Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2/Proposed decision

Arbitrators

Arbitrators active on this case

Fred Bauder
Jdforrester
Morven (inactive as of March 1)
Charles Matthews
Raul654 (inactive as of March 1)
SimonP (inactive as of March 1)
UninvitedCompany
Kirill Lokshin
FloNight

New arbitrators inactive on this case

Arbitrators appointed after the case was opened are assumed by default to be recused from cases already open at the time they took office. If an arbitrator becomes active on this case (by declaration or activity), his/her name will be moved to the active list and the majority adjusted accordingly.

Flcelloguy
Paul August
Jpgordon
Blnguyen
~~Essjay~~
Mackensen

Effective March 1 the number of active arbitrators is 6 and the majority is 4. Thatcher131 23:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals to ban Andries for responsible editing

The proposed finding of fact about Andries editing the SSA article states that "His edits to Sathya Sai Baba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) are generally responsible, requesting verification rather than aggressively deleting or reverting." [1] Nevertheless, quite draconian remedies has been proposed against Andries editing of the page: a year-long page ban and an indefinite page ban, both of them supported by some of the same arbs who supported the finding of fact that Andries is and has been editing responsibly.[2] There is also a proposal for a six-month one-revert-rule, but that only enjoys the support of Charles Matthews. I'm supposing that this seemingly paradoxical relationship between fact and remedy has to do with the concern, voiced by Thatcher and Savidan, that if only the egregiously edit warring SSS108 is to be banned from editing the page, it might become slanted according to Andries' acknowledged, and opposite, POV. Thatcher on the article talk page: "I am in a tough spot here. [SSS108's] edit warring and continued personal comments require some response. However, it seems that the only regular editors here have either a strong pro-SSB or strong anti-SSB agenda, and if I block or ban SSS108, I will have to personally watch the article to make sure it doesn't deteriorate into an attack article."[3] Thatcher at this RFAR: "While SSS108 has edit warred, and very little progress has been made in part due to his frequent reversions and personal comments on the talk page, the situation is complicated by the fact that the other regular editors appear to be partisans, making it difficult to take action."[4] Savidan at this RFAR: "I do agree with Thatcher131's concern that merely blocking SSS108 (the most exgregious violator), might result in an article slanted in the other direction."[5]
This is a real problem. But as a reason for preemptively banning Andries from editing the article, it sucks. Justice demands that Andries be treated according to what he has done, not what it's feared he might do. I urge the arbcom to page ban Andries only iff he has done something at Sathya Sai Baba to deserve it, and that, in that case, what he has done be specified as a finding of fact. If he should start to edit the page in a way justifying a ban from it, that is surely covered by the rather clever "Open remedy"? It's not fair or ethical to crush this editor under the wheels of a supposition about future editing—to postulate upcoming edit warring or POV-pushing from him. Not unless there are concrete reasons to believe that he has been editing the page in bad faith. Are there such reasons? I don't see them. Bishonen | talk 16:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Well, keep in mind that you're only looking at one of the findings concerning Andries; there are also two others (4 and 6.2) that are relevant here. Kirill Lokshin 22:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. Yes, I've read them, they're the reason I brought up the hypothetical case that Andries "should start to edit the page in a way justifying a ban from it." It looks like the arbcom has already considered and provided for that contingency, in proposing, and indeed already voting to accept, the "Open remedy". It is only a hypothesis, though. 4 and 6.2 are about Robert Priddy and about outside activism, not about the way Andries has edited Sathya Sai Baba. He has declared a determination to edit Sathya Sai Baba for NPOV. As long as he has been as good as his word, shouldn't he be believed, however provisionally and cautiously? I agree with whoever it was that said Wikipedia is likely to lose his services altogether if either of those bad-faith-assuming bans is enacted. Please be careful of productive long-time contributors. Bishonen | talk 00:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

To say that any of the regular editors did not edit in good faith strikes me as exaggerated. Strong POVs of editors is a more realistic assesment. I do not know what I will do if I get banned from editing the SSB article, apart from advertizing the fact that the arbcom decided to ban an editor that they described as responsible. Andries 06:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also asked some questions to Kirill here [6] Andries 03:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nine active arbitors are listed

So this means five votes for a majority. Why is this case closed with four votes? Andries 17:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Arbitration policy, four net votes are required to close a case. ("Net" means votes supporting closure minus those opposing.) As a practical matter, cases usually are not closed until all the arbitrators who wish to participate have had an opportunity to do so. Newyorkbrad 15:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I object to Your comments on me

I object to Your comments on me. My infobox edis do not violate NPOV and I did not remove relevant links (links critical of Sai Baba have been forbidden by the previous ArbCom). Krystian 12:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification suggestion

I see some places the Implementation Notes may need clarification:

Proposed principles 1 and 1.1 - which is passed? (Same vote count on each)
Proposed findings of fact 5 and 5.1 - which is passed? (Both have majority support, one has one more supporter)
Proposed findings of fact 6.1.1 and 6.2 - are both passed? (looks like it to me

GRBerry 17:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've drafted the clerk's implementation notes, q.v. Of course I would welcome input if I have misread anything. Newyorkbrad 04:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Prior remedies clarified"

Unfortunately, I don't see much clarification on this point.

If Mister X starts an Anti-SSB-Crusade and his Wikipedia article survives AfD, can and should his website www.ssb-eats-little-children-for-lunch.tv be linked in his article? Or are we only linking anti-catholic and anti-jewish hate sites in the articles of their respective enemies?

Pjacobi 10:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who will take over from user:Andries?

There was never a serious editor of Sathya Sai Baba movement except me. I suggest that the arbcom members try to find somebody who will replace me to ensure that the article will be improved after I am gone. Otherwise I think that the decision to ban me will have a negative effect on the encyclopedia. Andries 22:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can take care of the Sathya Sai Baba movement article. Krystian 20:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]