all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

• Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
• Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
• Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if they so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, no arbitrators are recused and 2 are inactive, so 7 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Place those on /Workshop.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that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

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 15:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Charles Matthews 13:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
5. James F. (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC) reply
6. ➥the Epopt 00:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 15:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Charles Matthews 13:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
5. James F. (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC) reply
6. ➥the Epopt 00:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

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

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

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 15:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Charles Matthews 13:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
5. James F. (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC) reply
6. ➥the Epopt 00:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 15:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Charles Matthews 13:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
5. James F. (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC) reply
6. ➥the Epopt 00:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 15:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Charles Matthews 13:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
5. James F. (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC) reply
6. ➥the Epopt 00:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 15:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Charles Matthews 13:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
5. James F. (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC) reply
6. ➥the Epopt 00:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply

   SimonP 15:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply

2. Charles Matthews 13:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. "Guru" is too poorly defined, and this seems biased against followers of Eastern religions. What about Catholics and the Pope, Christians and Jesus, Hassids and their Rebbes, etc.? Will propose something more general below. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
2. See below. James F. (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. ➥the Epopt 00:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Per James. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. SimonP 18:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC) reply

7.1) You should be particularly cautious when editing an article about a person you consider to be your current or former religious leader. If you cannot abide strictly by Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research, then you should avoid editing such articles.

Support:

1. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
2. But could be more general. "For whom you have a strong emotional regard"? James F. (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 23:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC) reply
4. ➥the Epopt 00:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Noting and agreeing with Charles and James. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Well, you should also. But what is lost here is the disciple relationship. Substituting, in effect, 'leader' for 'teacher' makes a big difference here, I think. Charles Matthews 22:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

8) If a user has made their real name freely available either on Wikipedia or on a personal website which they have linked to [1], it is not an offense if they are referred to by that name by other users, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_user:Will_Beback and http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/joe-gerald-moreno.html.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 15:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Not as such. Charles Matthews 13:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
5. James F. (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC) reply
6. ➥the Epopt 00:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 15:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Charles Matthews 13:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
5. James F. (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC) reply
6. ➥the Epopt 00:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Per Simon. James F. (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC) reply
2. ➥the Epopt 00:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Not as a general principle. Depends on the case. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. This is true in certain cases, but in others multiple pages give a much better picture of the subject. That we have 37 pages on the Indian Ocean tsunami is unquestionably useful. It is not a set fact that more articles lead to a degredation in quality and focus. - SimonP 15:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Charles Matthews 13:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. It all depends... Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Per Simon. James F. (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC) reply
2. ➥the Epopt 00:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. per Simon. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. It is important that we don't confuse the external link and the referencing rules. The external link guidelines are intended to prevent spam in the external links section of an article. They do not apply to, and should not be confused with, the rules concerning referencing. If one has or is involved with a website that can be considered a reliable source, it can and should be used as a reference. For instance, if am an editor at the Journal of American History, I should not be banned from referencing that journal. This case seems far more to be a matter of using unrelibale references rather than a matter of link spamming. SimonP 15:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Charles Matthews 13:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Per above. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 15:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Charles Matthews 13:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
5. James F. (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC) reply
6. ➥the Epopt 00:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) The locus of this dispute is the allegedly biased editing of Andries ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to Sathya Sai Baba and related articles, see User:SSS108/Andries POV Pushing. Andries is a former disciple of Sathya Sai Baba, a popular Indian Guru. A subsidiary issue is the editing of others to those articles, particularly that of SSS108 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an advocate of the guru.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 15:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Charles Matthews 13:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
5. James F. (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC) reply
6. ➥the Epopt 00:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 15:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Charles Matthews 13:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
5. James F. (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC) reply
6. ➥the Epopt 00:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply
2. In this case I would agree that the profusion of articles has caused problems. SimonP 15:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Charles Matthews 13:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
5. James F. (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC) reply
6. ➥the Epopt 00:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 15:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Charles Matthews 13:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
5. James F. (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC) reply
6. ➥the Epopt 00:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

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

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Content decision. James F. (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC) reply
2. ➥the Epopt 00:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Content decision. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. I would agree that this is a good idea, but merging is a content issue. - SimonP 15:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Charles Matthews 13:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Content. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Though note there is an important difference between a link and a reference. SimonP 15:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Charles Matthews 13:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
5. James F. (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC) reply
6. ➥the Epopt 00:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Though note there is an important difference between a link and a reference. SimonP 15:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Charles Matthews 13:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
5. James F. (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC) reply
6. ➥the Epopt 00:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. The say-so of one admin is really not enough to justify hacking about the whole history. What is more delete/restore with selective box-checking could be more appropriate. Charles Matthews 13:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Per Charles. James F. (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. ➥the Epopt 00:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
4. This may be a good idea but not a decision for this Committee. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. This is an issue of growing importance for the encyclopedia, and I think we need a fixed policy in this area created by the Foundation and the community. There are too many grey areas and potential pitfalls for the ArbCom to simply dictate policy in this area. - SimonP 15:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 15:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Charles Matthews 13:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
5. In general, implied, but doesn't hurt. James F. (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC) reply
6. ➥the Epopt 00:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

• The majority for this case is 7.
• Principles: all pass 7-0 except 7, 7.1, 10 and 11 which fail.
• Findings: all pass 7-0.
• Remedies: 2, 3 and 5 pass 7-0. All others fail
• Enforcement: no separate enforcement clause.

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

1. Looks like everything that is going to pass has. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Close Fred Bauder 16:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Close. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Close. - SimonP 00:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply