevant". They were restored by Andries. SSS108 reverts. On the talk page SSS108 charged, "You are simply trying to add links to Anti-Sai sites", see Talk:Beliefs and practices in the Sathya Sai Organisation.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Odd title when Sathya Sai Organization is just a stub. Don't understand SSS108's edits or comments. Particularly removing all references and external links. Fred Bauder 18:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * May be the article Beliefs and practices in the Sathya Sai Organisation should be re-titled/moved to Beliefs and practices in the Sathya Sai Baba movement. The movement is more than just the organisation. Andries 16:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred, there is a mediation thread behind my edits and comments on the Beliefs and Practices page (Ref). The external links that I removed (which Andries subsequently reverted) are not specific to Beliefs and Practices in the SSB Org. The reason why Andries argued for the inclusion of those links was because there are articles on Anti-Sai Sites that are critical of Beliefs and Practices in the SSB Org., albeit none of the links are specific to this category. As I have said before, it is my opinion that Andries created these various categories so that he could push links to his and other's Anti-Sai Sites. The references I removed constituted original research and it was agreed in mediation to remove them. They were first removed from the main SSB article and later removed from the Beliefs and Practices page. As you may have noticed, Andries did not re-add those references. The reason being it was an agreed point in mediation. SSS108 talk-email 21:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Sathya Sai Organization
Sathya Sai Organization was created by Andrie on April 27, 2004. As created it contained links to the organization and local branches as well as to critical websites. The links to critical website were removed by SSS108 with the comment. "(Personal homepages removed)" One of the links removed was to critical material at http://home.no.net/anir/Sai/saiorg/ authored by Robert Priddy. The other is to critical material at http://home.no.net/anir/Sai/saiorg/Ba.htm authored by Serguei Badaev.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I wonder whether these links, when not used as a source of information, are permissible. Fred Bauder 19:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Most of the material in the link http://home.no.net/anir/Sai/saiorg authored by Robert Priddy has also been pubished in book form i.e. The End of the Dream by Robert Priddy. I have the book at home. Please note that the guideline is extremely strict. For example it would not even be possible to link according to the guideline to the New York Times article about Sathya Sai Baba because it contains clearly factually inaccurate material. The New York Times article erreoneously stated that SSB is "Famous for seldom saying much in public even to his followers". Here are some of SSB's public discourses of the last few years    Andries 21:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, if reliable sources contain factual blunders then Anti-SSB articles have the most to lose. However, pointing out their mistakes (as I have done) constitutes original research. The book by Priddy is an Anti-SSB book that contains his original research and was specifically written against SSB. Of course, when it comes to Priddy's book, Andries want to cite it immediately although Priddy's book has never been referenced by reliable sources. However, when it comes to Kasturi (who has been referenced in reliable sources), Andries objects. This is exactly the type of double standards I take issue with, which Andries shamelessly engages in. SSS108 talk-email 02:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Untrue, Priddy's book was cited in the reputable book by Kevin Shepherd. Andries 17:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * See WP:EL ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 20:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Allegations against Sathya Sai Baba
Allegations against Sathya Sai Baba (Since redirected to Sathya Sai Baba) was created by Andrie May 9, 2004.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Both SSS108 and I agreed to merge it, because this article could be seen as a POV fork and also to increase maintainability. Andries 17:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Andries comment is not factually correct. I never "agreed" to merge the articles because the "article could be seen as a POV fork and also to increase maintainability". The reason why the sections were merged was because I felt it was unfair that there 2 pages dedicated to the controversy in which the content was almost exactly the same, verbatim. Kazlev, Jossie and I all asked that the Allegations section be summarized on the main page with a split fork to the Allegations page. Needless to say, Andries was unwilling to do this and argued against it citing the POV fork policy. View the discussions: . Since Andries insisted that the critical content remain intact on the main SSB article, and was wholly opposed to summarizing the controversy with a split fork to the Allegations page, I asked that the Allegations page be merged with the main article. Andries did not remove the page because it was a "POV fork" or to "increase maintainability". It was removed because the content on the main SSB article was an almost exact duplicate to the Allegations page (which Andries saw no problem doing for 22 months) and he stubbornly refused to a split fork, which left us with no alternative but to merge the page (which I still dissent with due to the disproportionate amount of space given to the controversy). SSS108 talk-email 16:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * okay, then I misremembered about SSS108's reasons to support the merge. I maintain that the main reasons why I supported the merge was because of maintainability and possible violations of the POV fork guideline. Andries 17:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Andries, care to provide any diffs to support your new comments? Thanks. SSS108 talk-email 04:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

History and origins of the Sathya Sai Baba movement
History and origins of the Sathya Sai Baba movement was created by Andries July 24, 2004. With a few minor edits by others, Andries was the major editor until January, 2006, The article November 20, 2005. It contained 3 critical external links but also a link to the official biography. On January 9, 2006 an anonymous editor removed the critical external links ; the anon then added two favorable books ; after adding a merge template Andries, then restored 2 of the 3 critical external links. On March 2, 2006 SSS108 began to edit, removing material sourced at an ex-devotee website as well as the link to the website, substituting a link to an apologetic site by "Gerald Moreno, a proponent"; the number of devotees was changed from 1 million to 3 to 10 million. Conflicted edits follow regarding which day of the week October 20th fell on in 1940, a Leap_year_starting_on_Monday.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Again removal of critical external links and addition of a apologetic link. This article, edited almost exclusively by Andries, illustrates the problems of multiplication of articles dealing with essentially the same subject. Fred Bauder 14:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I agree with Fred that this article should be merged. Andries 17:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree and have pointed out this problem in mediation and on the evidence page (Ref). It is my contention that the reason why Andries originally created all these separate SSB-related articles was to promote Anti-SSB links (something he has done for almost 2 years). SSS108 talk-email 02:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: