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/?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 voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.
Jossi's statement on this page is unrelated to the article Sathya Sai Baba, but related to the articles guru and talk:Sikhism, both of which are not the subject of conflict between the adverseries. SSS108 never had any serious disute on the article guru with Andries and hardly made edits on the article guru.
The burden of proof that a comment on this page is related to the article Sathya Sai Baba is on the person making this comment. I do not have to prove for each of the many off-topic comments on this page that it is unrelated to Sathya Sai Baba Andries 06:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC) amended 21:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Jossi's statement on this page was related to the article apostasy which is not the subject of conflict between the adverseries. It was not related to the article Sathya Sai Baba, nor to New Religious movements as Jossi incorrectly states.
Andries 06:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
If I wanted to push my POV on apostasy in a dishonest way then I would never have made such a statement and when you look at talk:apostasy and the history of apostasy then you will see that I have not removed critical information about apostates from the article, except when user:Zappaz made a mistake with a reference. I only added information that rebuts or nuances this critical information, e.g. the statement by Duhaime. [2] Andries 17:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)amended 23:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The following comments by Jossi on this page are unrelated to the article Sathya Sai Baba, but are related to the article post cult trauma which is not the subject of conflict between adverseries.
In addition I think that adding original research in the external link section is at worst a very mild violation of policies. Also, quite a lot of the information that I posted in the internet testimony was also published by a reasonably reputable source i.e. a broadcast by a Dutch TV news programm i.e. Tabloid on (SBS 6) in which I told my story. See a copy of the video movie in which I told my story on Dutch TV in Dutch language. You can ask one of the many Dutch speaking contributors in the English Wikipedia to verify my statement in this regard. [3]. Scroll down to "Over Sai Baba in Tabloid (SBS 6)" Andries 06:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that the complaint by user:SSS108 on this page that I divulge personal information (i.e. his name) is very strange and I think highly exaggerated, because he lists his homepage on his user page as of 8 July 2006. In turn his homepage mentions his name [4] as of 8 July 2006 “Looking for Joe Moreno? Joe "Gerald" Vishwarupa Moreno” “ In addition, he even reverted himself to a version on the article Sathya Sai Baba that mentions his name [5] Here is user:SSS108 complaint about this issue on this page as a reference
Andries 09:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
SSS108 writes on this page regarding the question to divulge personal information
I think that SSS108 has made the controversy personal, not me, with his many, often off-wiki ad hominem arguments and his shameless defamation of critics of SSB. The mediator user:BostonMA considered SSS108's off-wiki ad homimem attacks on me and defamation of me so serious that he even took the time to solve some of it User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya_Sai_Baba/www.saisathyasai.com. Note that SSS108 used to link to his webpage regarding me. See also talk:Robert Priddy Andries 03:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The following statement by SSS108 on this page is misleading
First of all, SSS108 personally repeatedly re-added his original research from his website in reverts. [6] [7] [8] Secondly, he reverted me repeatedly when I wanted to remove all original research including "original research of Anti-Sai Activists". [9] [10] This shows that I was willing to remove original research after complaints on the talk page and that user:SS108 blatantly continued to violate the policy Wikipedia:No Original Research even after many warnings and discussion. After several months and only after a mediator intervened he stopped reverting me. I believe that he stopped reverting me only because he realized that he would lose all credibility if he continued to blatantly violate the Wikipedia:No Original Research Andries 13:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
SSS108 responded to my argument as follows in this page
What SSS108 is saying here is because I had used anti-SSB websites with online copies of reputable sources such as the BBC or University press articles as convenience links in the reference section then SSS108 finds it okay to quote himself from his personal homepage in the main text of the article. I had tried and tried and tried to explain to him that there is a huge difference between it, but to no avail. See for example here my fruitless repetitive attempt to educate user:SSS108 on basic Wikipedia policies. And I always agreed to linking to the website of the original publisher if the contents was available online, instead of convenience links to anti-SSB websites. Andries 16:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The following statement by user:SSS108 on this page is misleading
First of all the website http://www.saiguru.net is not a mirror of the website http://www.exbaba.com with which I am affiliated. I started linking to http://www.saiguru.net instead of http://www.exbaba.com, because I considered it somewhat inappropriate to link to a website with which an editor is personally affiliated. I am not affiliated with http://www.saiguru.net It is maintained by another webmaster (Lionel Fernandez) than http://www.exbaba.com (Reinier van der Sandt). I do not think that I broke any Wikipedia policy by linking to the website http://www.saiguru.net. Andries 07:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The following statement made by user:SSS108 on this page is unrelated to the article Sathya Sai Baba, but related to the article list of cults which is hardly a subject of conflict between adverseries
In addition, I deny that I broke the Wikipedia:No Original Research or Wikipedia:Verifiability with this edit. I cited an article by Nagel that quoted a reputable source (book by Chryssides) which justified my edit and made this explicit with the Wikipedia:Cite guideline that I followed meticulously and that was unambigous in this respect until user:Jossi changed it, because as he state he did not agree with the way I interpreted the guideline. [12]. Jossi was the first one to change this guideline triggered by the discussion between user:Jossi, user:Andries and user:SSS108 on Talk:List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults/archive6#Original_Research. I thought and still think that it safe to assume that the article by Nagel cites the reputable source (book by Chryssides) correctly and that I thus followed all the then applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines with my edit. Andries 08:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I consider the following statement made on this page by user:SSS108 misleading
First of all I do not see how my edit contradicts good faith. Yes, the question whether to include the criminal complaint filed by Jens Sethi in Munich was agreed upon to be a subject of mediation and has been discussed extensively, so it untrue as SSS108 that I re-inserted the statement "without discussion". This has been discussed extensively at User:SSS108/Introductory_Paragraph_Sandbox#Jens_Sethi More importantly he completely reverted my edits to a version that contains errors. I had removed the errors with my edit. Here is the version by SSS108 that contains errors [13]. I explained on the talk page why I removed the clean up tag that I considered exaggerated [14] ,but user:SSS108 re-added it without explanation until now. If user:SSS108 were a constructive editor then he could simply have removed the statement about Jens Sethi filing a criminal complaint in Munich that I rea-added while remaining the rest of my edits or at least explain in the talk page why he revert all my edits. Andries 10:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Jossi wrote on this page
Jossi cannot speak on behalf of SSS108. SSS108 was not involved in the two examples mentioned hereunder. Andries 16:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
This is about the article guru which is not part of the conflict between the adverseries I want to comment on the evidence provided by Jossi on this page
I admit that I made a serious mistake here, mainly because I mixed up information that I had received privately and personally from the person i.e. Lousewies van der Laan (she is my cousin) who raised the question in the European Parliament and from Chris Patten with the information that is publicly available. I privately received information from Van der Laan and Patten because it was me who requested Van der Laan to raise this question in the European Parliament. In addition, I don't know much about the European Parliament and its procedures and that is why I mixed up the European Commission with the European Parliament. In contrast to what Jossi stated, it was not my purpose of asserting a viewpoint. Andries 14:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC) amended 19:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Jossi further writes on this
I edited out of memory and I made a mistake due to special and exceptional circumstances. Jossi is making it much bigger than it really is. I have more than 13,000 edits [15] on the English language Wikipedia so I have a right to make some mistakes without getting punished for it. This should be taken into account when assessing the evidence against me. Andries 14:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
This is about the article charismatic authority which is not part of the conflict between the adverseries
Jossi writes on this page
SSS108 repeatedly removed relevant information supported by a reputable source with these edits [16] [17] I had asked for a reason for this removal 30 March 2006] see thread, which SSS108 did not give. 30 March 2006 The removed information was as follows
Andries 15:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
User:SSS108 defends this edit on this page by stating that he merely moved contents from the main text of the article to the external link section, but this defense violates the official Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not that states “Wikipedia articles are not: Mere collections of external links or Internet directories.”. It is not my job to teach single-purpose editors like user:SSS108 again and again the basics of Wikipedia policies. It is user:SSS108’s duty as a Wikipedia editor to read the policies and guidelines and to obtain more experience by editing a variety of articles, not just heavily controversial articles.
Andries 18:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC) amended 04:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The following statement by SSS108 on this page regarding this edit is untrue.
No, I think I was misunderstood. I did not change or retract my accusation that SSS108 removed "relevant information supported by a reputable sources". I only wanted to make it clear that his defence for his removal of contents from the main text in the Wikipedia article and adding instead an external link that describes the contents is unjustified and reveals his ignorance of Wikipedia policies and good Wikipedia practices. Andries 19:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
06:22, 24 April 2006 Andries states on the talk page his intention to re-insert the statement by Mick Brown (in the list nr. 10) and requests a disagreement with reasons. 05:33, 24 April 2006 SSS018 does not give a reason why he disagrees and writes that he will revert and refers to mediation. Andries amended 21:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
User:SSS108 repeatedly removed an attributed statement i.e. sexual abuse of boys by SSB on the article Sathya Sai Baba referenced to a reputable source i.e. an article in salon.com [18] [19] [20] Here SSS108 removes the statement about sexual abuse of boys even after I referenced it with three reputable sources i.e. Salon.com, press release from UNESCO, and The Telegraph 26 April 2006. The allegations by critics of sexual abuse of boys are relevant to the notability of this public figure who claims to be God and free of desires and acquired followers on the basis of these claims. The relevant guideline in this case is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Andries 01:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Please note the following statements are related to the article guru which is not the subject of conflict between adverseries, not to the article Sathya Sai Baba
Jossi tries to provide evidence that editors think I added too much criticism to the guru article, but he wrote himself on talk:guru that he thinks otherwise in this thread
Note here is the version of the guru article on 15 May 2005 when Jossi wrote the above statement Andries 05:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
[24] statement by User:Jossi on this page
I deny this. Here is what user:Andries wrote earlier on talk:guru
Andries 21:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC) amended on 18:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, I admit of course that I feel animosity against the subject of arbitration, but I fully knew from the start that this encyclopedia was not an anti-Sathya Sai Baba forum and that it was not a place for advocacy and that it was inappropriate to write down atrocity stories in articles. Andries 18:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I find it inappropriate that my statement in the talk page of this evidence page in which I constructively tried to analyze and think of solution for a general problem in Wikipedia is used as evidence against me by Jossi. Andries 20:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Note that the article Prem Rawat, is unrelated to Sathya Sai Baba and is not a subject of conflict between adverseries user:Andries versus user:SSS108
I disagree that this is relevant for this arbitration on Sathya Sai Baba. In addition, I deny that I have made ad hominem attacks on that off-wiki forum on active editors, though I admit that I have ridiculed one editor once long ago on a preceding forum for which I apologized. And even if it were otherwise, which I continue to deny, then I think it is irrelevant for this arbitration or any other arbitration, because I think there is free speech outside of Wikipedia. I have probably criticized the edits of some active Wikipedia editors on that off-wiki forum (which I think is perfectly permissible) but do not remember when where and how. Andries 18:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC) 21:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I admit that I have used in the past some references and sources on the article allegations against Sathya Sai Baba (that now re-directs to Sathya Sai Baba) that do not fulfill the formal criteria of reputable sources. If SSS108 wanted to have this corrected then he could and should have made that clear on the talk:allegations against Sathya Sai Baba which he or nobody else for that matter ever did. SSS108 first voiced his complaint about inappropriate sources in the article allegations against Sathya Sai Baba on talk:Sathya Sai Baba 17:27, 21 January 2006 I replied then that I would correct it. [25] Andries 22:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The articles cult, guru and other articles mentioned in this subsection are not subject of the dispute between adverseries, however I find it important to make it clear that SSS108's accusation that I am anti-cult and anti-guru is a one-sided caricature.
SSS108 wrote on this page
I admit that this was inaccuarately worded. Tal Brooke only wrote that SSB had sex with young male followers. The accusations that SSB had sex with boys and students from his schools were only later made and well documented in reputable sources so SSS108's accusation against me that I engaged in defamation is completely untrue. SSS108 could and should have discussed this inaccurate wording at talk:Allegations_against_Sathya_Sai_Baba and then I would most probably have corrected it. He never discussed it there or anybody else for that matter. What I meant to write there is that Tal Brooke was the first one to voice the accusation of sexual abuse of men by SSB which is accurate and undisputed. Andries 00:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
SSS108 wrote on this page
Sorry, SSB was an accomplice to four murders, not six according to Kevin Sherped's book. So yes that was inaccurate. There were six murders in a confusing and mysterious incident in 1993 but only four were shot by the police for which Keven Shepherd wrote in his book that SSB was an accomplice. The Times and salon.com have labelled SSB as a cult leader. salon article article in the Times. Again, SSS108 could have asked for references etc. but never did so. Andries 00:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
SSS108 wrote on this page
Nothing inaccurate with that one. Glen Meloy described him in a reputable source ( The Telegraph) as a "demented demonic force" Telegraph article. Tal Brooke described him as the antichrist in his book Avatar of the Night. Basava Premanand described him as a charlatan on the website of the BBC. BBC article Again, SSS108 should have could have addressed this on the talk page etc. Andries 00:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC) amended 22:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
SSS108 wrote
The case of Carroll is unrelated to the case of SSB and in addition I deny that my wording there was inaccurate. In the case of Brown I admit that I should have written "probably untrue", but on the other hand the case is clear, SSB claimed to have re-surrected Walter Cowan from death who according to the doctors and the nurses of the hospital never died. Andries 01:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
SSS108
This is unrelated to the article Sathya Sai Baba. In addition I want to state that the minor if not very minor inaccuracies in wording are highly exaggerated by user:Jossi and single-subject editor user:Momento For example, Momento complained that I treated God and Lord of the Universe a synonyms. The root cause is not the accuracy of my edits but the hypersensitivity of the subject. User:Bishonen gave me an award for my edits on the Prem Rawat article 22:46, 16 February 2006 Andries 01:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
SSS108
This could have been better contextualized, I admit. Andries 01:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I personally do not consider adding original research in the external link section a serious violation of policies and guidelines, but since I am accused of it by Jossi then I think it is important to make it clear that SSS108's behaviour is much worse than mine in that respect. Andries 02:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Both SSS108 (on this page) and Jossi ( on my talk page) have accused me of being a self-admitted POV pusher by referring to the now removed statement on my user page that I opposed an uncritical approaced to cults and new religious movements. I continue to think that
Note: Swami refers to SSB
Andries 21:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC) twice amended as per talk page on Jossi's request. 22:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Both Jossi and SSS108 have interpreted the mistakes that I made on the SSB as advocacy. To assist the members of the arbcom in deciding whether I made real mistakes or was engaging in advocacy, I think it is important that they are able to compare my behavior on SSB related articles with my behavior on unrelated articles. Of course, the only one who is able to pinpoint my mistakes on unrelated uncontroversial articles is myself because only I tend see them. And it only me who corrects them. So most probably I have committed more mistakes that nobody ever saw. Andries 22:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
User:Goethean wrotes on this page
Please note that I admitted after some initial resistance that Feuerstein's opinion belongs in the article. Here is what I wrote "Goethean, I know from experience that what Feuerstein wrote is dangerous nonsense but if I was writing in bad faith and only wanted to warn people against gurus then I would never have allowed Feuerstein's quote in the article. Can we get back to discussing the article instead of disucssing my motives? Andries 16:36, 3 May 2005 (UTC)" Andries 19:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
By his own admission, Andries took his Anti-SSB campaign to the air on January 30th 2002 and appeared on the Dutch TV show "Tabloid" (on SBS6 in the Netherlands), in which he publicly spoke out against SSB ( Ref). In this broadcast, most of the images of SSB had black bars across SSB's eyes (apparently in an effort to block the "negative energy" emanating from them) and Andries solicited his Anti-SSB website.
≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Evidence of edit warring on related articles.
Evidence of edit warring on related articles.
Evidence related to Andries' stated disaffiliation from former Sai Baba religion, and its implications as it pertains to editing related Wikipedia articles
Evidence related to Andrie's self-promotion of original research related to the subject of this case
Evidence related to Andrie's use of selective quoting and editorializing in related articles and subjects, that makes it difficult for SSS108 and others to WP:AGF.
Example of Andries using selective quoting to assert his viewpoint that leaders exhibiting "charismatic authority", as per Webber's definition, are "unpredictable" (He adds Sai Baba and others to the List of charismatic leaders.)
This may be a subtle difference but it illustrates this specific behavior, which again, makes it difficult for editors to accept his edits in good faith.
Evidence related to possible advocacy in related articles
Andries exhibits a high degree of animosity against his ex-guru (Sai Baba), and by extension to gurus that he believes are "unreliable", given his personal experience which he describes as traumatic. His edits in WP on related articles reflects this personal conflict, and seem to be driven by a need to "tell the world" about his experience and a need to warn people about possible negative consequences of involvement with "gurus". This is perceived by editors as advocacy and in violation of WP:NOT.
Andries' recent statement in the talk page of this evidence page (see diff), best describes Andries' dilemma: He feels compelled, as per the citation he provides, to Having given their hearts and lives to groups that were supposedly dedicated to the truth, leavetakers find it intolerable that those groups should continue to operate and attract new members under what now appear to be false pretenses. Non-withstading the sympathy one may feel for Andries' traumatic disappointment, Wikipedia articles are neither designed to advocate for or against anything, as per WP:NOT, nor to assist its editors with the resolution of their personal conflicts.
User:SSS108 began editing as an anon, during which time he signed his real name. [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] Upon registering, he used both his real name and his username together on at least one occasion. [69]
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring". Here you would list specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
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/?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 voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.
Jossi's statement on this page is unrelated to the article Sathya Sai Baba, but related to the articles guru and talk:Sikhism, both of which are not the subject of conflict between the adverseries. SSS108 never had any serious disute on the article guru with Andries and hardly made edits on the article guru.
The burden of proof that a comment on this page is related to the article Sathya Sai Baba is on the person making this comment. I do not have to prove for each of the many off-topic comments on this page that it is unrelated to Sathya Sai Baba Andries 06:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC) amended 21:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Jossi's statement on this page was related to the article apostasy which is not the subject of conflict between the adverseries. It was not related to the article Sathya Sai Baba, nor to New Religious movements as Jossi incorrectly states.
Andries 06:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
If I wanted to push my POV on apostasy in a dishonest way then I would never have made such a statement and when you look at talk:apostasy and the history of apostasy then you will see that I have not removed critical information about apostates from the article, except when user:Zappaz made a mistake with a reference. I only added information that rebuts or nuances this critical information, e.g. the statement by Duhaime. [2] Andries 17:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)amended 23:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The following comments by Jossi on this page are unrelated to the article Sathya Sai Baba, but are related to the article post cult trauma which is not the subject of conflict between adverseries.
In addition I think that adding original research in the external link section is at worst a very mild violation of policies. Also, quite a lot of the information that I posted in the internet testimony was also published by a reasonably reputable source i.e. a broadcast by a Dutch TV news programm i.e. Tabloid on (SBS 6) in which I told my story. See a copy of the video movie in which I told my story on Dutch TV in Dutch language. You can ask one of the many Dutch speaking contributors in the English Wikipedia to verify my statement in this regard. [3]. Scroll down to "Over Sai Baba in Tabloid (SBS 6)" Andries 06:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that the complaint by user:SSS108 on this page that I divulge personal information (i.e. his name) is very strange and I think highly exaggerated, because he lists his homepage on his user page as of 8 July 2006. In turn his homepage mentions his name [4] as of 8 July 2006 “Looking for Joe Moreno? Joe "Gerald" Vishwarupa Moreno” “ In addition, he even reverted himself to a version on the article Sathya Sai Baba that mentions his name [5] Here is user:SSS108 complaint about this issue on this page as a reference
Andries 09:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
SSS108 writes on this page regarding the question to divulge personal information
I think that SSS108 has made the controversy personal, not me, with his many, often off-wiki ad hominem arguments and his shameless defamation of critics of SSB. The mediator user:BostonMA considered SSS108's off-wiki ad homimem attacks on me and defamation of me so serious that he even took the time to solve some of it User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya_Sai_Baba/www.saisathyasai.com. Note that SSS108 used to link to his webpage regarding me. See also talk:Robert Priddy Andries 03:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The following statement by SSS108 on this page is misleading
First of all, SSS108 personally repeatedly re-added his original research from his website in reverts. [6] [7] [8] Secondly, he reverted me repeatedly when I wanted to remove all original research including "original research of Anti-Sai Activists". [9] [10] This shows that I was willing to remove original research after complaints on the talk page and that user:SS108 blatantly continued to violate the policy Wikipedia:No Original Research even after many warnings and discussion. After several months and only after a mediator intervened he stopped reverting me. I believe that he stopped reverting me only because he realized that he would lose all credibility if he continued to blatantly violate the Wikipedia:No Original Research Andries 13:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
SSS108 responded to my argument as follows in this page
What SSS108 is saying here is because I had used anti-SSB websites with online copies of reputable sources such as the BBC or University press articles as convenience links in the reference section then SSS108 finds it okay to quote himself from his personal homepage in the main text of the article. I had tried and tried and tried to explain to him that there is a huge difference between it, but to no avail. See for example here my fruitless repetitive attempt to educate user:SSS108 on basic Wikipedia policies. And I always agreed to linking to the website of the original publisher if the contents was available online, instead of convenience links to anti-SSB websites. Andries 16:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The following statement by user:SSS108 on this page is misleading
First of all the website http://www.saiguru.net is not a mirror of the website http://www.exbaba.com with which I am affiliated. I started linking to http://www.saiguru.net instead of http://www.exbaba.com, because I considered it somewhat inappropriate to link to a website with which an editor is personally affiliated. I am not affiliated with http://www.saiguru.net It is maintained by another webmaster (Lionel Fernandez) than http://www.exbaba.com (Reinier van der Sandt). I do not think that I broke any Wikipedia policy by linking to the website http://www.saiguru.net. Andries 07:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The following statement made by user:SSS108 on this page is unrelated to the article Sathya Sai Baba, but related to the article list of cults which is hardly a subject of conflict between adverseries
In addition, I deny that I broke the Wikipedia:No Original Research or Wikipedia:Verifiability with this edit. I cited an article by Nagel that quoted a reputable source (book by Chryssides) which justified my edit and made this explicit with the Wikipedia:Cite guideline that I followed meticulously and that was unambigous in this respect until user:Jossi changed it, because as he state he did not agree with the way I interpreted the guideline. [12]. Jossi was the first one to change this guideline triggered by the discussion between user:Jossi, user:Andries and user:SSS108 on Talk:List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults/archive6#Original_Research. I thought and still think that it safe to assume that the article by Nagel cites the reputable source (book by Chryssides) correctly and that I thus followed all the then applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines with my edit. Andries 08:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I consider the following statement made on this page by user:SSS108 misleading
First of all I do not see how my edit contradicts good faith. Yes, the question whether to include the criminal complaint filed by Jens Sethi in Munich was agreed upon to be a subject of mediation and has been discussed extensively, so it untrue as SSS108 that I re-inserted the statement "without discussion". This has been discussed extensively at User:SSS108/Introductory_Paragraph_Sandbox#Jens_Sethi More importantly he completely reverted my edits to a version that contains errors. I had removed the errors with my edit. Here is the version by SSS108 that contains errors [13]. I explained on the talk page why I removed the clean up tag that I considered exaggerated [14] ,but user:SSS108 re-added it without explanation until now. If user:SSS108 were a constructive editor then he could simply have removed the statement about Jens Sethi filing a criminal complaint in Munich that I rea-added while remaining the rest of my edits or at least explain in the talk page why he revert all my edits. Andries 10:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Jossi wrote on this page
Jossi cannot speak on behalf of SSS108. SSS108 was not involved in the two examples mentioned hereunder. Andries 16:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
This is about the article guru which is not part of the conflict between the adverseries I want to comment on the evidence provided by Jossi on this page
I admit that I made a serious mistake here, mainly because I mixed up information that I had received privately and personally from the person i.e. Lousewies van der Laan (she is my cousin) who raised the question in the European Parliament and from Chris Patten with the information that is publicly available. I privately received information from Van der Laan and Patten because it was me who requested Van der Laan to raise this question in the European Parliament. In addition, I don't know much about the European Parliament and its procedures and that is why I mixed up the European Commission with the European Parliament. In contrast to what Jossi stated, it was not my purpose of asserting a viewpoint. Andries 14:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC) amended 19:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Jossi further writes on this
I edited out of memory and I made a mistake due to special and exceptional circumstances. Jossi is making it much bigger than it really is. I have more than 13,000 edits [15] on the English language Wikipedia so I have a right to make some mistakes without getting punished for it. This should be taken into account when assessing the evidence against me. Andries 14:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
This is about the article charismatic authority which is not part of the conflict between the adverseries
Jossi writes on this page
SSS108 repeatedly removed relevant information supported by a reputable source with these edits [16] [17] I had asked for a reason for this removal 30 March 2006] see thread, which SSS108 did not give. 30 March 2006 The removed information was as follows
Andries 15:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
User:SSS108 defends this edit on this page by stating that he merely moved contents from the main text of the article to the external link section, but this defense violates the official Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not that states “Wikipedia articles are not: Mere collections of external links or Internet directories.”. It is not my job to teach single-purpose editors like user:SSS108 again and again the basics of Wikipedia policies. It is user:SSS108’s duty as a Wikipedia editor to read the policies and guidelines and to obtain more experience by editing a variety of articles, not just heavily controversial articles.
Andries 18:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC) amended 04:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The following statement by SSS108 on this page regarding this edit is untrue.
No, I think I was misunderstood. I did not change or retract my accusation that SSS108 removed "relevant information supported by a reputable sources". I only wanted to make it clear that his defence for his removal of contents from the main text in the Wikipedia article and adding instead an external link that describes the contents is unjustified and reveals his ignorance of Wikipedia policies and good Wikipedia practices. Andries 19:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
06:22, 24 April 2006 Andries states on the talk page his intention to re-insert the statement by Mick Brown (in the list nr. 10) and requests a disagreement with reasons. 05:33, 24 April 2006 SSS018 does not give a reason why he disagrees and writes that he will revert and refers to mediation. Andries amended 21:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
User:SSS108 repeatedly removed an attributed statement i.e. sexual abuse of boys by SSB on the article Sathya Sai Baba referenced to a reputable source i.e. an article in salon.com [18] [19] [20] Here SSS108 removes the statement about sexual abuse of boys even after I referenced it with three reputable sources i.e. Salon.com, press release from UNESCO, and The Telegraph 26 April 2006. The allegations by critics of sexual abuse of boys are relevant to the notability of this public figure who claims to be God and free of desires and acquired followers on the basis of these claims. The relevant guideline in this case is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Andries 01:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Please note the following statements are related to the article guru which is not the subject of conflict between adverseries, not to the article Sathya Sai Baba
Jossi tries to provide evidence that editors think I added too much criticism to the guru article, but he wrote himself on talk:guru that he thinks otherwise in this thread
Note here is the version of the guru article on 15 May 2005 when Jossi wrote the above statement Andries 05:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
[24] statement by User:Jossi on this page
I deny this. Here is what user:Andries wrote earlier on talk:guru
Andries 21:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC) amended on 18:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, I admit of course that I feel animosity against the subject of arbitration, but I fully knew from the start that this encyclopedia was not an anti-Sathya Sai Baba forum and that it was not a place for advocacy and that it was inappropriate to write down atrocity stories in articles. Andries 18:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I find it inappropriate that my statement in the talk page of this evidence page in which I constructively tried to analyze and think of solution for a general problem in Wikipedia is used as evidence against me by Jossi. Andries 20:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Note that the article Prem Rawat, is unrelated to Sathya Sai Baba and is not a subject of conflict between adverseries user:Andries versus user:SSS108
I disagree that this is relevant for this arbitration on Sathya Sai Baba. In addition, I deny that I have made ad hominem attacks on that off-wiki forum on active editors, though I admit that I have ridiculed one editor once long ago on a preceding forum for which I apologized. And even if it were otherwise, which I continue to deny, then I think it is irrelevant for this arbitration or any other arbitration, because I think there is free speech outside of Wikipedia. I have probably criticized the edits of some active Wikipedia editors on that off-wiki forum (which I think is perfectly permissible) but do not remember when where and how. Andries 18:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC) 21:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I admit that I have used in the past some references and sources on the article allegations against Sathya Sai Baba (that now re-directs to Sathya Sai Baba) that do not fulfill the formal criteria of reputable sources. If SSS108 wanted to have this corrected then he could and should have made that clear on the talk:allegations against Sathya Sai Baba which he or nobody else for that matter ever did. SSS108 first voiced his complaint about inappropriate sources in the article allegations against Sathya Sai Baba on talk:Sathya Sai Baba 17:27, 21 January 2006 I replied then that I would correct it. [25] Andries 22:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The articles cult, guru and other articles mentioned in this subsection are not subject of the dispute between adverseries, however I find it important to make it clear that SSS108's accusation that I am anti-cult and anti-guru is a one-sided caricature.
SSS108 wrote on this page
I admit that this was inaccuarately worded. Tal Brooke only wrote that SSB had sex with young male followers. The accusations that SSB had sex with boys and students from his schools were only later made and well documented in reputable sources so SSS108's accusation against me that I engaged in defamation is completely untrue. SSS108 could and should have discussed this inaccurate wording at talk:Allegations_against_Sathya_Sai_Baba and then I would most probably have corrected it. He never discussed it there or anybody else for that matter. What I meant to write there is that Tal Brooke was the first one to voice the accusation of sexual abuse of men by SSB which is accurate and undisputed. Andries 00:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
SSS108 wrote on this page
Sorry, SSB was an accomplice to four murders, not six according to Kevin Sherped's book. So yes that was inaccurate. There were six murders in a confusing and mysterious incident in 1993 but only four were shot by the police for which Keven Shepherd wrote in his book that SSB was an accomplice. The Times and salon.com have labelled SSB as a cult leader. salon article article in the Times. Again, SSS108 could have asked for references etc. but never did so. Andries 00:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
SSS108 wrote on this page
Nothing inaccurate with that one. Glen Meloy described him in a reputable source ( The Telegraph) as a "demented demonic force" Telegraph article. Tal Brooke described him as the antichrist in his book Avatar of the Night. Basava Premanand described him as a charlatan on the website of the BBC. BBC article Again, SSS108 should have could have addressed this on the talk page etc. Andries 00:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC) amended 22:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
SSS108 wrote
The case of Carroll is unrelated to the case of SSB and in addition I deny that my wording there was inaccurate. In the case of Brown I admit that I should have written "probably untrue", but on the other hand the case is clear, SSB claimed to have re-surrected Walter Cowan from death who according to the doctors and the nurses of the hospital never died. Andries 01:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
SSS108
This is unrelated to the article Sathya Sai Baba. In addition I want to state that the minor if not very minor inaccuracies in wording are highly exaggerated by user:Jossi and single-subject editor user:Momento For example, Momento complained that I treated God and Lord of the Universe a synonyms. The root cause is not the accuracy of my edits but the hypersensitivity of the subject. User:Bishonen gave me an award for my edits on the Prem Rawat article 22:46, 16 February 2006 Andries 01:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
SSS108
This could have been better contextualized, I admit. Andries 01:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I personally do not consider adding original research in the external link section a serious violation of policies and guidelines, but since I am accused of it by Jossi then I think it is important to make it clear that SSS108's behaviour is much worse than mine in that respect. Andries 02:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Both SSS108 (on this page) and Jossi ( on my talk page) have accused me of being a self-admitted POV pusher by referring to the now removed statement on my user page that I opposed an uncritical approaced to cults and new religious movements. I continue to think that
Note: Swami refers to SSB
Andries 21:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC) twice amended as per talk page on Jossi's request. 22:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Both Jossi and SSS108 have interpreted the mistakes that I made on the SSB as advocacy. To assist the members of the arbcom in deciding whether I made real mistakes or was engaging in advocacy, I think it is important that they are able to compare my behavior on SSB related articles with my behavior on unrelated articles. Of course, the only one who is able to pinpoint my mistakes on unrelated uncontroversial articles is myself because only I tend see them. And it only me who corrects them. So most probably I have committed more mistakes that nobody ever saw. Andries 22:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
User:Goethean wrotes on this page
Please note that I admitted after some initial resistance that Feuerstein's opinion belongs in the article. Here is what I wrote "Goethean, I know from experience that what Feuerstein wrote is dangerous nonsense but if I was writing in bad faith and only wanted to warn people against gurus then I would never have allowed Feuerstein's quote in the article. Can we get back to discussing the article instead of disucssing my motives? Andries 16:36, 3 May 2005 (UTC)" Andries 19:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
By his own admission, Andries took his Anti-SSB campaign to the air on January 30th 2002 and appeared on the Dutch TV show "Tabloid" (on SBS6 in the Netherlands), in which he publicly spoke out against SSB ( Ref). In this broadcast, most of the images of SSB had black bars across SSB's eyes (apparently in an effort to block the "negative energy" emanating from them) and Andries solicited his Anti-SSB website.
≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Evidence of edit warring on related articles.
Evidence of edit warring on related articles.
Evidence related to Andries' stated disaffiliation from former Sai Baba religion, and its implications as it pertains to editing related Wikipedia articles
Evidence related to Andrie's self-promotion of original research related to the subject of this case
Evidence related to Andrie's use of selective quoting and editorializing in related articles and subjects, that makes it difficult for SSS108 and others to WP:AGF.
Example of Andries using selective quoting to assert his viewpoint that leaders exhibiting "charismatic authority", as per Webber's definition, are "unpredictable" (He adds Sai Baba and others to the List of charismatic leaders.)
This may be a subtle difference but it illustrates this specific behavior, which again, makes it difficult for editors to accept his edits in good faith.
Evidence related to possible advocacy in related articles
Andries exhibits a high degree of animosity against his ex-guru (Sai Baba), and by extension to gurus that he believes are "unreliable", given his personal experience which he describes as traumatic. His edits in WP on related articles reflects this personal conflict, and seem to be driven by a need to "tell the world" about his experience and a need to warn people about possible negative consequences of involvement with "gurus". This is perceived by editors as advocacy and in violation of WP:NOT.
Andries' recent statement in the talk page of this evidence page (see diff), best describes Andries' dilemma: He feels compelled, as per the citation he provides, to Having given their hearts and lives to groups that were supposedly dedicated to the truth, leavetakers find it intolerable that those groups should continue to operate and attract new members under what now appear to be false pretenses. Non-withstading the sympathy one may feel for Andries' traumatic disappointment, Wikipedia articles are neither designed to advocate for or against anything, as per WP:NOT, nor to assist its editors with the resolution of their personal conflicts.
User:SSS108 began editing as an anon, during which time he signed his real name. [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] Upon registering, he used both his real name and his username together on at least one occasion. [69]
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring". Here you would list specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.