Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Contents


[edit] Evidence presented by SSS108

[edit] Regarding Ekantik aka Gaurasundara

As this pertains to Ekantik's (sockpuppet Gaurasundara: [2]) presence on the Sathya Sai Baba article, his claims to not being a POV editor [3][4][5] and the reason he began participating on the Sathya Sai Baba article was based soley because of various RFCs [6], I submit the following evidence that positively refutes these claims:

  • Ekantik uses numerous online names and to get a glimpse of how active and verbose he is in his attacks against Sathya Sai Baba, here are stats from a single Yahoo Group (specific to the Sai Controversy): [7][8][9][10][11]. These 6,397 posts were made in 4 and half years on a single Yahoo Group (which does not account for Ekantik's thousands of posts on other groups, forums, blogs, boards, etc.).
  • Ekantik's blogs specifically against me and my involvement on Wikipedia: [12][13][14]. He also attacks Freelanceresearch and me on a Yahoo Group for our involvement on Wikipedia: [15].
  • Ekantik currently attacks Sathya Sai Baba on the QuickTopic forum (under the name "Sai Baba EXPOSED") [25]. He has also taken over a Yahoo Group critical of Sathya Sai Baba: [26]. Ekantik advocates for his blog against Sathya Sai Baba on Gaudiya-Repercussions.com (sample page, one of many), his Gaurasundara's Musings blog (Ref) and on numerous other blogs in the "comment sections".
  • Ekantik unremittingly refers to Sathya Sai Baba, even to this day, as a "homosexual paedophile" [28], "faggot guru child rapist" [29] and "murderer" [30] (among numerous other defamatory slurs and libels).
  • Besides spelling and grammar corrections, Ekantik's edits have revolved solely around controversial material on the Sathya Sai Baba article. On the talk page, he immediately began accusing me of using Wikipedia as a battlefield, soapbox, etc., [31][32][33][34][35][36] and engaged me in debate incognito before I discovered his sockpuppet. His presence on the article and his pugnacity toward me are now fully understood in light of his true identity. He also felt the critics section needed to be expanded to reflect at least half of the entire article [37].
  • On Thatcher's talk-page, Ekantik's bias slipped through his usually very carefully worded and guarded replies and he said, "The 'number' of abuse testimonies on critical sites does not at all reflect the true nature of the situation...The 'true number' of people in any way mistreated by SSB is impossible to count" [38]
  • Ekantik is published and promoted on Andries, M Alan Kazlev, Reinier van der Sandt and Robert Priddy's Anti-Sai websites/webpages. Just a few examples (respectively): Bottom of page and menu bar, see "Dadlani" [39] → Update, bottom of page [40], whole page [41]. Unlike Ekantik, I have not waged extra-Wikipedia attacks against him about his presence and edits on Wikipedia. This issue is about his attempt to pass himself off a neutral editor who was not involved in the Sai Controversy (when he is), that he does not have a POV regarding SSB (when he does), attempting to pass himself off as two separate editors (he even greeted his sockpuppet with his Ekantik account [42]) and his clear antagonism against proponents/devotees (even recently complaining that Kkrystian, a follower of SSB, should be cited for a "COI" -conflict of interest [43]- although he does not think he has a "COI" himself). SSS108 talk-email 18:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Dec. 28th 2006 → Update

[edit] Regarding M Alan Kazlev

I have no complaints about Kazlev regarding the Sathya Sai Baba article. Kazlev is good friends with Robert Priddy and he waged a very vocal argument about the inclusion of my webpages criticizing Priddy. Kazlev dealt with this issue his own way by creating attack articles against me (making bogus psychological diagnoses) on his own website ([44][45][46][47]["abuse of wikipedia" page under construction]) and Freelanceresearch ([48]), creating his own links page ([49]) and creating his own wiki-mirror of Priddy's Wikipedia page ([50]).

I originally created this webpage (pre-Wikipedia dispute) in response to Kazlev's criticism of me on his website (contrary to his claim that I started my page first). I was forced to publicly defend myself and I clearly stated on the very first post on my blog:

"Just recently, I discovered that Alan created several webpages against me and I decided to respond, hence this blog. Let it be known that I did not start this fight. I created this blog after Kazlev created the following pages against me, began giving undue weight in favor of Anti-Sai Activists and had the audacity to play psychiatrist and implied that I have mental disorders. This from someone who has no credentials in the medical or mental fields whatsoever and who blathers about 'love' and 'letting go of hatred'." [51]

As evidenced by Kazlev's own webpages, he, Ekantik, Andries, Reinier van der Sandt and Robert Priddy are all collaborators specifically involved in the Sai Controversy, therefore proving his POV and COI. SSS108 talk-email 19:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Andries

  • Andries was the former webmaster (for 3 years) and is the current "Main Representative, Supervisor and Contact" for the largest Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba website on the internet: View Previous ArbCom Evidence Page.
  • In an effort to build good faith and prevent edit warring, I created a proposition on the Sathya Sai Baba talk page [52] that was signed by all of the involved editors, except Andries. Andries initially disagreed and attacked me [53], then partially agreed [54], attacked me again [55] and refuses to agree to the same proposition all the other editors agreed to. This suggests that Andries is unwilling to cooperate with other editors and is adamant that the article should be shaped according to his views.
  • Andries was banned from editing the Robert Priddy article for one month [56] due to violating the ArbCom ruling and two warnings from Admin [57][58] because of the following contentious edits: [59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66]. Once again, this suggests that Andries is unwilling to accept the ArbCom ruling and the warnings of two Admin and will push forward with his Anti-Sai agenda at any cost. Needless to say, Andries still believes he is right and ArbCom and Admin are wrong [67].
  • Andries, Reinier van der Sandt, Ekantik, M Alan Kazlev and Robert Priddy are all collaborators and Andries Anti-Sai Site frequently publishes Priddy's Anti-Sai material, the most recent being December 12th 2006 [68] (which even included a personal attack against me) and frequently publishes Ekantik's Anti-Sai material and even devoted a link to him (entitled "Dadlani") on the menu bar [69] → Update. In my opinion, this is why Andries is so intent on including Priddy's Anti-Sai website on Priddy's wiki-page. Andries has an Anti-Sai agenda to push. SSS108 talk-email 17:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Robert Priddy aka ProEdits

Robert Priddy is the single most prolific writer against Sathya Sai Baba in the Anti-Sai Movement [70]. One can view the type of attacks that Priddy made against me here, on my Talk Page.

As this pertains to my blog about Priddy, he has become more and more ascerbic in his attacks against me and has made (and continues to make, even as recently as December 12th 2006 [71]) numerous false and inaccurate accusations against me. The only way I could keep up with these ever-increasing attacks was by creating a blog defending myself (which is much easier to maintain and update).

  • Priddy attacked me anonymously on his own website [72] (which was originally published on the angeltowns2.net domain and was deleted for defamatory content). Attacks on other webpages: [73][74][75]

I have defended myself against Priddy on my own website and on a blog: [76][77][78].

Robert Priddy's active websites pertaining to Sathya Sai Baba:

  • home.no.net/rrpriddy/ (Personal Home Page with a former Anti-Sai section - Anti-Sai section has since been deleted)
  • home.no.net/anir/Sai/ (Active Anti-Sai Site)
  • home.no.net/anir/Sai/norsk/index.htm (Active Anti-Sai Norweigian Website)
  • home.no.net/abacusa/ (Active Anti-Sai Site)
  • home.chello.no/~reirob/ (Active Anti-Sai Site)

Robert Priddy's deleted websites pertaining to Sathya Sai Baba:

  • angeltowns.com/members/tanik/ (Old Anti-Sai Site: Deleted for defamatory content with a million dollar legal threat from Leo Rebello [79] - an Anti-Sai Activist in his own right.)
  • angeltowns2.net/tanik/SaiBaba/index.htm (Newer Anti-Sai Site -12/05- Deleted for defamatory content)
  • robert-priddy.fulldisclosure.dyndns.org/ (Anti-Sai Site: Deleted)
  • spaceports.com/~saiinfo/ (Anti-Sai Site: Deleted)
  • metasci.tripod.com/ (Anti-Sai Site: Deleted)
  • members.tripod.com/saisat0/ (Anti-Sai Site: Deleted)

Robert Priddy, Andries, Reinier van der Sandt, M Alan Kazlev and Ekantik are all Anti-Sai collaborators who publish, support, defend and promote each other through their own individual blogs and websites. SSS108 talk-email 17:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Reinier van der Sandt

Reinier van der Sandt -145.53.1.234 (talk · contribs)- is the webmaster for the exbaba.com domain [80]. Until just recently, the exbaba.com domain was simply a framed page that loaded Andries hetnet.nl/~exbaba domain. This was recently changed when the ArbCom case gained momentum (another attempt to do damage control, in my opinion): Full Cached Page (view source code to view frames-script) [81] and Text Cached Page [82]. If these cached versions have been updated (as they regularly are), I saved them myself: [83][84]. One will notice that these caches do not show anything because Google can only cache what is on the site, and not the framed page from another domain. The text that shows is meant for non-frames browers. If you view the source code for the current version of the exbaba.com domain, you will notice the complete change and update. If you place your cursor over the exbaba.com menu buttons, you will see that they all link directly to the hetnet.nl/~exbaba domain (which belongs to Andries). There is only one page to the exbaba.com site listed on Google [85].

Although Reinier van der Sandt claimed that he has never seen or followed Sathya Sai Baba, he has waged a very public smear campaign against him on the internet and has created the following websites that contain Anti-Sai material on them (as of today, all of these sites work and are active):

  • home.hccnet.nl/cmg.vdsandt/ (Active: Contains Anti-Sai material)
  • exbaba.startmee.nl/ (Active: Contains Anti-Sai material)
  • home.hetnet.nl/mr_2/121/ex-baba/ (Active: Framed version that load the hetnet.nl/~exbaba domain)
  • home.hetnet.nl/~comments_on/_the_secret_swami/_sai_baba.htm (Active: 9 Files: Anti-Sai material)
  • home.hetnet.nl/~pictures/afbeeldingen/pictures.html (Active: Anti-Sai material)
  • exbaba.com/ (Active: Anti-Sai website)
  • exbaba.nl/ (Active: Framed version that load the hetnet.nl/~exbaba domain)
  • home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/ (Active: -now claims this site is his- English Anti-Sai site)
  • home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/dutch.html (Active: Dutch Anti-Sai site)
  • exbaba.de.tf/ (Active: German Anti-Sai site)
  • home.hetnet.nl/mr_9/44/ex_baba/engels/shortnews/GuruGallery/ (Active: Contains Anti-Sai material)
  • rfjvds.dds.nl/videos/ (Active: Contains Anti-Sai material)
  • home.hetnet.nl/~vid.eos/videos/cheating_baba01.wmv (Active: 11 files: Contains Anti-Sai material)
  • home.hetnet.nl/~gurubusters/gurubusters.wmv (Active: Contains Anti-Sai material)
  • home.hetnet.nl/~seduced/seduced.wmv (Active: Contains Anti-Sai material)
  • members.tripod.com/the_findings/ (Active: Redirects to the exbaba.com site)
  • members.lycos.nl/EXBABA/ (Active: Provides redirect link for the exbaba.com site)
  • home.wanadoo.nl/~rvdsandt/ (Active: Contains the Mail-Forms from Anti-Sai sites)

Since Reinier van der Sandt now claims that he is the "technical webmaster" for the hetnet.nl/~exbaba domain (as well as claiming he is the webmaster for exbaba.com, exbaba.nl and exbaba.de.tf), he runs the largest Anti-Sai websites on the internet in 3 languages. Reinier said about the hetnet.nl/~exbaba domain, that the "ultimate responsibility for this site...is in the hands of Andries Krugers Dagneaux" [86][87]. This is exactly what I have been saying all along. This website is registered under Andries name and he is the de facto webmaster.

Reinier van der Sandt attacked me as well. After waiting 4 and half months, I exposed him for using numerous fake names (including my name) on a Yahoo Group (all of which he subsequently admitted to using [88]). Reinier created 77 attack pages against me in 36 days and 8 additional attack pages, all of which were subsequently deleted due to their bold-faced and easily verifiable lies and defamations [89]. Reinier also attacked Kazlev because he linked to my site and called him my "moronic friend". Reinier spammed me with hate-mail using various proxy IPs. I was able to identify him because he used an unusual term in his attack pages against me that was used (in the exact same manner) in 4 of 25 hate-mails sent to me [90]. Reinier Van Der Sandt also attacked Freelanceresearch [91].

Reinier van der Sandt made and posted pictures of Sathya Sai Baba on a Yahoo Group that are revealing [92].

Reinier van der Sandt has used the following names on Yahoo Groups to attack Sathya Sai Baba (name listed in search-box): [93] [94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103] and numerous other names on other forums.

I created the following index defending myself against Reinier van der Sandt:

Reinier van der Sandt fully promotes, publishes and associates himself with Ekantik (even defending him on Yahoo Groups for years), Robert Priddy, Andries and M Alan Kazlev (who has subsequently become friends with him). SSS108 talk-email 16:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self Disclosure

I created the following websites/blogs: [104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114]

I do not own, nor am I affiliated with, sathyasaibaba.com (an untruth stated on Wikipedia and by critics on the internet). SSS108 talk-email 20:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pjacobi, Robert Priddy and the ArbCom Ruling

Pjacobi has been a fairly consistent advocate for Andries and Andries has Pjacobi listed on his user-page as a "trustworthy editor" [115]. Despite Andries past control of the Sathya Sai Baba article for 2 years (with numerous inclusions of original research, POV material, external-link spamming and critical material violating WP:BLP), Pjacobi said he considered Andries "to be one of most constructive and sober members of the 'anti-cult-fighters' here" [116].

Pjacobi included Robert Priddy's controversial Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba link on Priddy's wiki-page (and on the edit summary) despite the ArbCom ruling and the warnings of two Admin: [117][118][119].

Pjacobi repeatedly included and re-included (I would say "spamming") Priddy's controversial link on Priddy's talk-page as well: [120][121][122][123][124][125][126][127][128][129][130][131][132] and added the link 3 times on his comment for the RFA page [133].

It is Pjacobi's contention that the ArbCom Ruling is binding exclusively to Andries and me and does not apply to other editors: [134][135][136]. ArbCom needs to clarify whether Pjacobi's comments are correct and whether or not he can include controversial links (containing negative personal stories composed of original research) regarding Sathya Sai Baba on any wiki-page or talk page relating to SSB or critics of SSB.

If Pjacobi is correct, then what is there to prevent any critic from re-adding these links on wikipedia, since the ArbCom ruling would not apply to him/her?

  • Robert Priddy created his own wiki-page and the very first thing he did was provide a link to his Anti-Sai website attacking Sathya Sai Baba [137]. Andries salvaged the page from a copyright violation [138].
  • Although allegedly being a devotee for 18 years, Robert Priddy has not been mentioned or referenced on any official Sai-related website.
  • Since May 2006, no critic or editor can provide even one single reliable or reputable source that makes mention to Robert Priddy, in any context, related or unrelated to Sathya Sai Baba.
  • Pjacobi argued for Robert Priddy's notability by comparing him with Tilman Hausherr and Jack Chick (both who —unlike Priddy— have been mentioned in reliable or reputable sources and are known controversial public figures). Both Hausherr and Chick have one link that goes to their primary homepage. Similarly, Priddy has one link that goes to his primary homepage.
  • Pjacobi went to such great extents to prove Priddy's notability that he even cited Indymedia (an open forum where anyone can submit any post they want, anytime they want) on Priddy's wiki-page [139] and included the Indymedia link attacking Sathya Sai Baba on Priddy's talk page [140]. Is this the type of encyclopedic information that "editors in good standing" add to BLPs? Is this the type of behavior that "editors in good standing" are allowed to engage in on Wikipedia with impunity? I would like for ArbCom to clarify. Should we also add that Priddy attacked Leo Rebello and Sai devotees and proponents on Indymedia and other forums as well?
  • When I filed an AFD for the Robert Priddy article [141], I was considered to be too close to the dipute and was accused of WP:POINT and not making the AFD in good faith [142]. Now, however, Pjacobi and Andries are saying that I should file another AFD [143][144] when they both know I am too close to the dispute to file one. A no-win situation because neither of them are willing to file the AFD himself.
  • Although various editors want to include Priddy's Anti-Sai link, they object and raise a huge fuss about the inclusion of my webpages critical of Robert Priddy. This is allowed all throughout Wikipedia on pages not bound by an ArbCom ruling. I do not see any reason why I can't have my webpage listed as an external link (providing I don't include it myself).
  • Most of the editors participating in this controversy are either critics or are sympathetic with them.

Priddy has been threatened with legal action for defamation by Leo Rebello, who said he filed a million dollar legal suit against Robert Priddy and angeltowns.com [145]. Andries said that his Anti-Sai site underwent a legal threat [146]. After this legal threat, both Andries and Priddy's Anti-Sai Sites now contain a disclaimer that states that the information on their Anti-Sai websites may not necessarily be true or valid. I can also put ArbCom in contact with another person who has filed complaints of defamation against Priddy. Priddy deleted the pages regarding the person in question and I have it fully documented as well. Priddy's Anti-Sai sites also contains what I consider defamatory material against me, which has already been discussed above, on this page. SSS108 talk-email 05:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by M Alan Kazlev

[edit] My experiences with devotees and ex-devotees of Sathya Sai Baba

In addition to my statement here I have explained on my website about my journey from devotee to ex-devotee here http://www.kheper.net/topics/gurus/Anti-SaiBaba_deceptions.html

[edit] Regarding SS108

Originally I was much more positive to SS108, and regarded both him and ex-devotees in an equally positive light. Only gradually did my opinions change. See the "anti Sai Baba Deceptions" page for the full story. Even the name of that web page (suggested by the subject of an email by Freelance Researcher) indicates my initial support of the devotees. I wrote this page because I wanted to document my journey, and because it may be of interest to others investigating this subject, and continually added to and revised it. However, because in one revision I for the first time mentioned SS108 in addition to ex-devotees, and all in a positive way on my page, not attacking either, he took offense and set up an antagonistic (but not actually slanderous) page criticising me http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/Kazlev/alan-kazlev.html , which he calls the "Official home page for M. Alan Kazlev". SS108 now says here and on his blog that he "didn't start this fight", even though his original page was antagonistic to me whereas mine wasn't to him. His recent blog about me, which seems to be solely a response to my defense of Priddy, is full of attempts at childish ridicule. For the rest, see the pages documented on my website, to which SS108 has very graciously provided the links.

On the basis of my experiences described here, I no longer consider SS108 a reliable researcher. M Alan Kazlev 05:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Andries (talk · contribs)

[edit] General remarks and scope

I can hardly give new evidence because little has changed and happened since the last arbitration. I will not digress on issues that have been treated in the previous arbitration case unless requested so by abritrators. Andries 10:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Andries' off-Wikipedian activities

See also user:Reinier van der Sandt. I do not even know HTML so I cannot be the webmaster of www.exbaba.com. I only started denying that I was the webmaster when this became relevant for the article as per the Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines. Andries 05:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding M. Alan Kazlev

I have followed M. Alan Kazlev's journey to a great extent and what he writes here about his journey corresponds with my observations about his journey, however I hardly see the relevance of M. Alan Kazlev's journey for the set of Wikipedia articles regarding Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 07:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] SSS108's interpretation of the previous arbcom decision

Apart from Pjacobi (talk · contribs) in the article Robert Priddy, another uninvolved editor, 67.117.130.181 (talk · contribs), also asserts that SSS108's interpretation of the previous arbcom decision reg. external links is overly strict and unconstructive.

See complaint

*31 December 2006

Andries 10:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC) amended 03:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing dynamics leads to bad writing style

The editing dynamics between factions with strongly opposing POVs (mainly SSS108 and Andries) leads to a bad writing style by the following mechanisms

  • Each opposing faction wants to have maximum exposure to their own POV which they believe is the view of the informed majority and hence should be given majority space as per WP:NPOV
    • This leads to an unwillingness to summarize viewpoints
  • Repeated and heavy accustions of misparaphrasing misrepresenting sources leads to a tendency of staying very close to the sources which does not yield good prose
  • None of the editors involved is a skilled native English writer
  • The editors know the subject very well and forget that the readers must be introduced to certain terms
  • Reverts make improvement in writing difficult.
  • Additions by outsiders are often amateurish and are often repaired in a quick and dirty way.

It is my hope that a skilled writer who has the trust of the opposing factions is willing to make corrections. As a reward to the skilled writer for offering his or her valuable time, I am willing to do Wikipedia chores, like vandalism fighting, or spelling corrections. I hope other regular editors to the SSB article share my views on the matter and make a similar offer.

Andries 19:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SSS108's habit in dispute resolution

SSS108 has the bad habit of burdening uninvolved editors with making editorial decisions in disputes instead of reasonable and serious discussion on the talk page.

Andries 02:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Regarding Kkrystian (talk · contribs)

  • Removal of request for citation
    • 20:25, 14 January 2007 Kkrystian writes in the first sentence that SSB is a philosopher.
    • I do not believe that SSB is widely described as a philosopher and I request a citation 21:40, 14 January 2007
    • 17:36, 15 January 2007 Kkrystian (talk · contribs) removes request for citation from the first sentence. Please note that until Kkrystian edited the first sentence every word and number of the first sentences was sourced to a reputable source. (The article as a whole may be poorly sourced, but the first sentence is not.) I never had big problems with Krystian, but some of his edits, like this one, make me very tired. Andries 21:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Comments made by SSS108

SSS108 continues to make personal comments at talk:Sathya Sai Baba though he was warned not to do so by Thatcher131

[edit] Evidence presented by Ekantik

[edit] On SSS108

Although I understand that off-Wiki activites are little relevant to on-Wiki proceedings, I will give a brief description of SSS108'S off-Wiki activities (as SSS108's problem is with off-Wiki activites of other editors) that highlight a bias and agenda to control the Sathya Sai Baba article to represent a slanted POV, along with a rundown of the events that led to this ArbCom case.

SSS108 is an SSB activist who actively defends SSB off-Wikipedia and owns numerous websites and blogs (mainly slanderous and defamatory of SSB's critics) for that purpose, also actively solicits press coverage of his activism (press release 1), (press release 2), (press release 3). As references to his (often unprovoked) defamatory and slanders have already been provided, I shall not re-list them here.

  • After the Salon.com discussion, SSS108 proceeded to remove more pertinent information from the article, revolving around a journalistic quote in a Dutch newspaper (See threaded discussion). After discussing it while edit-warring he quickly degenerated into making personal attacks and accusations of other editors having a POV.
  • For every editor (including Wikipedia Administrators) who disagree with SSS108's rationale for his edits/behaviour, SSS108 promptly accuses them of "pushing an agenda" or otherwise insinuate that hey are against SSB, part of a cabal and conspiracy theory: diff1 (about Administrator Savidan), diff2 (about Administrator Pjacobi).
  • For some reason, SSS108 has uploaded an image of a temple which he proceeded to "test" on his userpage (diff) and later removed. This image belongs to me ([sourced here at this entry on my personal blog, and the copyrights to this image have not been relinquished by myself. Uploading copyrighted material places Wikipedia in legal jeopardy, not to mention that I consider this a very strange action: Why is SSS108 uploading my pictures to Wikipedia? Based on the Workshop findings this could be taken as an instance of stalking behaviour. Ekantik talk 03:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • SSS108 has recently become unduly aggressive (diff) and has started making personal attacks on me that attack and denigrate my religion (diff). Ekantik talk 03:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

In regards to Conflict of Interest, I submit that SSS108 is acting as an unofficial representative (at best) of the SSB Organisation. SSS108 disclaims any association with the SSB Organisation or his affiliation with any particular branch, and that his website was created "with no external prompting or guidance". He also states that all the materials on his website are his "sole and personal opinions." He has also stated many times that he is not currently a devotee of SSB although he has been a devotee in the past. In May 2006 he posted material on his website regarding a self-dismissed court case against the SSB Organisation by Alaya Rahm, who claims to have been serially molested and sexually abused by SSB and whose claims formed the basis of the BBC documentary. He received this information before anybody else, even SSB-critics, and posted the information with supporting scans of legal documents on his website. This material was replicated on devotional SSB-websites with a link provided back to SSS108's site as the source. The subject of the case was also discussed at length by a representative of the SSB Organisation/SSB himself in a July 2006 issue of their online magazine [147].

This particular incident (and several others) show at the very least that he is in contact with one or more prominent SSB leaders/representatives and for which he is acting as an unnofficial mouthpiece. I can provide the evidence for this and I have made relevant screen-captures of the concerned websites: A statement by SSS108 regarding the case on his own website was replicated in the July 2006 issue of the SSB magazine with negligible differences. As the SSB magazine states that they received the statement/case information from the (devotee) lawyer who represented the SSB Org. in the case, this can only mean that SSS108 received the same information from the same lawyer two months beforehand. And before anybody else to boot, which shows that he is certainly in touch with prominent SSB-followers. If anybody would like to see this screen-captured evidence please let me know and I will try to upload it somewhere.

This incident and SSS108's general behaviour, in my view, shows a significant conflict of interest whereby SSS108 is acting off and on-Wikipedia as an unofficial spokesperson for the SSB Organisation (as he hs never been openly acknowledged by them) and that this behaviour presents a difficulty with regards to the editing of the SSB-article. Ekantik talk 04:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On Freelanceresearch

A cursory look at Freelanceresearch's contributions and talk page reveals WP:SPA and POV-pushing in relation to critics of Sathya Sai Baba.
  • Making hostile and unsubstantiated claims against critics of SSB (diff), what to speak of it being "original research" and using the SSB-talkpage as a soapbbox.
  • Freelanceresearch is now levelling extremely serious allegations of paedophilia against me on off-Wiki forums: [148], [149]. Ekantik talk 02:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On User:Kkrystian

By his own admission, Kkrystian is a devoted follower of SSB (diff).

  • Kkrystian and SSS108 are collaborators as this diff shows as if they are both working together to "limit the Anti-Sai POV-pushing". See also this edit summary: "ANTI-SAI WEBSITES MUST NOT BE KEPT IN THIS ARTICLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" (diff) Ekantik talk 17:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Kkrystian appears to be hostile to Andries as per this diff, where he removed a reliable citation in the article with no justification in the edit summary except for "revering edits of User:Andries".
  • Kkrystian registered a frivolous complaint against me after I brought up a concern of WP:COI in the matter of his dividing Category:Sathya Sai Baba into sub-categories, also unreasonably accusing me of making POV-edits (diff). See threaded discussions one, two and three for more information.Ekantik talk 02:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Kkrystian has been unnecessarily removing requests for citations (diff1, diff2, second diff rather serious). Also removed reliable references (diff).
  • Re-inserting un-encyclopaedic information into the article with "hostile" edit-summaries ("reverting Andries edit. There was NO consensus on talk page") - diff.
  • Continuing to insert an inappropriate external link (diff) that violates the previous ArbCom ruling and was agreed by all editors not to be included, inappropriate because it contains defamatory accounts and original research that is partisan to the controversy. Incidentally the defamatory website Kkrystian wants to repeatedly include is owned and maintained by SSS108. - Update: And again.

[edit] On User:Wikisunn

Wikisunn is a strong follower of Sathya Sai Baba and is a collaborator of SSS108, Freelanceresearch, and Kkrystian, and openly using Wikipedia as a platform for advocacy of SSB (diff1, diff2).

  • At the time of submitting this evidence, I was shocked to see that Wikisunn has been undetectedly modifying archived talk-pages: diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4, diff5, and many more (See his [150]).

[edit] Evidence presented by Kkrystian

[edit] On User:Ekantik

  • He unfairly attacked and criticised me and my Wikipedia edits here
  • He gave a very deceptive account of it here and got out of the matter very quickly by changing the topic and by ignoring me.
  • He lied to me here and intentionally fed me false information here.
  • He criticises me for my intention to fight anti-Sai POV pushing. Well it's good to fight any sort of POV's, isn't it?
  • He criticises me for "admitting" that I am a follower of Bhagwan Sri Sri Sri Sathya Sai Baba. Well, he admitted that he was a critic of Bhagwan Sri Sri Sri Sathya Sai Baba.

[edit] On User:Andries

  • Andries once argues, that we shouldn't cite Sathyam Shivam Sundaram and whenever he finds some information in it that suits his anti-Sai POV he cites Narayana Kasturi's book.

[edit] Evidence presented by User:Wikisunn

[edit] On User:Wikisunn

Ekantik evidence that I am a strong follower of SSB giving the following links (diff1, diff2) is ridiculous. The first was a discussion on talk page about the political news related to Baba taken from newspapers that I have quoted as reference and my strong support for a NPOV subcategory title does not make me an ardent follower of Sai Baba.

Response to Disrupt Editing Complaint: The Alleged sex change quoted by Ekantik as proof of my disrupt editing [151] is not true.Andries added this content to the article inspite of being strongly opposed by all the editors see the discussion on the talk page related to this. See the opposition to this in the talk page Request for Comment: Exceptional Controversial Claim.This claim is not supported by valid sources and has been opposed by all editors and administrator against adding this to the article.

Response to Aggressive behaviour complaint by Behaviour: Ekantik complained that I showed aggressive behaviour quoting the following links.diff1, diff2.These two were part of a general discussion from Sathya sai talk page. There is not single line in my statement to prove that these were signs of aggressive behaviour. The last link was my response after he threatened to block me in my userpage for differing from his edits diff3.

Response to modifying archive pages Complaint: Ekantik complaint that I modified archive pages undetected. This is not true. These following edit dated January 10th [152], dated January 13th diff2, links dated to January 14th diff3, dated January 15thdiff4, dated January 15thdiff5. But you can also see Andries edited the same page on Jan 15th [153].If it were an archive why is that there are also comments by other editors related to the discussion on January 15th? When I edited it was not an archive, it was an ongoing discussion. It was archived much later.Ekantik's evidence that I modified the above archives is a lie.

[edit] On User:Ekantik

  • Ekantik misused wikipedia policies for POV pushing and threatened to block me for differing from his edits. He added warnings to my talk page for disagreeing to his wrong WP:MOS and edits.He added the second warning to my userpage [157].Then after suggestion from another editor I renamed the Section "Criticism" to "Criticism and replies" he added the second warning in my talk page saying I disrupted the article and threatened to block me giving third warning [158].
  • Ekantik strongly criticises me for being a new wikipedia editor and for differing from his views [159]. He is highly incivil in his behaviour to other editors differing from his views. [User:Wikisunn|Wikisunn]] 26th February 2007

[edit] Evidence presented by {your user name}

[edit] {Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

[edit] {Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.