User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 38

Motion to Close (Naming Conventions ArbCom Case)

I noticed the motion to close for this ArbCom case. I hope i'm not too late in asking the ArbCom members actively voting in this case to take a look at this request and consider it before closing the case? Thank you. --`/aksha 10:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Violations of verifiability clause of arbitration in Waldorf education article

Despite a clear warning by clerk Thatcher, PeteK continues to insert sources that violate the verification clause of the arbitration. These include a quote from a Waldorf teacher's Waldorf-published manual as quoted in the Worldnetdaily, and additional Waldorf-published and anthroposophic sources; see the Waldorf education#Lucifer_and_Ahriman section. This appears to be a clear violation of both the spirit and the letter of the verifiability clauses of the arbitration. I have also notified Thatcher, but his talk page announces that he may be too busy to deal with Wikipedia issues for some time. Hgilbert 01:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The section is under discussion. Please join in. Pete K 01:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is the discussion and you will note that editors are on both sides of this issue. This is, once again {sigh} HGilbert's way of shoving his POV down everyone's throats. Other editors are trying to work through the issue but HGilbert is apparently the anonymous editor who has ripped the entire section out while discussions are taking place. A peek at the history of the page indicates that HGilbert has done the most editing and the least discussing of anyone in the past few days - his intention apparently is to frustrate the editors who are actually trying to act on the ArbCom's decisions. Pete K 01:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the arbitration also mentioned the WP:Good faith principle. Hgilbert 10:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Good faith need not be applied when it isn't demonstrated. Ripping out a huge, contested section anonomously doesn't sound like good faith to me. Pete K 14:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The clerk of the arbitration has stated that the material is inappropriate. Why is it still there? Hgilbert 14:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The Lucifer section has been sorted - moved to Anthroposophy as agreed and the disallowed source and associated statement removed. Agreed that only way to add back in info about the teaching in schools of or inspiration of techaers by LUCIFER, is if new sources found. Cheers Lethaniol 22:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Alkalada

Fred, you unblocked this user to give him a second chance. I was requested at my talk page to re-block him, and saw that you had unblocked him. I'm loathe to re-block him without consulting with you. I'd like for you to take a look at his contributions since you unblocked him. He has returned to contentious editing, violating the spirit of WP:3RR and acting very much as he did before. Have a look at [1] and observe, for example, his contentious editing and revert warring on Bosnia and Herzegovina. This editor has not reformed his ways. I recommend he be re-blocked indefinitely. --Durin 13:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Please... for gods sake... I have put source on my articles havent I?

And During, it isnt me who are using vandalism, it is Ivan. I am begging you Durin and Fred, that you block Ivan because it is him who is making vandalism. This is so unfair, please... I put up sourced articles and he is taking it away. How can it be me who are using vandalism?

How??????

Please.. this is so unfair, I am begging you to look at justice and block Ivan.

Please!!! I put sources and he is taking them away. This is so unfair. Alkalada 14:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Fred, I really want you to check at Ivans contribution and you will see that he is taking away sources articles on Bosnia and Herzegovina pages, and he is writing that Vladimir Prelog is a Croatian chemist. How can somebody born in Bosnia be Croatian? He can be a croat, but not Croatian. And he said that Bosnia never been a modern state? How? Bosnia was an independent kingdom before 1500!

Please... look at his contribution and then block him for constant vandalism. Alkalada 15:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Okey, I said to Durin that I will write on talk page before I edit and put source on the talk page and reason for editing and so on...

I think this is okey. Alkalada 15:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is Alkalada seems to have reverted back to the same sort of editing that got him blocked as Hahahihihoho. Basically POV edit warring and calling it "reverting vandalism". I'm not familiar with the ArbCom case here, but I've run across Hahahihihoho before and honestly it doesn't appear he has learned anything. The fact that Ivan Kricancic appears incapable of using talkpages to discuss edits and likes to call content disputes "vandalism" doesn't absolve Hahahihihoho... it just means his conduct should probably be reviewed too. I'm going to close the WP:SOCK case because it is pretty clear that Alkalada is a sock, but I'm leaving it to you and Bishonen to decide what to do with him as you've got more history here.--Isotope23 15:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There's some interchange between myself and Alkalada at User_talk:Durin#User:Alkalada. --Durin 15:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've closed the sockpuppet case without a finding that he is a sock, just that he is Hahahihihoho. Regardless, I'm not nearly familiar enough with the situation that I was comfortable issuing a block here myself.--Isotope23 16:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Questions related to Wikipedia Policies

Hi Fred,

I saw that, you have added me to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2. I will give a detailed explanation related to my edits very soon in the /Workshop page. I have been very busy lately with my personal stuff. Also, I would like to add that I had discussed about these edits nearly a month in Thatcher’s page, also had detailed discussion with Andries related to these edits, before changing the article. There is a whole section of discussions related to these edits in *User talk:Thatcher131/SSB.I have 2 important questions related to wikipedia policy. Please could you answer these 2 questions related to wikipedia policy.

1) Can an editor add a reference in the article of biography of living person just because the reference was published in a newspaper but the reference does not make any sense or it raises questions like this cannot be true as it sounds ridiculous or there is something fishy or wrong here?. Can such reference be challenged?

No, it must be established, using sound editorial judgement, whether the source is reliable. That is an appropriate subject for discussion on the talk page of the article. Another problem is that an otherwise sound article may contain information from an unreliable source. Fred Bauder 20:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

2) Can an editor add a reference by naïve author who has no clue or knowledge on the subject he is talking about or gives his ridiculous perspective on the subject?

Again, such a reference would not be reliable. Fred Bauder 20:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What is Wikipedia’s policy on such references?

Wikipedia:Reliable sources, based on Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Fred Bauder 20:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have seen a general rules under Wikipedia: Biographies of living persons” which states "We must get the article right. [1] Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives.". Please, can you help with the policies related to references / claims which are ridiculous and makes no sense or by naïve authors. Thanks. Wikisunn 22nd January 2007

It is quite likely that we disagree profoundly regarding who is naive or what makes no sense, but I will certainly do my best. For example, if a government has not investigated repeated charges of sexual assault, its spokesmen are not a reliable source regarding the truth of the charges. Fred Bauder 20:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point a few things. Unlike other editors who refers to websites for information on Sai Baba I am going to present to you real facts, truths about Sai Baba and supporting proofs. Most of the editors, administrators and arbitrators involved in this discussion don’t know much about Sai Baba as they have not seen Sai Baba or visited him. The only source of information related to Sai Baba is mostly views of critics on Sai Baba. Then how can we be sure what are real facts vs. incorrect facts, truth Vs blatant lies. Here is an example.

1) The wikipedia article on Sai Baba says as follows “The Guardian further expressed concerns over a contingent of 200 youths travelling to the Baba's ashram in order to gain their Duke of Edinburgh Awards. “ – this refers to the awards for the work performed by Sai Youths UK in 2006.

Real facts about Sai Baba:

Sathya Sai Baba is 81 years old. In 2003, he fell broke his hips and since then he has had multiple injuries. Since 2004, Sathya Sai Baba cannot even walk a few steps on his own, he is physically handicapped cannot move with out assistance or support and is using Wheel Chair and golf cart to move around. Anybody who has visited his ashram since 2004 will know this fact.

If we look at the real facts Vs claims by Guardian - any unbiased person can see these claims by Guardian of accusing Sai Baba are blatant lies. The fact that Sai Baba is a very elderly physically disabled person who cannot even move around with out help, itself proves that the above accusation is a lie. This is one such example of blatant lies in this article. There are several other incorrect references and bias through out the article as it was mainly written by a critic of Sai Baba.

I will discuss such references in detail either in workshop so that all administrators and arbitrators can see or in any talk page. The advantage for critics of Sai Baba is that, since most of the people involved are in the other end of world, cannot verify their claims, they can say anything they want and get away with it.

Every Year Sai Followers are increasing in India, Why?:

Unlike the West, where people have to go to website to find out about Sai Baba, Sai Followers in India can just visit Parthi (Baba's Ashram) any time they want, visit Baba's schools and colleges, talk with students / ex-students, teachers and find the truth for themselves. I know some of the Sai followers (India) on a personal level. Many of these followers’ children or relative's children or friends study in Sathya Sai Baba's school and colleges. These students have alot of admiration and respect for Sai Baba. He guides them in their studies, encourages them to do well in Sports. The ex-students from these Sai institutes speak regularly in Sai retreats praising Sai Baba and they have denied all these allegations on Sai Baba. These are the people who passed out of Sai Baba educational institutes after studying there for several years. I can provide a lot of proofs related to this. Wikisunn 22nd January 2007

Deng

And he's what? Deserved an appeal because he keeps on violating policy? His block has been upheld by numerous admins as you can see from my talk page and Deng's as well as AN and AN/I. Even those who at first wanted to be lenient (like Alex) have upheld it. Don't understand the unlimited chances. I've never seen a user get so many. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 19:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Guidance

Re: Starwood Arb

I implore the arbitrators who have not recused themselves in this case to please give some direction in the Starwood Arb, or at least a timeline of when they will be able to deliberate. It quite literally has devolved into a Lord of the Flies scenario on the evidence and workshop pages, and the wikilawyering, off-topic diatribes and verbosity are making it difficult to make heads or tails of what is going on. I am not trying to impose upon the process, I am just asking for some feedback & order. - WeniWidiWiki 17:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I assumed as much. Thanks for letting me know. - WeniWidiWiki 17:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the check user. Whether it was the user in question or not, someone has figured out how to use Tor open-proxies and is engaging in harassment of the participants of the Starwood Arb, in earnest. - WeniWidiWiki 05:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

SSB request

Fred, I know you are busily reviewing the SSB arbitration. I would like to point you to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Workshop#Robert_Priddy_edit_war, which is what brought the case to my attention originally. Part of the problem is that admin Pjacobi and I have completely different interpretations of the remedy in the prior case (in good faith I'm sure), and the clarification offered by Uninvited is not actually very helpful. Robert Priddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) degenerated into an edit war again over how much of Priddy's views of SSB (largely self published personal experience) can be properly included in that article. I have protected the page pending the outcome of this case, but a more strenuous clarification of the previous remedy would be appreciated. Thatcher131 18:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Fred. Thanks. Regarding remedy 4, The remedies at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba regarding poorly sourced information remain in force and apply to all editors working on the Sathya Sai Baba article, would you be willing to clarify that this also applies to articles related to Sathya Sai Baba, including articles about SSB and inclusion of the SSB movement in other articles? And would you be willing to discuss, perhaps on the talk page, why the SSB attack sites are off limits but sites like xenu.de are not (per Pjacobi's comments in the case)? Or alternately to clarify that Priddy's attack site is an acceptable reference and external link for the article about Priddy. Thanks either way. Thatcher131 08:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that Fred may need some more time to think of a good reason why the near-universally accepted practice on Wikipedia of linking to the homepages of maintained and authored by the subject in question does not apply on the article Robert Priddy. Such a decision would introduce a novel justification and principle to Wikipedia. Whatever the novel justification and principle will be, I hope that it will be applied consistently and fairly throughout Wikipedia, which is something I find lacking now. Andries 02:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Relief

Hello again, Fred. As you may or may not have noticed, Wikipedia administrator FeloniousMonk has now carried out his threat to insert into the article Christopher Michael Langan certain defamatory falsehoods provided by certain self-identified involved parties. As you'll recall, I apprised you of this threat long ago - see the article's talk page - and requested that the article be locked (for reasons not yet clear to me, you declined to do so). Unsurprisingly, almost every sentence of the section "Mega Society Lawsuit" contains at least one false and/or defamatory allegation.

Rather than going through the falsehoods one by one, I'll simply point out that (1) this entire insertion is highly inaccurate on numerous counts, thus violating WP:V; (2) the sources are mainly self-published by non-notable involved parties and therefore not reliable, thus violating WP:RS (the "decision" and "judgment" are relevant to none of Langan's works, beliefs, major activities, affiliations, or accomplishments, but only to three URL's legitimately owned and employed by a nonprofit Foundation which receives only a passing mention in the body of the article, and which bears no substantive resemblance to the group allegedly "owned" by the litigants); and (3) the insertion is biographically irrelevant, openly defamatory (even containing what appears to be a libelous charge of plagiarism despite the absence of that term from the personal self-published web page being passed off as its source), and thoroughly violates WP:BLP, a very important policy here at Wikipedia which helps keep it on the right side of the ethical fence. Obviously, this situation is something that no conscientious, well-meaning Wikipedia arbitrator or administrator, hopefully including you, would allow.

Obviously, the misinformation in question needs to be removed. Since, in your capacity as a member of the ArbCom, you inexplicably tied the hands of the only two people with the will and the knowledge to insure the article's accuracy, the responsibility to protect this article from administrative miscreants would seem to fall to you and your fellow ArbCom members. In other words, the article should be reverted to an acceptable form and locked against the vandals and wayward administrators who have periodically attacked it over the last six and a half months. (Of course, if you would prefer to reverse your restrictions on DrL and me so that we can set things right ourselves - after all, I edited the article only two or three times in very benign and innocuous ways over the course of many months, and DrL's edits were a model of accuracy, neutrality, and reliable sourcing - then that would be acceptable to us as well, barring further abuses of administrative authority tending to neutralize corrections and further corrupt the article. This would offer the further ethical advantage of tending to mitigate any damage that might occur to our reputations and nonprofit endeavors from future defamatory attacks of the kind to which we have been recurrently subjected here.)

Thank you for your prompt attention to this urgent matter. Asmodeus 19:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

One More Time

I see that you've taken my complaint to the article's talk page. Yet, under the conditions you and your fellow arbitrators have set, the article's talk page is clearly not a fit place to deal with the problems about which I'm complaining; DrL and I have already registered our objections there at length, but were ignored. Therefore, I'll try one more time to clarify the situation for you on your talk page. (Sorry about the length, but you need to be properly informed of what's going on here.)

(1) The action which resulted in the judgment to which Wikipedia has knowingly linked was filed without proper notification of the defendants, and consequently, the judgment contains numerous allegations that were never challenged during the proceedings. That is, their veracity was never fairly tested in court. The litigants, i.e. those who sued the defendants in a local court over three thousand miles away from them using personal funds, claimed to have sent notification to the defendants by ordinary mail, but receipt was never acknowledged. Nevertheless, on the strength of a loophole in California civil law, the court gullibly accepted the litigants' word that proper notification was delivered. It also accepted at face value numerous other false allegations which can be easily disproved by anyone with access to the relevant material, not all of which has been posted to the Internet. The subsequent ICANN decision, while referring to this spurious judgment, variously ignores, overrides, or takes for granted its specific claims, and thus fails to corroborate them in any way.

Yes, I did practice law. Good point. Fred Bauder 00:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

(2) The judgment has now been deliberately fed to Wikipedia administrators by admittedly involved parties and/or their confederates for what seem to be defamatory purposes related to those of the action itself. This has evidently been done in retribution for the deletion, three times in close succession, of a Wikipedia article about a group which the litigants now claim to "own", evidently a bitter disappointment for which they appear to blame Mr. Langan (who had nothing whatsoever to do with it, and clearly wants nothing whatsoever to do with them).

(3) Wikipedia, acting through its administrators, has now linked to the judgment and repeated its false allegations in clear violation of Wikipedia's own policies on such matters (e.g., WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV). The administrator who posted the link openly admits that the allegations contained in that judgment make "the two Langans come off as shameless self-promotors [sic] not above spinning facts to suit their causes", thus confessing his/her disparaging intent. (To my knowledge, all of the major periodicals and networks which covered the Langans contacted them to request interviews, never vice versa; that's how it usually works. Aside from that, their "self-promotion" consisted mainly of attempting to provide the group now allegedly "owned" by the litigants with free web facilities, no strings attached, as part of a community-wide project established by the independent charitable foundation on whose board they serve. That's why they acquired the domain names that were later transferred, and kept those which were not.) {Yes, shaky source Fred Bauder 00:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC) (4) Rather than allowing the libeled parties to correct falsehoods in the article, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee has tied their hands on what seems to be a discriminatory basis, thus preventing them from doing so. This implies that the top governing body of Wikipedia condones the actions of the administrator who is now trumpeting the false allegations in the San Diego judgment and other false allegations accepted from the accusers themselves, and has decided in its infinite wisdom not only to support these allegations, but to reiterate and broadcast them using the charitably-funded resources of the Wikipedia Project even after being duly informed of their spurious nature.

I think our decision was Ok. Fred Bauder 00:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It is the practice of most well-intentioned nonprofit foundations to avoid gratuitous involvement in disputes of this kind. Indeed, Wikipedia has numerous policies seemingly designed to prevent it, and if properly enforced, they might very well work. Unfortunately, you do not seem to want to enforce them in this case. Nevertheless, I'm still trying to get you to deal with this problem within the bounds set by the Wikipedia community, without any further scapegoating or tortuous twisting of well-established Wikipedia policies. (Obviously, since the false and damaging claims of these litigious people have been admitted to Wikipedia not by DrL and me, but by the administrative bureaucracy of Wikipedia itself - which now seems to be acting with some degree of coherence in this regard - blaming or penalizing us for any resultant problems, or claiming that we have made any legal or other threats, would be unfair and dishonest. For the record, we are merely asking you, once again, to do the right thing and remove defamatory and ill-sourced material from a Wikipedia article in which it clearly has no place.)

I'm thinking about it. It is a biography of a living person. Fred Bauder 00:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that you and your fellow administrators/arbitrators can somehow bring yourselves to deal with this problem in a benign and impartial way, within the spirit and letter of Wikipedia policy. If you cannot, and instead insist on (e.g.) trying to make the problem disappear by inciting or encouraging the deletion of a biography article on someone who has probably received more reputable press coverage than the large majority of Wikipedia biography subjects, then that will have to be your own decision. But in any case, as most of those who support and charitably fund the Wikipedia Project understand it, Wikipedia does not exist for the purpose of inserting itself into disputes manufactured by litigious parties and/or their associates for their personal advantage and/or revenge, or allowing such parties to prosecute their contentious claims in its supposedly encyclopedic articles. As I'm sure you'll agree, failing to deal with this problem in a fair, decisive, and above-board way would not be in the best long-term interests of the Wikipedia Project or the public.

I have absolutely no control over articles for deletion. Much that I think ought to be in, is out. A biography of a living person should have a sober tone and be well-sourced. Fred Bauder 00:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, thank you for your careful consideration. Asmodeus 23:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

ANI report

Hi Fred - I request your attention on this ANI report, as it concerns a serious issue regarding Wikipedians posting comments about Wiki-issues and users on other web-forums. Rama's arrow (3:16) 00:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

RfC regarding statements originating in an affidavit

Hi, Fred. Earlier you gave me some valuable feedback regarding primary sources and RS. I now have an RfC going on a somewhat related matter. Don't know if you have time for something so mundane, but it would be great to get a sense for what constitutes RS. Thanks! [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TimidGuy (talk • contribs) 12:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Request to Fred

Hi Fred, I know that you are very busy and I was wondering if you had a chance to look at my discussions related to my edits. I have discussed my edits in detail in /Workshop on the 24th January 2007. I also saw in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2/Proposed decision on 23rd January about blocking me from editing in wikipedia. I request you to reconsider your decision, as I think it is unfair to me.

I am a new user. I agree my statements in the past such as "Only those authors / webmasters whose claims match with the realities happening in Sai Baba's ashram can alone be considered as reliable sources." were incorrect and should have been phrased better. At that time, I did not know what correct wikipedia policies to quote related to these claims. All I wanted to say or convey is that the related claims from the article (discussed in Thatcher's page) are against sound editorial judgement, non reliable or poorly sourced. Now that I know what wikipedia policies to quote related to these claims and I would rephrase my above statement as "Wikipedia stresses on getting things right and using high standard correct references and these claims are poorly sourced, and is against sound editorial judgemant and are not reliable".

Also unlike other editors, I don't have any attack websites on the internet or involve myself in attacking other editors. I have a single account in wikipedia. Also my discussions with other editors have been very civil. Actually I should say I was very surprised at that proposed decision as I have not broken any wikipedia rules. I think I need a fair judgement. From next time, I will quote wikipedia policies better. I would also like to point out that I discussed my edits with other editors before making changes to the article. I really don't understand why I should be blocked from editing in wikipedia. Also, I would like to contribute to other topics in wikipedia related to politics, computer science and other religions. They are my other interest. But unfortunately so far, I have not had enough time. But I am planning to make an active contribution to these in future in wikipedia articles. Wikisunn 26th January 2007

Wikisunn, you broke Wikipedia policies when you removed well-sourced information only because this information did not fit into your belief system or world view, or understanding of Hinduism. The well-sourced information regarding Shiva Shakti that you removed was sourced to 1994 Nagel's University press article. Andries 20:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but note that this user has 50 plus minus edits. There is no need to bite the newbies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I might suggest banning Wikisunn from SSB articles for 2-3 months, during which time he is encouraged to get experience editing other types of articles. After that, probation regarding edits to SSB articles allowing an admin to reimpose the article ban if he hasn't figure it out. Thatcher131 21:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I had repeatedly and politely explained the flaw in Wikisunn's reasoning so I did not bite the newbies. In addition, the one-revert parole makes the article very vulnerable for bad edits by newcomers. Andries 21:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Andries, the claim by Nagel and Keith Ord, about Sai Baba changing from Male to female form and back to Male from one instance to another to have sex is ridiculous and does not make sense. It is against sound editorial judgement. Also, it is described with the most obscene description of details. I have discussed about this is, even in the /Workshop, I will wait for comment from administrators and arbitrators about this issue and other references related to the Sai Baba article, I raised in the worshop, since we don’t seem to agree on these contradictory questionable claims. By the way, this is not the venue for our arguments. I am not going to start pointing out what policies you broke in wikipedia. Every editor who thinks that such claims are questionable can challenge them and ask questions about them. You should be ready to answer as you included these reference in the article. You cannot be closed to discussions related to this. Then we can never arrive at a solution.

Wikisunn 26th January 2007

I admit of course that this claim is exceptional, but it is sourced to multiple reliable sources, so it can and should be included, regardless if you consider it ridiculous. I can add more reliable sources. Do not ask me for an opinion or explanation about this matter, because I do not have any. Andries 21:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comments seem to be based on the flawed assumption that I should give explanations for the statements made in reputable source before they can be included in the article. I do not think that I have such responsibility. Wikipedia only reports what reputable sources state. (In this case the reputable sources state something that I know to be true due to my association with the SSB movement.) Again, I cannot give an explanation and I do not have to. Andries 21:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC) amended grammar

You yourself agreed it is an exceptional claim, there is nothing wrong if some body challenges such claims or questions such a claim. Since, we don’t agree on this controversial claim. I suggest we should wait for comments from administrators and arbitrators about this claim.

Wikisunn 26th January 2007

It is wrong and against policy to remove a claim from the article when it sourced to multiple reliable sources, even if the claim is exceptional. I do not think that the arbcom members will pay detailed attention to your verbose writings. Sources are important. Personal theories about a subject are irrelevant. Andries 22:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I really don't understand what is your problem about taking / implementing suggestions from administrators and arbitrators regarding this exceptional claim. There is no point in these endless arguments between you and me. Obviously we don't agree on this. Have some patience and wait for their comments on this issue.

Wikisunn 26th January 2007

Arbcom members generally do not make contents decision. This has to be done between regular contributors who engage in reasonable debate and discusion with knowledge of and reference to the applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines. SSS108 makes the same mistake in this respect as you; he seems to think that admins and arbcom should take a decision about contents even before such discussion has taken place. No wonder that the article went twice to the arbcom. Andries 22:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikisunn, I think you are 100% wrong in the case of removing the information about the sex change, because it is sourced to multiple reliable sources and hence mine and your personal opinion about the sex change is irrelevant. Andries 22:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Question to Administrators: Jossi, Thatcher and Fred

You would have all seen these on going discussions between Andries and me. This is a perfect example. Even something as simple as taking a suggestion from a third party (like administrator or arbitrator) on a contradictory claim not agreed upon, is not acceptable to Andries. Obviously we don't agree and can go arguing forever. How do you expect editors like me to work with Andries, if he cannot agree on something as simple as this? He is persistent, POV pushing, does not agree to other editors view or suggestions. Every single discussion is made very difficult. What is your suggestion? Wikisunn 26th January 2007

When there are insurmountable differences between editors, we rely on our dispute resolution process: (a) Informal mediation; (b) discuss with third parties; (c)formal mediation; and at last resort, Arbitration (which this is the second time for this article and involved editors.) You are new to Wikipedia, so you may be at an advantage as you have not pursued the dispute resolution process that other editors such as SS108 and Andries have already exhausted. The ArbCom is now evaluating how to address this long-time dispute, so I would suggest you read carefully what they have to say, and apply yourself to edit within our content policies. Fine tunning your editing skills and your knowledge of our policies by editing other articles, will not only help you, but will also demonstrate to the community that you care about the project and not just about one specific article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is unlikely that a compromise can be reached in this case by dispute resolution, because removing a claim sourced to multiple reliable sources, only because this claim does not fit into the belief system of an editor is a big no no in Wikipedia. Wikisunn has not given any reason refering to Wikipedia policies or guidelines why this information should be removed. Andries 16:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that I fully understand the dispute about SSB turning into a woman and back into a man. I can imagine a good source for claims that he did, but not a good source for actually doing it. Fred Bauder 16:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The claim of SSB's instantenous sex change is backed up by multiple reliable sources, so that is why I vehemently oppose Wikisunn's repeated removal of this claim. I have more reliable sources on request. Please do not ask me for an explanation or an opinion, because I do not have any. I only know that the men who make these testimonies about SSB's sex change are many and sincere. Andries 17:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Andries, all I am asking you is discuss this reliable sources with everybody (Administrators and Arbitrators). Let them then decide whether these sources and this exceptional claim is reliable. I don't really understand your problem with discussing this issue with every body (administrators and arbitrators).

Wikisunn 27th January 2007

Admins and arbitrators can read the talk:Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 17:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope you will be more specific than that. Talk Page has several discussions going on. Can you specify where you have discussed this claim of Sai Baba changing from male to female in the talk page like under what heading.

Wikisunn 27th January 2007

Okay, but I need some time to find it. You are the first one to make an issue about it, so there is not much discussion, only some translations from Dutch verified by other contributors. Andries 18:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This means you added exceptional claims in the Sathya Sai Baba article in the first place, with out discussing it first with other editors. Now When I ask for reliable sources, you are not able to give them. Also it has not been discussed in Talk Page. Why is it that you follow different rules from other editors? Every editor who wants to add controversial claims has to first discuss it with every body. How are you an exception to the rule?

Wikisunn 27th January 2007

I think there was nothing to discuss then because I was the only serious editor of the article and in addition there is no need to discuss first well-sourced additions before making them. The reputable sources are Alexandra Nagel's 1994 university press De Sai Pardoxarticle. Several of Piet Vroon's articles in de Volkskrant. The article De wonderdoener by Piet van der Eijk. 31/1/1992, pp. 46-50. The book Avatar of the Night by Tal Brooke and book Liefdeslogica by Helena Klitsie. Andries 18:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

As you said yourself you were the only serial editor, you could almost add anything to the article with out questioning from other editors. I think that's all the more reason on why we have to take this exceptional claim and even other claims in the article into discussion to see how reliable these sources are? And see what third party(administrators and arbitrators) comment on such exceptional claims.

Wikisunn 27th January 2007

The reputability of Nagel's 1994 university press article has already been extensively discussed in mediation and found to be reliable. See WP:RS#Scholarship and User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Nagel_as_source. Andries 18:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, in the mediation with BostonMA I did not see any discussion about this particular exceptional claim of Sai Baba changing from Male to female form. The whole discussion between you and me is about this particular exceptional claim of Sai Baba changing from male to female for having sex. As Fred mentioned before, there is no good source to prove that Sai Baba actually did this. Again Wikipedia is about getting things right and publishing references with high standards in the biography of living persons.

Wikisunn 28th January 2007

The entry Sathya Sai Baba never stated as a fact that SSB could change from a man to a woman. Again, the claim that SSB changed from a man to woman is sourced to multiple reliable sources and so removal of it as you did on the basis of you personal beliefs is unacceptable and a violation of Wikipedia policies. Andries 06:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I see a lot of inconsistencies in your statements in this ongoing discussion between you and me about this exceptional claim. On Friday You agreed that it is an exceptional claim and that you are not willing for a third party resolution on this. Then on Saturday, when I questioned you why you are not willing on third party resolution. You asked everybody to see the talk page discussion. When I said I could not find any discussion related to this claim. Then you agreed there is not much discussion related to this claim and you need more time. After that on Sunday you sent a mediation link about discussion on Nagel and wanted to add this exceptional claim which still does not justify this claim. If you keep changing your statements from time to time that really does not justify why we should include this claim in the article. Be sincere, either accept a third party resolution on this issue by administrators and arbitrators who will find if the claim is reliable or don’t keep pushing POV and force your decisions on others. Pushing your POV does not justify this claim. I don't think there is any use in arguing over this again and again if you are not willing for a third party resolution.

Wikisunn 28th January 2007