Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2/Workshop

Weblinks to sites which are considered defamatory, libelous and/or illegal in some jurisdiction

I'm in this Arb case to get it decided one way or the other, whether it is OK to give the link to a person's or organization's website in its article, even if the site is considered defamatory, libelous and/or illegal in some jurisdiction. See also my arguments at Talk:Robert Priddy.

Extreme cases would be stormfront.org and the Zundelsite (which are linked in their artickes), nearer to these case are sites set up by ex-members and other enemies of NRMs, like http://home.chello.no/~reirob/ run by Robert Priddy and http://www.xenu.de run by Tilman Hausherr -- or for an all arounf smear campaign against everybody not in the true church, http://www.chick.com run by Jack Chick.

Obviously (I hope) that doesn't mean treating these sites as reliable sources or giving these weblinks on the article pages of the attacked religions (but sadly noting, that chick.com is given rather often as a weblink and xenu.de is used a source for articles).

I don't have a formulation at hand right, now, so I just state it here on talk.

Pjacobi 19:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Off-Wikipedia activities

I think that extensively describing off-Wikipedia activities by parties, such as postings on yahoo group sathyasaibaba2 is an off-topic digression. By the way, I only posted with one userid there i.e. andrieskd. posts by me on yahoo group sathyasaibaba2 Andries 20:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to think the same, and cannot see how this is related to this ArbCom case. Referencing past activity off-Wikipedia as "proof" that I am an unreliable POV-editor is not supported by my edit history on the article. I submit that discussion of off-Wikipedia related activities only give SSS108 and associated parties an opportunity to make a host of irrelevant arguments that have extremely little to do with the remit of this ArbCom case.

This is similar to accusations by SSS108 against Andries that occurred in mediation (here, there may be more), which supports my contention that SSS108 is only here to further off-Wiki vendettas against his opponents. This is going horribly off-topic, especially since we need to keep reminding ourselves that it was SSS108's bad behaviour (48-hour block) that led to the opening of this ArbCom case. Ekantik ^talk 05:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see a problem with internet activists bringing their fight here more and more often (not just this case but many others) and I don't think we yet know quite how to deal with it. We assume that everyone is here in good faith and just needs to have the rules explained (no original research, no personal attacks, etc). Is that a reasonable assumption to make about someone who is deeply invested—personally, psychologically and financially—in bringing others into disrepute?

I started thinking about this issue when SSS108 said to me something like, "How can I work with someone on wikipedia who writes such things about me on their blog." (Obviously, many of you could say the same thing.) I wonder how well someone is likely to adapt to Wikipedia who has hundreds or thousands of hours invested in a kind of internet advocacy (blogging, attack web sites) that is totally counter to Wikipedia's way of doing things—how much time and how many chances does someone get before we decide he or she just isn't compatible here. I would also like the committee to consider the impact on Wikipedia of blogs that directly criticize the editing behavior of other users. (A blog that says "Joe Smith is a liar" is one thing; a blog that says "Joe Smith added lies to SSB's wikipedia entry" might be a problem. I would like the committee members to look at the interaction between Ektanik and SSS108. SSS108 says Ektanik has written some pretty nasty things about him on Ektanik's blogs. Ektanik says, well that was before I joined Wikipedia. SSS108 says that's not true. Even if it is true, is it reasonable to require that SSS108 pretend it never happened? The same questions apply to any pair of editors here: Ektanik vs Freelanceresearch, SSS108 vs Andries, SSS108 vs Priddy, and so on.

Of course, the committee may completely ignore these issues. They haven't commented since I offered the proposals. We'll have to wait and see. Thatcher131 06:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that everything will be clarified when I submit my evidence. I was not able to submit it before due to pressing real-life issues that prevented me from participating in an exhausting ArbCom case, but I hope it will be considered when I post it very soon. At the very least I will be providing a clear analysis of SSS108's claim that I am "attacking" his edits on Wikipedia. For now I'll say that it is a horrible distortion. And for the record, the "pretty nasty things" on blogs are mainly sourced to SSS108; if I have written anything "nasty" then it is mainly in response to the false and untrue allegation. Even if I do say so myself, I don't think I've been nearly as nasty as certain other people, but like I say I'm wondering if all this is really within the remit of Wikipedia. As I see it, the problem lies with SSS108's extremely long history as a disruptive and hostile editor. Since I am relatively new to the debate I present an obvious distraction which shouldn't distract from the longer ongoing issues that haven't been resolved since the first ArbCom case. Ekantik ^talk 07:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher131, I think that criticizing the editing behavior of contributors in Wikipedia is both inside and outside Wikipedia completely okay. Of course, I am aware that there are restrictions in Wikipedia when criticizing the editing behavior of other contributors, such as not using inflammatory language and assuming good faith, but there are no such restrictions outside of Wikipedia. Andries 10:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, because this will give SSS108 an opportunity to use Wikipedia as a tool to spread slander and defamation about SSB-critics, some of which may be legally actionable. Please note, this is not a legal threat. I asked Thatcher to get in touch with me by on-wiki email ~~(since I do not know how to contact him)~~ but he hasn't done so, to discuss the ramifications that may be caused if off-Wiki activites are discussed here and especially slanders and defamations made against me by SSB-supporters.

I joined Wikipedia because I admire the ideals of the project and to contribute to its knowledge base. I did not join Wikipedia to have my name slandered with impunity by obviously malicious opponents in an ArbCom case that hardly involves me as a "heavy" editor and I strongly object to these topics being discussed that have next-to-zero relevance to on-Wiki editing. This is already going off on a tangent and I think it is incongruent that the behaviour of editors who have helped the SSB-article is discussed more than the behaviour of editors who have harmed the SSB-article. Ekantik ^talk 03:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, I just found out how to contact users by email. Ekantik ^talk 03:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Connection problems

I would like to inform all parties, clerks and arbitrators that I an currently suffering connection problems at home, and cannot access the Internet for more than a couple of hours from the local cybercafe/library. I hope this will be taken into account if further contributions from myself are short. In the meantime I have presented a partial list of Evidence at the evidence page. This will need to be updated with more information about SSS108's disruptive editing, Freelanceresearch and Kkrystian, and their collaboration thereof. Hope it is fine for now. Ekantik ^talk 17:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Connection seems to work fine now, but still touch-and-go. Ekantik ^talk 04:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why SSB attack sites are bad but Xenu.de is not

I think Pjacobi raised a good point at Talk:Robert Priddy and here regarding linking to Priddy's external attack site, which I consider a violation of the previous ruling, while links to sites such as xenu.de are not banned. I think there are at least 4 reasonable interpretations.

There is no arbitration ruling that links to xenu.de have been misused.
The church of scientology has de facto admitted the authenticity of the documents mirrored at xenu.de, by trying to sue the people who supplied them for violating copyright and trade secret laws (I was on alt.religion.scientology in 1995 when this happened).
Alleging that a person is a pedophile is more of a problem from a BLP standpoint than alleging that a religious organization is screwy.
Xenu.de has received significant media coverage that establishes its importance as well as confirming some of the content posted there. Similar confirmation does not exist, or is much weaker, for SSB attack sites.

#1 ("because we said so") is perhaps the weakest philosophically, but may be the strongest argument under Wikipedia policy. #2 and #4 are stronger arguments from a debating point of view. I also would note that to the extent that any attack site (on any topic) contains personal accounts and unverifible original research that might tend to mislead a reader by its one-sidedness, it violates WP:EL, but that any information from reliable sources that is noted, archived or mirrored on an attack site may be directly used in the article by citing the original source. (i.e., if a BBC article criticizes John Doe, report its findings and cite it in the article, but don't link to JohnDoeIsEvilIncarnate.com. Thatcher131 08:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ad 1. If the interpretation of a arbcom decision contradicts the generally acepted Wikipedia of linking to the websites authored and maintained by the subject (Robert Priddy) in question then there is good reason to believe that this interpretation is flawed. I admit of course that the arbcom has the final say about the contents of Wikipedia.

ad 2. So criticisms is cannot be mentioned unless the criticized party admits its guilt? I do not agree with this reasoning

Ad 3. The same is said in reputable sources. E.g. in the article in Salon.com by Michelle Goldberg, so I do not think that it is a problem for BLP

ad 4. Yes, all religious attack sites are less famous than xenu. There is confirmation in reputable sources that the SSB controversy spread through the internet. Read e.g. Mick Brown's Divine Downfall article in The Telegraph. Also, the article by Sacha Kester in de Volkskrant refers to an internet website of former followers.

Andries 21:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A point to be made is that the Robert Priddy article has a link to his personal website. That is OK as per WP:EL. What is not compliant with policy is to link to a self-published source to make a point about a third-party, which is the case here. WP:V warns us to use "Self-published and dubious sources in articles about the author(s)" only if "it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;" At a future time, when reliable secondary sources start quoting profusely from Mr. Priddy's website, (as it is the case with xenu.net), this point will be moot, as both sources (Priddy's and the secondary sources that write about his website) will be game. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not cite Priddy's website while making claims about third parties. The policy does not state or suggest that mere linking to a website maintained by the author is against policy. Andries 23:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that is why we do have a link to his home page. You did not make claims about third parties, Priddy does. So that is why we do not link to pages on his site in which he makes such claims about third parties. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Your proposal still contradicts the generally accepted Wikipedia practice. For example the article Lyndon Larouche also links to Larouche websites attacking his critics. I hope that whatever principle or justification the arbcom chooses, that it will applied consistently and fairly. Making an ad hoc unmotivated exception for Robert Priddy strikes me as flawed. Andries 14:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar neither with the person, nor the article you refer to, but I know that it had an enormous amount of effort invested on it by many well established editors. If you have concerns about that article, you could ask one of the editors that edited it. I think that User:Will Beback, worked on that article for a while. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a concern about that article. I am only saying that the article Robert Priddy should not deviate from well-established practices, as implemented on among others on Lyndon LaRouche. Andries 16:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP violation

User:UninvitedCompany wrote

"In light of his ongoing activism at Sathya Sai Baba [..]"

I have repeatedly but unsuccessfully requested diffs (to Fred Bauder, Krill Lokshin and UninvitedCompany) that show that I am an activist at Sathya Sai Baba. As such I consider this statement libel and in violation of WP:BLP and I have the freedom to remove it not bound by three revert rule. Can a clerk remove it please? Andries 08:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]