Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2

Statement by non-party Jossi

As presented in the previous ArbCom case, there are substantial secondary sources for a good encyclopedic article, that have not been explored due to the insistence of involved editors to editwar about sources that may not be the best available.

There is a tendency in these articles to base the dispute upon a mistaken need for balance, that attempts to balance the points of view of proponents (in this case devotees of SSB) and critics (in this case ex-devotees of SSB). That is not what WP:NPOV is about. A balanced biographical article is one that presents the viewpoints about a person as described in reputable published sources. Clearly, there is from both sides an intent to advocate their points of view through their contributions, deltions, and overall editing behavior, in violation of WP:NOT.

My assessment is that this dispute raises out of the confusion of attempting to have an article that presents "both sides of the argument" related to the involved editors, rather than researching and presenting the significant viewpoints published in reliable sources. Unless involved editors spend more time researching rather than editwarring, the article will remain in its current messy state. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Despite comments by Andries to the contrary, I am still of the opinion that not all sources available have been explored. Here is a partial list previously submitted:

• New Religious Movements in Western Europe: An Annotated Bibliography, Elisabeth Arweck, Peter B. Clarke; Greenwood Press, 1997
• Hinduism in Modern Indonesia: Between Local, National, and Global Interests, Martin Ramstedt; RoutledgeCurzon, 2003
• Hindu Selves in a Modern World: Guru Faith in the Mata Amritanandamayi Mission, Maya Warrier; RoutledgeCurzon, 2005
• Many Globalizations: Cultural Diversity in the Contemporary World, Peter L. Berger, Samuel P. Huntington; Oxford University Press, 2003
• Water, Wood, and Wisdom: Ecological Perspectives from the Hindu Traditions, Journal article by Vasudha Narayanan; Daedalus, Vol. 130, 2001
• Anomalies of Consciousness: Indian Perspectives and Research, Journal article by K. Ramakrishna Rao; The Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 58, 1994
• Odd Gods: New Religions and the Cult Controversy, James R. Lewis; Prometheus Books, 2001
• Media and the Transformation of Religion in South Asia, Lawrence A. Babb, Susan S. Wadley; University of Pennsylvania Press, 1995
• South Asian Religions in the Americas: An Annotated Bibliography of Immigrant Religious Traditions, John Y. Fenton; Greenwood Press, 1995

The article Sathya Sai Baba movement could be re-merged with the main article (Andries un-merged these on October 21, 2006), with the addition of material from secondary sources that are abundant (in addition to the list above, there are 450 books on the subject listed in my local University library search), and avoiding too much reliance in disputed sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Additional sources

• Klass, MortonSinging with Sai Baba: The Politics of Revitalization in Trinidad, Westview Press, 1991 ISBN 0813379695
• The Sathya Sai Baba community in Bradford : its origin and development, religious beliefs and practices, Dept. of Theology and Religious Studies, University of Leeds, 1988.
• McKean, Lise, Divine enterprise : Gurus and the Hindu Nationalist Movement ISBN 0226560090 and ISBN 0226560104
• White, Charles, SJ, The Sai Baba Movement: Approaches to the Study of India Saints, The Journal of Asian Studies, 1972, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Aug., 1972), pp. 863-878
• Bann, LA Babb, Lawrence A , Sathya Sai Baba's Magic, Anthropological Quarterly, 1983, Vol. 56, No. 3 (Jul., 1983), pp. 116-124
• Hawley, John S. (Ed.), Saints and Virtues, University of California Press (1987), ISBN 0520061632
• Urban, H. B. Avatar for Our Age: Sathya Sai Baba and the Cultural Contradictions of Late Capitalism, Academic Press, 2003, Vol 33; part 1, pages 73-94
• Swallow D. A., Ashes and Powers: Myth, Rite and Miracle in an Indian God-Man's Cult, Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 16, No. 1 (1982), pp. 123-158
• Sangha, Dave & Kumar Sahoo, Ajaya, Social work, spirituality, and diasporic communities : The case of the sathya sai baba movement, Journal of Religion & Spirituality in Social Work, 2005, vol. 24, no4, pp. 75-88, Haworth Press
• Kent, Alexandra, Creating Divine Unity: Chinese Recruitment in the Sathya Sai Baba Movement of Malaysia, Journal of Contemporary Religion, Volume 15, Number 1 / January 1, 2000
• Kent, Alexandra, Divinity, Miracles and Charity in the Sathya Sai Baba Movement of Malaysia, Ethons, 2004, Taylor and Francis
• Spurr, M. J., Visiting cards revisited: An account of some recent first-hand observations of the "miracles" of Sathya Sai Baba, and an Investigation into the role of the miraculous in his theology, Journal of Religion and Psychical Research, 2003, Vol 26; Oart 4, pp.198-216
• Lee, Raymond, Sai Baba, salvation and syncretism, Contributions to Indian Sociology, Vol. 16, No. 1, 125-140 (1982) SAGE Publications
• Hummel, Reinhart, Guru, Miracle Worker, Religious Founder: Sathya Sai Baba, Materialdienst der EZW, 47 Jahrgang, 1 February 1984. available online in English
• Sullivan, Michael, C., In Search of a Perfect World: A Historical Perspective on the Phenomenon of Millennialism And Dissatisfaction With the World As It Is, Authorhouse (2005), ISBN 978-1420841619
• Hansen, George P. The Trickster and the Paranormal, Xlibris Corporation (2001), ISBN 1401000827
• Bowker, John, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions; 1997; (Contains an entry on Sai Baba) (added 21:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC))
• Stallings, Stephanie, Avatar of Stability, Harvard International Review, June 22, 2000 (added 21:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC))

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Morton Klass is a good source for the article Sathya Sai Baba movement. Babb (not Bann), Hummel, Swallow, amd Kent are already used to some extent. Andries 09:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I want to affirm what I have already stated before i.e. that books describing the SSB movement in various countries, such as Kent in Malaysia, Klass in Trinidad, Kelly/Van der Veer in Fiji, Babb in Delhi are fine sources for the article Sathya Sai Baba movement. They are probably not very suitable for the article Sathya Sai Baba, because the focus of their writings is on what they have investigated i.e. the SSB movement, not the person of SSB. A book on Christianity in the Netherlands is not a good source for writing a biography of Jesus. Andries 20:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless someone explores these sources, we will not know for certain. As with most, if not all NRMs, material about the movement includes useful material about the movement's leader. In any case, the above list (excluding these few you mention, that may or not include useful material) is just a short list of secondary sources, most of which have yet to be explored. I would argue that the insistence of some editors around a few sources, rather than properly researching the subject as per what seems to be an abundance of secondary sources, is one of the reasons this second ArbCom case is being heard. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

How reputable can this material be if the researchers have not investigated the subject? It does not matter that a book was published by unversity press and peer reviewed. If it is used in Wikipedia for a subject that the researcher has never investigated then this is improperly used. Nevertheless, I have ordered the book by Kent, but could not procure the book by Klass. Andries 21:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand your argument. Are you saying that these scholars and authors have not investigated the subject? I that is the case, how do you think they wrote these books, articles, etc? Your definition of what is proper and what is improper as a source for a WP article, is in complete contradiction with WP content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

These sources have not or hardly investigated the person of Sathya Sai Baba. The focus of their investigation was the SSB movement. Andries 21:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue, Andries, is that we are discussing a biographical article, not a piece of investigative journalism. A good biographical article should draw information from the best sources available, and the above list is a but a partial list. There is no need to keep arguing a case against these sources, is there?. They are sources related to the subject and these can be explored and used in the article about this person. That's all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A researcher who wrote a good source for the SSB article would have stayed a long time at the ashram, know the local language, talked to SSB's friends, older villagers, and (former) associates, (former) members of the Sathya Sai Organization, and Sathya Sai Trust etc. None of this is applicable for the sources listed hereabove. Andries 21:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That is why in WP we use the best sources that we have available. Not the sources we wish we had. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And I would venture and argue, that as soon as you accept that fact, most of the problems you are facing as an editor in this project will dissipate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I introduced sources for the article that come closer to the ideal source that I depicted hereabove than most if not all of the sources that you listed hereabove. For example the works by Haraldsson, Nagel, and Arnold Schulman that I introduced to the article did try to investigate the person of Sathya Sai Baba in a more or less objective, serious way. Andries 21:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I admit that the article is not very well sourced, but the main reason is the lack of reliable sources, not the work of the contributors. It will only improve a bit when the Jossi's above listed sourced are used. Apart from Arnold Schulman, another writer also asserts that there is no reliable information about SSB's life, as I will quote from the summary of a German scholarly book Der Gottmensch aus Puttaparthi: Eine Analyse der Sathya-Sai-Baba-Bewegung und ihrer westlichen Anhänger by Katharina Poggendorf-Kakar (English:The Godman from Puttaparthi: an analysis of the Sathya Sai Baba movement and its Western adherents)

English translation: "From a biographical point of view, he is overwhelmed by legends and miraculous stories that derive him as a person from every historicity."

German original: "Biographisches ist von Legenden und Wundergeschichten überlagert, die seine Person jeglicher Geschichtlichkeit berauben."

Andries 23:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The main problem is most definitively the behavior of editors, that seem to prefer to editwar about a few sources rather than researching all sources available so that a well sourced and neutral biographical article can emerge from their efforts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A few sources? The reference sections lists 87 different sources. Andries 05:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I received the book by Kent and it is of very limited use for the article Sathya Sai Baba for reasons that I expected and stated. I will not follow your advice anymore unless you will pay the bills. Andries 23:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not know about the Netherlands, but in the US all University and College libraries have free access. As for your comment about Kent's book, I have not read it, so I cannot comment on its usability for the article. Although I will be very surprised if there is no useful material in a book titled ''Divinity, Miracles and Charity in the Sathya Sai Baba Movement of Malaysia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not see easy for me to get free from my work~, because it is too busy. There is very little information about SSB in the book, but a lot about the SSB movement. Andries 00:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

There are many editors interested in improving these articles, Andries. If you do not have time, others may. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What I meant to say is that I am not able to go university library because they are only open during the day time. There have been only two major contributors of content in all those years i.e. Andries and SSS108, so you remark that "there are many editors interested in improving these articles" strikes me as untrue. Andries 21:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

<<<< Well, I see several new editors involved, and we can be hopeful that other editors will join in once the dust settle in this case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I admit that the following source that you listed may be good

Babb, Lawrence A. "Sathya Sai Baba’s Saintly Play", in "Saints and Virtues", J. S. Hawley (ed.), Berkeley, CA: California University Press, 1987, pages 168-186.

Andries 00:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Kent:
  • found only minor inaccuracies.
  • Hardly information about the life of SSB.
  • Book was published in 2005 but research took place between 1996-1998
  • Book has an index
• Bowen:
  • throughout the whole book SSB's paranormal powers are described as siddhis, though SSB denied in the 1976 Blitz interview that his powers are siddhis.
  • compares and explains Shiva and hence SSB with Dionysos in his conclusion. Implausible and unpractical; it is like explaining contemporary cars with chariots from Ancient. The conclusion is not or hardly suppported by his writings in other chapters.
  • Lengthy and no index
• Swallow
  • Implausible theoretical speculations about the meaning of SSB's claim to be an incarnation of Shiva

Andries 09:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by non party Dseer

I have a friend who is devoted to SSB and do not consider SSB a fraud. However, I also tend towards an anti-cultist position and believe from experience that ex-followers are not arbitrarily less credible than proponents. Nor do I exclude the possibility of genuine spiritual states being co-mingled with less desireable behavior, as M Alan Kazlev has offered an explanation of referenced in various sites which applies to many, not SSB. My only interest also re the SSB page is that both sides of the argument should be presented, without bias, and there should not be censorship or bullying of any kind. I also have suggested that accepted facts be listed first, and then assertions from the respective sides. This would allow the reader who is unfamiliar with this subject to come to their own conclusions, which may be different in each case. Having corresponded with M Alan Kazlev, I also want to state that he does want both sides to be heard on such topics (this can be proven by looking at his entire website) even when he has formed an opinion, is open to change based on new information. Although SS108 may find the charges against SSB without merit which is his right, and suspects Kazlev is involved in an anti-SSB conspiracy, regardless of whether his charges against the others are valid, I can affirm these assumptions are not true in the case of Kazlev. That does not mean I do not think SS108 is not sincere in that belief, just in error. I also believe this article should be kept structured and concise in the interest of the reader, who needs to make their own determinations, and not become a vehicle for partisans on either side. Wikipedia recognizes that material originating from all sides in a dispute on religious groups must be viewed with caution. --Dseer 21:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

<--mv from page-->

Due to time constraints until after the New Year, I am reposting my earlier comments for the time being:

I have a friend who is devoted to SSB and do not consider SSB a fraud. However, I also tend towards an anti-cultist position and believe from experience that ex-followers are not arbitrarily less credible than proponents. Nor do I exclude the possibility of genuine spiritual states being co-mingled with less desireable behavior, as M Alan Kazlev has offered an explanation of referenced in various sites which applies to many, not SSB. My only interest also re the SSB page is that both sides of the argument should be presented, without bias, and there should not be censorship or bullying of any kind. I also have suggested that accepted facts be listed first, and then assertions from the respective sides. This would allow the reader who is unfamiliar with this subject to come to their own conclusions, which may be different in each case. Having corresponded with M Alan Kazlev, I also want to state that he does want both sides to be heard on such topics (this can be proven by looking at his entire website) even when he has formed an opinion, is open to change based on new information. Although SS108 may find the charges against SSB without merit which is his right, and suspects Kazlev is involved in an anti-SSB conspiracy, regardless of whether his charges against the others are valid, I can affirm these assumptions are not true in the case of Kazlev. That does not mean I do not think SS108 is not sincere in that belief, just in error. I also believe this article should be kept structured and concise in the interest of the reader, who needs to make their own determinations, and not become a vehicle for partisans on either side. Wikipedia recognizes that material originating from all sides in a dispute on religious groups must be viewed with caution.

As an aside, full disclosure of potential COIs is helpful. --Dseer 23:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Please have a look at Robert Priddy. IMHO User:SSS108 is boldy misinterpreting [1] the ArbCom ruling. It doesn't apply to the article Robert Priddy (as he is neither Sathya Sai Baba nor an affiliated organization). And if I'm not completely mistaken, the ArbCom ruling only applies to User:Andries and User:SSS108. --Pjacobi 22:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Robert Priddy is a former SSB devotee who wrote a hagiography, then became disillusioned, left the group, and wrote an attack book. While a typical author's web site might be expected to contain information about past and future projects, a calendar of book signing appearances, etc, Priddy's web site contains attacks on the SSB movement drawn from personal experience and original research and appears to violate the ruling in this case (which I think applies to content, not the editor who adds it). A clarification would be appreciated. Thatcher131 22:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This is because Priddy's notability today is mostly rooted in its attack site. Like Tilman Hausherr and http://www.xenu.de or Jack Chick and http://www.chick.com. --Pjacobi 22:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If Priddy's self-published observations and opinions about SSB make him notable and get a link, does NPOV require that we link to the self-published observations and opinions of a pro-SSB web site that is critical of Priddy? Thatcher131 01:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably, although I would take a look at it first. If it contains plainly false and defamatory material we should probably not link to it. if it just contains assertions that Priddy is a sorehead and exaggerates Baba's faults; it might be OK. I think there is an underlying problem with any of this material being encyclopedia however. A brief note that Baba is suspected of molesting young male devotees ought to suffice as well as a note that it is suspected that he uses slight of hand to produce his miracles. Problem is, like Little, Big the further in you go, the bigger it gets. Fred Bauder 14:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly not comfortable that the anti-Priddy web sites are suitably encyclopedic. Are you saying Priddy's article can link to Priddy's site criticizing SSB? I certainly agree with you about the general direction these articles should go with negative allegations; unfortunately that is not happening under the current decision with the current editors. Thatcher131 14:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher131, if you think that Robert Priddy's criticism of Sathya Sai Baba is not notable then this should be solved with an AFD (the previous one failed). It should not be solved by omitting the one fact which Priddy makes notable i.e. his websites critical of Sathya Sai Baba. Let us follow generally accepted policies and practices for the article Robert Priddy too. Andries 06:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The websites critical of Robert Priddy authored by SSS108 are highly defamatory and contain hardly anything than original research. They should not be linked to because Priddy is not a public figure in the sense of e.g. Sathya Sai Baba who himself blurred the distinction between private life and public life with his claims of being an embodiment of truth, purity, and love and attracted followers with these claims. In addition, it would be at best inconsistent to forbid in the entry Sathya Sai Baba critical websites containing partially original research and partially reputable sources, like www.exbaba.com and www.saiguru.net, while at the same time allowing websites with only defamatory original research at the entry Robert Priddy. Andries 20:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like a new case involving these articles is being accepted, so this dispute can be addressed there. Newyorkbrad 18:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Pjacobi makes the mistake in that he comparing people who have been referenced in reliable and reputable sources with Robert Priddy who has not been referenced by even one single reliable or reputable reference. Pjacobi attemtped to argue for Priddy's attacks against SSB by citing Indymedia (a public forum where people can post whatever they want whenever the so choose under any name they so choose. This doesn't sound encyclopedic to me. Let these distinctions be known. SSS108 ^talk-email 04:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, non-notability should be solved with an AFD, not by omitting a website by the subject that makes him notable. I have been saying this at least ten times. Andries 06:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it correct for me to assume that the current ArbCom case [2] is going to deal with this issue, as stated by Newyorkbrad? SSS108 ^talk-email 05:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Priddy has now combined his anti-SSB websites on his other homepage. Clearly he must have been following our discussion. Andries 20:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification on James Randi and Sathya Sai Baba

User:Andries posted [3] a note to Talk:James Randi demanding that the link to James Randi's webpage be removed from the article. Given the threat of banning in the post, I'd like the arbitrators to make clear their opinion on this.--Prosfilaes 13:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

My request for an indefinite ban was sarcastic. I think and hope that this case will be decided too in the pending case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Proposed_decision. Andries 20:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

In context, I agree it's clear that that was not a serious proposal or interpretation. Newyorkbrad 20:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The point at issue here is whether Andries' interpretation is correct or incorrect. As I understand it, his interpretation is that no site which contains any poorly -sourced criticism of Sathya Sai Baba may be linked to by any article, regardless of the subject of the article. This means, for example, that because a former British Member of Parliament wrote an Early Day Motion criticising Sathya Sai Baba in 2002, and this motion remains on the website of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, that linking to http://www.parliament.uk is not allowed by any article – whether or not that article has any connection to the Early Day Motion or the MP concerned.

I can't believe that this interpretation is accurate, because of its immensely far-reaching implications. The alternative interpretation is that the remedy only applies where the article contains some assertion related to Sathya Sai Baba, and that seems to be what was intended. Sam Blacketer 22:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not have any interpretation, because I have become thoroughly confused about what is allowed and not. Andries 22:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The threat and this request verge on disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. This remedy applies to "article or on a talk page regarding Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him." The remedy has been extended to Robert Priddy because Priddy's entire reason for importance, according to you, is that he is a critic of Sai Baba. He controls 4 web sites, one of which is appropriate for inclusion in his biography and 3 of which are not, because they deal exclusively with criticism of Sai Baba that is based on personal experience and non-reliable sources. You are in danger of being banned from these articles because you did not change your behavior after getting amnesty in the first arbitration case against you, by edit warring over the inclusion of the negative links. James Randi is not affiliated with Sai Baba or his organization, nor does his fame rest on being a notable Sai Baba critic. Therefore, the fact that you can find two pages of criticism on his website is entirely irrelevant. Thatcher131 23:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the prompt clarification. I did not edit war on the entry James Randi. So a relevant link to a website with poorly sourced critical information about Sathya Sai Baba is fine as long the entry does not mention Sathya Sai Baba? Andries

Following Thatcher131's way of reasoning, the links to the websites of Basava Premanand (the famous opponent of Sathya Sai Baba) are forbidden too, just like in the case of Robert Priddy. Or am I mistaken? Andries

Block Log

Just to inform that SSS108 has been blocked for 12 hours because of ongoing incivility, harassment and personal attacks. See SSS108's block log. Perhaps the Log of blocks and bans on the project page needs to be updated with this information? Ekantik ^talk 23:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: It looks like SSS108 has now been blocked indefinitely for harassing the admin who enabled the above-mentioned 12-hour block with claims of sockpuppetry. Ekantik ^talk 00:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful. Ekantik, if you avoid escalation and eliciting responses to comments that can be perceived as provocation. These are never helpful in this or in any other disputes in WP. It is messy enough already. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I asked several questions in Sept

It is almost February now. Will I ever get an answer? At least one. Andries 19:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification from user:Andries reg. Sathya Sai Baba (March 2007)

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Andries_banned Can Andries still edit the article Jesus, Vishnu, Shirdi Sai Baba, Shiva, and other Hindu saints and deities, even though Sathya Sai Baba claims to be a reincarnation of all of them? These claims are generally not accepted by the followers of Jesus etc. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Andries

Thanks in advance for your answer. Andries 19:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe Andries comparison to Jesus, etc. is grossly misleading. If the reviewer would review my comments on the request for arbitration enforcement, it would be appreciated. Thank you. Vassyana 19:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is it misleading? Sathya Sai Baba claims to be an incarnation of Jesus too, though it will be clear that the relationship is only accepted by followers of Sathya Sai Baba, and not by follower of Jesus. Same for Shiva, Vishnu and Shirdi Sai Baba, Rama, and other deities and Hindu saints. Andries 19:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The relationship between Shirdi Sai Baba and Sathya Sai Baba on which Vassyana's bases his complaint against me was added by user:Kkrystian on 17 May after I edited the article Shirdi Sai Baba for the last time (on 6 May) without citing reputable source. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Kkrystian. Andries 20:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, Andries may edit these to the degree that they are not related to Sathya Sai Baba; in other words, not to edit-war with people over Sathya Sai Baba mentions in those articles. Mention of Sathya Sai Baba in those articles should be minimal if not outright nonexistent in any case; otherwise would violate the prohibition on undue weight contained in NPOV. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that's about right. The topic ban should have minimal impact on say, editing of Shiva. Charles Matthews 18:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Andries: appeal of topic ban on Sathya Sai Baba

Initiated by user:Andries. Andries (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2

I request a complete lift of my topic ban on Sathya Sai Baba. It has been more than a year now. My edits on the topic were described by the arbcom as generally responsible Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Workshop#Editing_by_Andries Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Proposed_decision#Editing_by_Andries and no diffs of disruptive or activist editing on the article Sathya Sai Baba were provided by the arbcom members in spite of my demand to several arb com members to back up the allegations against me with diffs. Please read the comment by user:Bishonen Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Proposed_decision#Proposals_to_ban_Andries_for_responsible_editing

If a complete lift of the topic ban is not granted then I request a partial lift e.g. only talk page or only on Sathya Sai Baba movement that contains now some (entertaining) original research POV comments. (I can give details on request) I was and still am the only serious contributor to that article and there were never serious problems with it. Please check the history to check of Sathya Sai Baba movement to see whether I am incompetent or a blatant POV pusher. [4]

Also, I purchased some of the sources as recommended by Jossi and the arbcom on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2, which is fine material on Sathya Sai Baba movement (and to a much lesser extent for Sathya Sai Baba).

This is not about anti-Sathya Sai Baba activism but about providing correct information. For example, the summary of the article Sathya Sai Baba contains as per 14 March a blunder diff that remained uncorrected as of 22 March. Sathya Sai Baba is generally not described by his followers as a godman (Hindu ascetic) and this is not supported by the listed references in Sathya Sai Baba and Godman (Hindu ascetic). Godman is a term used in Western Academics and only very rarely by followers of Sathya Sai Baba. I guess everybody agrees that nobody wants blunders to remain uncorrected in the summaries. Andries (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I want to repeat my opinion that the problem with the article was in part due to the nature of the subject and the sources available as the following quote illustrates.

The strict fact of his personal biography and manner of life are buried beneath layer upon layer of hagiography. (see esp. the works of Kasturi; also Gokak 1975). As far as I am aware no objective account of Sathya Sai Baba’s life has been written by anyone close to him. Indeed such an account may be an inherent impossibility: it unlikely that anyone who is allowed in to his inner circles would want to write in such a vein. [..]
Thus Sathya Sai Baba himself cannot be the actual subject of an account of his cult. For now, so supposedly ‘real’ Sathya Sai Baba’ can be anymore real than an imagined character in fiction.

— Lawrence A. Babb, Redemptive Encounters: Three Modern Styles in the Hindu Tradition, (Comparative Studies in Religion and Society, chapter Sathya Sai Baba’s miracles, published by Waveland press 2000 (original publisher is by Oxford University Press 1987) ISBN 577661532, page 160

I also hope that arbcom members can review the effect of complete topic banning (incl. talk page) of long time contributors with a good knowledge of the subject and access to sources before making similar decisions. I hope that the arbcom will not repeat such flawed decisions in other cases.

Statement by uninvolved Relata refero

I have spent some time reviewing the recent history of the Sathya Sai Baba-related pages, and there is little or no doubt in my mind that the articles need a little more attention than they are currently getting. I understand User:Andries runs a website critical of this movement, but we do not at this point, I understand, view that as a direct CoI. I note also that there are some examples I can think of of "topic experts" who are known to be major critics of individuals/movements and yet are visible participants in editing/discussing articles on those individuals or movements. This has produced few major problems (though some drama, I suppose), but, more to the point, seems to be acceptable by our current community standards.

I urge ArbCom to lift this restriction, because the quality of the articles needs it. Relata refero (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I take the view that this remedy, whether appropriate in the first place, is no longer needed. As noted in the original case, Andries was not an irresponsible editor of Sathya Sai Baba. His position as webmaster of a site critical of Sathya Sai Baba does give a conflict of interest on matters directly relating to that website but it is stretching a point to say that it gives a conflict of interest on the entire subject. Therefore I will be proposing to discharge the remedy. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• My wish in SSBII was to impose a 1RR remedy on Andries. I still think that would be good, in place of the topic ban. My one shading to that view, as of 2008, is that we are moving closer to taking COI as a disqualification from editing. Well, for the purposes of clearer argument, I still hold to the idea that the real disqualification is not being able to edit within the basic content policies. Editing with a COI is a kind of stress-testing of one's ability to do just that. Andries has a score of over 90%, I'd say (I worked through very many of his edits at the time of SSBII, so this is more than impressionistic). The failures were to do with reading WP:RS in a reasonable light. So, I'd support 1RR and a caution not to red-line RS, for a probationary period, the revert restriction being subject to a review after 3 months. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • See also the detailed discussion of principle on COI in the Prem Rawat case. While "principles are not policy" is engraved on Arbitrators' hearts, I think the cited policy snippet is a propos here, to what I said above. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Seeing some opposition to the pending motion, I will offer an alternative motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed motions and voting

Original motion

• Remedy 1.1 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2 is discharged, and in substitution Andries is limited to one content revert on Sathya Sai Baba and related articles in any 24-hour period.

As there are currently 13 active arbitrators, a majority is 7.

Support:

1. Proposed in line with the above brief discussion. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
2. With the caveat that Andries is reminded to edit in accordance with all applicable policies, including WP:COI and WP:BLP. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC) Second choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Per Charles Matthews above discussion comment I support this change for now although I think one non vandalism revert per week is enough and recommend that change. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I remain of the opinion than Andries has a substantive conflict of interest regarding Sathya Sai Baba which makes it unseemly for him to edit the articles in question. Kirill 00:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
2. I agree with Kirill. I cannot see how the CoI can be dealt with without an absolute prohibition. James F. (talk) 08:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Abstain:

Alternative motion

• Remedy 1.1 in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2, which provides that "Andries is banned indefinitely from editing Sathya Sai Baba and related articles or their talk pages," is amended by striking out the words "or their talk pages." Thus, Andries is now permitted to edit the talkpages of these articles, but not the articles themselves. In doing so, he is cautioned to be mindful of all applicable Wikipedia policies including those concerning conflicts of interest and biographies of living persons.

As there are currently 13 active arbitrators, a majority is 7.

Support:

1. First choice at this time. Any further potential revision of the restrictions could be addressed later (not less than 3 months from now) based upon evaluation of Andries' participation under this revised remedy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Second preference - better than no change, but I don't regard the conflict of interest as requiring Andries not to edit the article. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
4. James F. (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Fine. Kirill 14:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
6. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
7. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Alternative motion passed, case amended. Daniel (talk) 02:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Amendment request: Sathya Sai Baba 2

• Permanent link

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by Andries Andries. (I had filed this request earlier in July but it was removed with my consent because I could not find time to provide diffs. Reformatted on 24 August with two sentences in italics added.) Andries (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Initiated by Andries (talk) at 17:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Case affected

Sathya Sai Baba 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Principle 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Conflict_of_interest
2. Principle 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#NPOV_and_sources
3. Finding 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Sathya_Sai_Baba_is_weakly_sourced
4. Finding 3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Editing_by_Andries
5. Finding 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Andries_runs_an_attack_web_site
6. Remedy 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Andries_banned
7. Remedy 5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Open_remedy

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Andries (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• not necessary

Information about amendment request

• Remedy 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Andries_banned
• Regain write rights for Sathya Sai Baba movement

Statement user:Andries

I request to re-edit Sathya Sai Baba movement. I lost the rights to edit the article in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2. I lost to a great extent interest in the subject and have little time. But I still have a lot of good sources on the subject on the shelf. I bought them because they were recommended in arbcom case Sathya Sai Baba nr 1. I think it is a waste for Wikipedia and of other people's time and money when they are on my book shelf and only very few people have access to the contents. The article was never controversial, unlike Sathya Sai Baba. But after I stopped editing the Sathya Sai Central Trust, an organization that is part of the movement, has received much criticism. I was the only substantial contributor. I promise that I will revert max. once per week. I will not get involved in lengthy discussions or extensive, repeated dispute resolution, because I do not have time. One of the reasons why I request to re-edit is that nobody seriously tried to improve the article after I was forced to stop editing. I also compiled excerpts from sources and nobody every used them. See Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/sources.

To summarize, the reason why I was topic banned for the set of Sathya Sai Baba related article were.

1. perceived inappropriate linking in the article Robert Priddy. The dispute was about linking to one of the home pages of the subject.

2. alleged conflict of interest. I personally think that there was never a conflict of interest in the strict sense of the word, but I admit that I was, as a critical former member of the movement, emotionally involved. This has waned in the course of years. The fraction of my edits related to Sathya Sai Baba has become much smaller as my edit history shows. I did not receive an e-mail or phone call for years via the exbaba website. I was never involved in updating or maintaining this website.

3. very frequent use of the conflict resolution procedures without coming any closer to agreements.

The arbcom considered my edits to the article Sathya Sai Baba as responsible. The arbcom did not scrutinize my edits at Sathya Sai Baba movement, because, as stated, the article was never controversial.

The article Sathya Sai Baba movement suffers from neglect. Look for example, at the following sentence without good reputable source that was inserted there on 11 May 2011] and remains there until now.

"When he died at the age of 84, it was revealed that he meant 96 lunar years, in keeping with the Hindu calendar."

The article Sathya Sai Baba will always remain problematic due to the lack of reputable sources for a good biography. This lack of reputable sources is explicitly described in reputable sources e.g. by anthropologist Lawrence Babb.

List of all diffs to talk page of Sathya Sai Baba, maximum one year back from 17 Aug. 2012

• 19 Aug. 2012
• 19 Aug. 2012
• 19 Aug. 2012
• 8 Oct. 2011
• 6 Oct. 2011
• 25 Sep. 2011
• 25 Sep. 2011
• 25 Sep. 2011
• 24 Sep. 2011
• 24 Sep. 2011
• 21 Sep 2011
• 21 Sep. 2011
• 21 Sep. 2011
• 20 Sep. 2011
• 29 Aug. 2011
• 28 Aug. 2011
• 28 Aug. 2011

List of all diffs to talk page of Sathya Sai Baba movement, maximum one year back from 17 Aug.2012

• 28 May 2011
• 28 May 2011

List of books or article copies that I have on the shelf and intend to use as sources. See here for a discussion of some of these sources Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2

• Babb, Lawrence A. "Sathya Sai Baba's Saintly Play", in Hawley, John Stratton, ed. Saints and Virtues Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987.
• Babb, Lawrence, A., Redemptive Encounters, (University of California Press, 1986)
• Bowen, David The Sathya Sai Baba Community in Bradford: Its origins and development, religious beliefs and practices. Leeds: University Press.
• Kent, Alexandra Divinity and Diversity: a Hindu revitalization movement in Malaysia, Copenhagen Nias Press, first published in 2005, ISBN 87-91114-40-3
• Knott, Kim Dr. South Asian Religions in Britain in the Handbook of Living Religions edited by John R. Hinnels (1997), second edition, ISBN 0-14-051480-5
• Kelly, John D. Dr. Bhakti and Postcolonial Politics: Hindu Missions to Fiji in Nation and Migration in The Politics of Space in the South Asian Diaspora
• Poggendorf-Kakar, Katharina German language Der Gottmensch aus Puttaparthi. Eine Analyse der Sathya-Sai-Baba-Bewegung und ihrer westlichen Anhänger. de:Verlag Dr. Kovac, Hamburg 1999. ISBN 3-8300-0060-X

Thanks for your time. Andries (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

21:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Addition. I have to agree with what Tijfo098 wrote here, I find it very unfortunate that users, like user:Radiantenergy are banned with the stated reasons that they are meatpuppets and sockpuppets. The evidence is at best doubtful and in my opinion very unconvincing and very insufficient. The user has good reason to see this decision as unfair. Banning users for disruption instead of sockpuppetry would be better. Andries (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Jayen466

Support. I had thought of proposing this myself a while back. Enough time has passed. Andries has access to good sources, and I trust him not to abuse the editing privilege. JN466 07:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Echoing Tjfo098's concerns. Discretionary sanctions in the topic area seem like a good idea to me. --JN466 00:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Tijfo098

Given the inability of Wikipedia to actually contain the edits of self-declared returning editors such as [5], it's probably better to allow everyone to edit it. (Also the number of registered SPAs with obvious prior knowledge of wiki syntax editing there is not surprising; those are easy to find too.) The article should put under discretionary sanctions instead, so that any new flaring of edit warring can be easily dealt with, instead of vainly hoping that every nick banned in the ancient ArbCom case is going to do what Andries did, i.e. asking permission before returning to editing. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: Exchanges such as this one and this one indicate to me that discretionary sanctions are quite necessary in this topic area. Also, the remedy against Andries (mainly for COI and linking to Priddy's site as I read it) is rather hollow when two other more prominent critics (and former devotees) of SSB, one of whom was Priddy himself, continued to edit the SSB articles directly; see those two thread links. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, let me make a couple of things clearer:

• Having come back to editing after a fairly long hiatus, I can't shake the impression that a lot of Wikipedia has become abandonware now. Perhaps new editors focus on writing their own new articles, because existing ones remain outdated for years. The SSB-related ones surely look that way, ignoring at least two volumes of academic research published in the last four years: ISBN 978-9004165434 and ISBN 978-0231149334, the latter one having received many positive reviews.
• As for the proliferation of discretionary sanction areas, ask yourselves: what is easier for admins (besides not allowing anyone to edit the article)? Having to prove based on behavior alone that some new account is a reincarnation of a banned editor (as in the case of Wikisunn / Radiantenergy) or acting on disruptive editing by itself? (I can give you some easy peasy examples from Radiantenergy's editing if you insist, e.g. the wildly incorrect claims he kept repeating about a BBC documentary.)

Best of luck, Tijfo098 (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

@SilkTork. Alternatively, you could semi-protect the main articles and thus force the combatants to use accounts again. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by NuclearWarfare

@Silktork: The list of topics that under discretionary sanctions is getting too large, in my opinion. Instead, I would recommend that if you are not comfortable letting the appellant back unconditionally, perhaps you could lift the topic ban and add a editor probation that expires in 1 year if not invoked? NW (Talk) 19:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

With regards to motion one, may I suggest the following rewrite or some variant thereof: "Remedy 1.1 of the Sathya Sai Baba 2 Request for Arbitration is hereby vacated. Andries (talk · contribs) may be banned from the topic or subportions of it by any uninvolved administrator. This sanction is to expire after three months unless invoked before then, in which case it shall become indefinite." NW (Talk) 06:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by {other user}

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Enacting the third motion. NW (Talk) 20:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Decline appeal. In my view, the case for overturning the sanctions is not compelling enough to justify the risk. AGK [•] 11:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Will somebody move to vacate R1.1 of Sathya Sai Baba 2? AGK [•] 13:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Would be willing to consider this. No blocks since 2006, user talk page looks fine, reduced but continued editing history, no apparent issues with his few comments to the relevant talk pages (a restriction that was lifted back in 2008). This case is 5 years old; I think we can probably find a way to give it a try. Risker (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• I could go for lifting this topic ban, and giving consideration to either invoking remedy 5 to impose standard discretionary sanctions on the topic (Which would almost surely be the case already if this were a 2009, and not a 2006, case.) or granting AE authority to reimpose the topic ban on this single editor if problems arise. Courcelles 17:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• I think it's worth considering lifting the user topic ban, and putting discretionary sanctions on the topic itself. This would allow work to be done by someone interested in the topic and apparently with access to sources, while protecting the article against potential instability which may arise from his involvement. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
• Based on the discussion, some moderation or removal of the existing topic ban seems to have a tentative consensus here--what is lacking is any agreement on the specific nature of such a modification. Lifting the topic ban is simplest, discretionary sanctions are easy procedurally but NW's point on their expansion is well taken. I will likely support whichever modification a colleague is willing to put forward as a motion. Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• I'd be willing to support a modification here. Perhaps we should consider suspending the topic-ban for three months, with the option of then lifting it completely if there are no serious problems during that time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
• I see by looking at the original item that he was allowed talkpage access in 2008, which appears to have passed smoothly. Very well then. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Motions: Sathya Sai Baba 2 (Andries)

For these motions there are 14 active non-recused arbitrators, so 8 votes are a majority.

Motion vacating Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2#Andries banned

Remedy 1.1 of the Sathya Sai Baba 2 Request for Arbitration is hereby vacated. In its place Andries (talk · contribs) is placed on probation for three months with a view to lifting restrictions entirely past that date.

Support

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
2. Jclemens (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
3. Although I note that we do not have a standard "probation" provision to describe how this might actually be enforced in practice. Kirill ^[talk] 01:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
4. Support, but I will propose an edited version to make the intent clearer, below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Note that Wikipedia:Probation actually is well-defined, but we haven't used it in a remedy for some time and obviously, very few people remember that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I support the idea, but I can't support anything this nebulous, as there is no solid indication what this "probation" is. Courcelles 02:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
2. Like Courcelles, it's not clear to me precisely what 'probation' means. AGK [•] 21:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• @Kirill, I guess just flagged at AE and dealt with there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
• @Courcelles, I figure any violation will be flagged and dealt with at AE? I am open for a reword/retweak before other arbs vote. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with Courcelles - we should define what we mean by 'probation' in this context. Also, not especially keen on 3 months from now, which places the decision to remove the probation in the run up to the holiday season. PhilKnight (talk) 11:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Motion to vacate topic ban and impose discretionary sanctions

Remedy 1.1 of the Sathya Sai Baba 2 Request for Arbitration is hereby vacated. Standard discretionary sanctions are hereby authorised for the Sathya Sai Baba movement topic area, broadly construed.

Support

1. More I think about it, this is the only way I can support moving forward here. We have no usable definition for probation, and the topic area is not exactly orderly. (I note that if this were a more recent case, this would almost surely be the status quo already) Courcelles 03:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
2. I can live with this too, but are we simply going to end up putting discretionary sanctions on everything, eventually? Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
3. Fair enough. Kirill ^[talk] 20:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
4. all editors have to abide by rules. Any editor finding problems with another editors' editing can raise this at one of several venues. I can live with this option. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
5. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
6. Second choice, support the alternative limited to Andries, and given that we really don't know anything about the current state of the editing environment in this area beyond what we can casually glean from skimming the pages, since the case is several years old at this point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. How far are we going to stretch the standard discretionary sanctions system to take this gamble on a topic-banned editor? Either leave the appellant banned, or unban him entirely, but don't pass a motion that insures our decision by extending a system of last resort to an article that has been off our radar for years. AGK [•] 21:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
2. Per AGK. PhilKnight (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
3. Also per AGK. Risker (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Motion to suspend topic-ban

Remedy 1.1 of the Sathya Sai Baba 2 arbitration case is suspended for three months. During this period, Andries may edit within this topic area, provided that he carefully abides by all applicable policies. After three months, Andries may request that the topic-ban remedy be vacated permanently.

Support

1. I think this is what the first motion above was driving at, but eliminates any confusion over procedure and terminology. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
2. Would prefer 4 months as this places the decision in the run up to the holiday season. PhilKnight (talk) 10:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

   I have no objection to this. It would mean that the final decision would be made by next year's arbitrators rather than this year's, to the extent there is turnover, but I don't think that's a big deal one way or the other. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

3. I'm quite keen that we don't so regularly authorise discretionary sanctions that it is as though we are throwing bureaucratic confetti, so this is my only choice. (I'm fine with returning to this issue in three, rather than four, months. Our busyness over the holiday season seems greater in imagination than in reality.) AGK [•] 14:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
4. Support as written; while I'm okay with 4 months if there's a copy edit, I think we can handle it in 3 months if Andries shows he is doing fine. Risker (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
5. Kirill ^[talk] 12:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
6. Willing to support this alternative, too. Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
7. Yes exactly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
8. OK. Willing to give this a go. Only one article has recently experienced edit warring - Sathya Sai Baba movement - and that was by IP accounts, so I have semi-protected it for three months. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
9. Far from optimal, so only if nothing else passes. Courcelles 18:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

• I'm still considering the requests for discretionary sanctions to be applied to the topic area, while weighing that against the reluctance to expand discretionary sanctions. The article has recent history of instability, and we are adding to the potential of there being increased instability with the removal of restrictions on Andries. There is the same weight of responsibility on admins if we leave matters as they are, or if we grant any of the motions: an infringement on a series of articles can be reported and sanctions applied whatever we decide. Motion Two, however, is the only one that changes the situation from attention on one editor to attention paid where the disruption is most likely to happen: as what we are seeing is that the user has no recent problems outside the topic area, and that the topic area itself is unstable, it appears to me that it may be the topic area that requires attention rather than the user. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

@Tijfo098. Yes, I have been considering semi-protection, and that may well be enough. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.