Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba

message: : Moved from main page
I have followed this dispute for quite sometime. In fact I solicited mediation on their behalf which they accepted. It is my opinion that further mediation will not result in any substantial movement forward in this dispute between Andries and SSS108, given the long history between these two editors. A user conduct RfC on Andries could be explored, although I doubt that this will resolve the dispute between them. An possible alternative would be that the ArbCom take this case and allow for the evidence phase to take place, in which the community can provide the same type of comments/feedback as it would be raised on a user conduct RfC, with the additional advantage that it could resolve the dispute between them, once and for all. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 17:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside view of jossi 

message: Seeing the article Sathya Sai Baba "progressing" while this RFAr proceeds, I'm uneasy with seeing no ruling concerning the future of the article. I'm all for forgiving Andries and SSS108, but even assuming the best of all faiths, I cannot see how the article Sathya Sai Baba can progress to something readable and encyclopedic while it is owned by these antagonists.
Just have a look! The article just crossed the 100k barrier and further growth is in progress. Both opponents by now use the  not for pointing to references, but to actually include court records, interview texts, translation of Dutch newspaper articles and book chapters.
Pjacobi 07:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my reply here To summarize it, the long citations are due to mutual distrust, not so much to push POVs. I do not think that using Dutch newspapers is wrong perse. Andries 16:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please wait a minute before closing 

message: #Does not linking to purportedly unreliable websites also include the homepages of critics with their own articles of Sathya Sai Baba e.g. Robert Priddy (see ), Basava Premanand, M. Alan Kazlev (see here  one of the webpages on the website authored, owned, and maintaind by Kazlev, linked to in his Wikipedia article), Sanal Edamaruku, Babu Gogineni, the late Abraham Kovoor, and the late H._Narasimhaiah? If the answer is yes, how can this be reconciled with a seemingly contradictory guideline WP:EL that states "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if there is one"? SeeWikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/#Robert_Priddy for a description of this dispute. (amended 09:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Andries|Andries]]

message: *Point 1: Wiki pages about a certain person can include a link to his/her homepage. The link Andries was/is trying to include on Robert Priddy's Wiki page is not his homepage. It is an Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba Site (one of three maintained by Priddy). Priddy's homepage is already listed on his wiki page.
*Point 2: Andries agreed to the neutral geocities site in mediation with BostonMA . This site does not link to or promote any pro/anti site. Furthermore, the articles that Andries claims were taken from the exbaba site are not copyright protected to the exbaba site (nor were they ever originally published on the exbaba site). Therefore, the exbaba site cannot claim copyright status to the articles in question.
*Point 3: If the reputable sources in question are duplicated on (never originally published on) biased, partison and controversial websites (such as the exbaba and saiguru sites), I think WP:RS prohibits this. Also, JzG expressed the opinion that citing these sources on any non-reputable website is a copyright violation   .
*Point 4: See FloNight's Thread  & Tony Sidaway's Thread  & My Thread .
*Point 5: Pjacobi requested both Andries and me to step aside from the Sathya Sai Baba article . I expressed my willingness to do so 3 times    . Andries has not expressed any willingness to step aside even once. Andries is reintroducing controversial edits without obtaining consensus. Andries should step aside and let other editors work on the article and he would not have to be repeatedly challenged. I am not the only editor disagreeing with Andries. All the other editors disagree with him about his recent edits. Even the person who responded to his RFC . Yet Andries is still fighting it. SSS108 talk-email 07:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:SSS108|SSS108]]

message: I want to comment here on my dual role in this matter.  My first response on this was that it seemed to be a matter for administrators to resolve, and I investigated as an administrator and warned Andries politely in my role as an administrator that in my view and that of other admins he was contravening the ruling in the arbitration case.
Andries has come back politely with what amount, in my view, to clear signals that he requires much closer direction on this matter.  I suggested that clarification from the arbitrators might be a good way of resolving this matter, and his query here is the response.  Andries has shown by his responses and actions that he is eager and willing to comply with the arbitration and in my role as a clerk I commend his queries to the Committee,  While this is clearly a dispute that could have become very rancorous, it seems to me that Andries is doing his best to avoid that path and seek clarification.  I also commend SSS108 for his civility in the course of expressing a difference of opinion in a forthright and honest manner.
I hope that this is not "crossing the streams".  I hope it's clear that my views as an administrator and as a clerk are quite distinct. My regard for both participants here is very high.  Their honesty and civility is impressive. --Tony Sidaway 02:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Tony Sidaway

message: I am not going to wait any longer for a clarification. I will edit the set of articles according to my interpretation of the arbcom decision. Andries 16:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I am not going to wait any longer

message: ===Sathya Sai Baba request nr. 2===
Dispute about the fact whether an article about Sathya Sai Baba in salon.com qualifies as a reliable source. article in salon.com This question has already been treated extensively in mediation.  Now user:SSS108 changed his opinion because he states that salon.com is a self professed tabloid and because he states that it is only published online. He says that he was unaware of this during mediation. Andries 17:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: During mediation, I was under the impression that Salon.com was a published magazine. Since that time, I have since discovered that Salon.com is exclusively an internet tabloid. Goldberg's article is only available as an internet resource and has never been published by multiple reliable media sources. It is only available on Salon.com. David Talbot (founder of Salon.com) described Salon.com as a "progressive, smart tabloid" . When it comes to Biographies Of Living People, the standards are higher and stricter when the material in question is critical and potentially libelous. Since this article contains critical, negative and potentially libelous information against Sathya Sai Baba, it does not (in my opinion) meet the standards for reliable sources as outlined in WP:BLP and WP:RS. SSS108 talk-email 21:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arguing that salon.com is not a reliable source is on the verge of evidencing bad faith. How many strikes will people get? JBKramer 22:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Salon.com, as an online tabloid, is generally considered reliable because their articles are published by reputable or reliable sources. The article in question has not been published by other reputable or reliable sources. The article looks and sounds like a tabloid-article and it is suspect for this reason alone. No one is attacking Salon.com as an entity. Rather, due to Salon's online tabloid status, the article in question has it's reliability in question. SSS108 talk-email 00:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with JBKramer that SSS108 attempts to remove information sourced to salon.com is close to being disruptive. Salon.com is never on paper and is used extensively throughout Wikipedia for living people, because it is a fine, accessible reputable source. It is irrelevant by whom or where is salon.com is cited because salon.com itself is a reputable source. The only reason why SSS108 wants to make an exception for the Sathya Sai Baba article seems to be because he does not agree with the critical stance of the Salon.com article on Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 00:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Salon has an editorial board, an editor-in-chief, and an extensive corrections section.  I see no reason not to treat it as a reliable source.Thatcher131 00:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the Salon article is a reliable source for the fact that there are numerous allegations. I would not use material regarding any particular allegation. That relies only on the victim's testimony. Any particular reported instance may easily be false. Salon is not a tabloid in the sense that its contents are reasonably considered unreliable. Fred Bauder 17:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Violating WP:POINT is a blockable offense. JBKramer 19:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This is not a court, and you are not convincing anyone. I suggest you stop now. JBKramer 19:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that any source that mixes up editorial content with regular reporting content should be treated differently than an ordinary news source, particularly when it is openly and intentionally biased in one direction as an active editorial decision.  That is what Salon does and is the cause of my concern regarding it being an undisputed sole source.  I believe that Salon as a source should be disputable on the basis of original source bias. --Blue Tie 01:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for clarification Nov 2006 

message: Dispute about the fact whether an article about Sathya Sai Baba in salon.com qualifies as a reliable source. article in salon.com This question has already been treated extensively in mediation.  Now user:SSS108 changed his opinion because he states that salon.com is a self professed tabloid and because he states that it is only published online. He says that he was unaware of this during mediation. Andries 17:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: During mediation, I was under the impression that Salon.com was a published magazine. Since that time, I have since discovered that Salon.com is exclusively an internet tabloid. Goldberg's article is only available as an internet resource and has never been published by multiple reliable media sources. It is only available on Salon.com. David Talbot (founder of Salon.com) described Salon.com as a "progressive, smart tabloid" . When it comes to Biographies Of Living People, the standards are higher and stricter when the material in question is critical and potentially libelous. Since this article contains critical, negative and potentially libelous information against Sathya Sai Baba, it does not (in my opinion) meet the standards for reliable sources as outlined in WP:BLP and WP:RS. SSS108 talk-email 21:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arguing that salon.com is not a reliable source is on the verge of evidencing bad faith. How many strikes will people get? JBKramer 22:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Salon.com, as an online tabloid, is generally considered reliable because their articles are published by reputable or reliable sources. The article in question has not been published by other reputable or reliable sources. The article looks and sounds like a tabloid-article and it is suspect for this reason alone. No one is attacking Salon.com as an entity. Rather, due to Salon's online tabloid status, the article in question has it's reliability in question. SSS108 talk-email 00:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with JBKramer that SSS108 attempts to remove information sourced to salon.com is close to being disruptive. Salon.com is never on paper and is used extensively throughout Wikipedia for living people, because it is a fine, accessible reputable source. It is irrelevant by whom or where is salon.com is cited because salon.com itself is a reputable source. The only reason why SSS108 wants to make an exception for the Sathya Sai Baba article seems to be because he does not agree with the critical stance of the Salon.com article on Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 00:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Salon has an editorial board, an editor-in-chief, and an extensive corrections section.  I see no reason not to treat it as a reliable source.Thatcher131 00:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the Salon article is a reliable source for the fact that there are numerous allegations. I would not use material regarding any particular allegation. That relies only on the victim's testimony. Any particular reported instance may easily be false. Salon is not a tabloid in the sense that its contents are reasonably considered unreliable. Fred Bauder 17:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Violating WP:POINT is a blockable offense. JBKramer 19:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This is not a court, and you are not convincing anyone. I suggest you stop now. JBKramer 19:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that any source that mixes up editorial content with regular reporting content should be treated differently than an ordinary news source, particularly when it is openly and intentionally biased in one direction as an active editorial decision.  That is what Salon does and is the cause of my concern regarding it being an undisputed sole source.  I believe that Salon as a source should be disputable on the basis of original source bias. --Blue Tie 01:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba|Sathya Sai Baba]] request nr. 2