This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

First motion by Andries: doub of SSB's extraordinary claims is not defamatory

1) SSB has made a number of claims of the most extraordinary kind of which the most important are his claims to be materialize objects by mere thought, and to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. Denying or doubting the veracity of these claims should not be considered defamatory in the sense as described in WP:BLP and such denials or expressions of doubt should not be subjected to immediate mandatory removal from the article or the talk page. Andries 22:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Detailed material about such phenomena can only be included in the article if there is a reliable source. Otherwise only a general claim regarding them is appropriate together with reports of skepticism. Fred Bauder 19:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Second motion by Andries: SSB related article should follow accepted Wikipedia practices

1) The structures, lay outs, external links, and formattings of the articles related to Sathya Sai Baba should not deviate from generally accepted practices in Wikipedia. Andries 02:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision Information

Conflict of interest

1) Editors at Wikipedia are expected to work towards NPOV in their editing activities. It is not possible to simultaneously pursue NPOV and an activist agenda. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest codifies the principle that editors may not edit articles about themselves or organizations they represent due to this inherent conflict. However, the conflict of interest policy is of deliberately limited compass and does not prohibit editors from working on articles about entities to which they have only an indirect relationship.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Proposed. reply

Comment by parties:

I would like to ask about what I perceive as a thin line between COI and Expertise. I happen to have a large library collection of SSB-related literature and documents which would doubtless be useful for the article. I would also consider myself to be quite well-read in the SSB phenomenon and I don't know if this qualifies me as an "expert" but I'd claim a certain amount of "expertise" on the subject. Ekantik ^talk 03:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Conflict of interest

1.1) Editors at Wikipedia are expected to work towards NPOV in their editing activities. It is not possible to simultaneously pursue NPOV and an activist agenda. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest codifies the principle that editors may not edit articles about themselves or organizations they represent due to this inherent conflict. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization.

Comment by Arbitrators:

A somewhat stronger version, borrowing wording from Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Close relationships. Kirill Lokshin 06:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't think think there's a community consensus for a COI policy with such fuzzy boundaries. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

I deny that I have a conflict of interest with the exception of defamation of critical former followers and linking to www.exbaba.com, the website that I am affiliated with. I was and am fully committed to write a balanced article on SSB. I fully recognized from the start that Wikipedia is not a website for activism. Of course, I am biased, but that is a different matter. If people think that I am an activist on Wikipedia then why would I take the effort to describe the beliefs and practices of the Sathya Sai Baba movement (that I started under the title Beliefs_and_practices_in_the_Sathya_Sai_Organisation ) without or with hardly any criticism? [1] [2] Andries 20:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply

To the contrary, Andries has admitted he has a "Conflict Of Interest" and "Strong POV" about Sathya Sai Baba on his user-page: [3] [4]. It is my opinion that Andries is not committed to writing a balanced article as evidenced by his exclusive negative agenda on the SSB-related articles and his wholly negative views about SSB. Andries is also unwilling to abide by a proposition (that seeks to reduce edit-warring by obtaining collective consensus) that all the other editors have agreed to [5] [6] [7]. Despite being banned from the Robert Priddy article, Andries still believes that he is right and ArbCom and Admin are wrong [8] [9]. All of this argues against Andries willingness to cooperate and write "balanced" articles. As stated before, it appears Andries created these sub-categories so he could add critical links to his and other Anti-Sai sites. The "beliefs and practices" page was no different. It had numerous critical links and that is the reason why Andries originally created it [10]. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 22:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

To say that I created the article beliefs and practices article in 2004 [11] that was then already quite a long article without a single word of criticism only because I could insert links to critical websites not only shows a lack of good faith, but worse, it borders on paranoia. Again, I admit that I am an activist outside of Wikipedia, but I also have an intellectual interest in the matter, both inside an outside of Wikipedia. Andries 09:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Where did I admit that I have a conflict of interest regarding SSB? Andries 09:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Andries "Conflict Of Interest" and "Strong POV" about Sathya Sai Baba on his user-page: [12] [13].

Andries, if you did not provide a "single word of criticism" in the "beliefs and practices" article [14], then why did you reference the article to critics like Sanjay Dadlani, Brian Steel, Robert Priddy? You also linked to critical websites. I have plenty of good reasons not to accept your edits in good faith, especially considering your former webmaster status to the largest Anti-Sai website on the internet [15]. It's not "paranoia" when I can support my comments with factual information taken from your edits. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 18:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

The articles linked to critical websites because these critical websites also contained information about beliefs and practices of the SSB movement, such as the article by Reinhart Hummel that Jossi ( talk · contribs) recommended here as a source. I used the articles by critical former followers Robert Priddy, Brian Steel and Sanjay Dadlani as sources because I believed and still believe them to be the best researched sources for the subject. Another reason was of course that I knew this highly informative online material well and found it very convenient to use. I now admit that they do not fulfill the Wikipedia reputable sources criteria and I did not object to them being removed as sources for that article. Again, as so often, I notice in your complaints accusations of deception when a more plausible explanation is available. See Hanlon's razor. If you objected to using these articles as sources then you should have complained on the talk page. The only editor M Alan Kazlev ( talk · contribs) who ever did the effort of making complaints found me very reasonable, fair and open to criticism. Talk:Beliefs_and_practices_in_the_Sathya_Sai_Organisation [16]. Again, I was not well-versed in Wikipedia policies in 2004. Andries 18:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC) amended reply

You just made the case for me. Although you did not say a "single word of criticism", your intent was to reference the article to critics. Thank you. Of course, this is not the first time you have attempted to blame your biased editing on not being familiar with Wikipedia policy. You did the same thing on the true-believer syndrome article where you completely dismissed the original research of O'Clery and Holbach (as recently as April 4th 2006) although you removed other "unsupported references" [17] [18]. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 18:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Again, SSS108, I cannot find in the difs that you provided that I ever admitted that I had a Conflict of interest in the SSB article. I think that discussions with you are very tedious, and unconstructive. I find almost everything that you write completely unconvincing, though even I will admit that you make occasionally a good point. Andries 18:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

To show ArbCom how Andries is still pushing forward with his Anti-Sai agenda on Wikipedia, take at a look at this edit on the Narayana Kasturi article [19]. Andries has an obsession with the word "hagiographic" and although it is sourced to a relevant source, Andries insists on including a link to Mick Brown's article (that deals with the Sai Controversy) simply because he made a single reference to Kasturi's work as a "hagiography". Bapp's work is a scholarly source and his reference is sufficient for this rather trivial issue. Needless to say, Andries wants to include controversial links on as many articles as he can find. These types of petty squabbles and POV pushing have no end in sight. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 15:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, because the writings by Narayana Kasturi are hagiographic in the literal sense of the word; they are not just a rather uncritical biography. I think it is highly relevant that two independent sources have labelled Kasturi's writings as hagiographic. And please, I do not have access to Babb's (not Bapp) writings, so I am unsure whether the quote is accurate. Stop removing relevant well-sourced information from the article Narayana Kasturi. You are engaging in POV pushing in this case, not I. I have to admit that SS108 is right when he writes that the disagreements between SSS108 and Andries are numerous and endless. Andries 15:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Point in case. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 15:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply

What do you mean? Andries 15:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I also object to your habit of quite quickly taking disputes to dispute resolution instead of having a first a reasonable discussion on the article talk page. I think that this particular dispute regarding Narayana Kasturi is illustrative of your bad habit in this respect. Please do not give uninvolved editors unnecessarily extra work. Andries 15:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Andries, why didn't you attempt to have a "reasonable discussion on the article talk page" before you re-included the Mick Brown material? You just added a comment on the talk page 31 minutes ago [20]. Funny how you fail to follow the same standards you demand of me. So what was that again about "bad habits"? SSS108 ^{talk- email} 16:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I had re-inserted it [21] because I had no clue why you had removed material that I considered and still consider well-sourced material relevant to the person's notability. You could at least leave a message at the talk page before or just after you removed it twice. I really get very tired of having to educate you on the basics of Wikipedia after so much time. Andries 16:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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. But in regards to the principle of 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 [22].

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 on the internet to boot, not even official SSB websites, which seems to show 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 02:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

I've looked over Andries' contributions in the edit history of the main SSB article and elsewhere, and it seems to me that he's been making good efforts to maintain objectivity. He inserted many citations both favorable and unfavorable to SSB, although some of them (in both directions) could be described as weak. I'd describe his cite selections, including the disputed link at Robert Priddy that set off this case, as possibly a little too inclusionist, as opposed to tendentious or one-sided. I didn't notice any instances of him trying to get pro-SSB citations removed (edit: ok, there were some, but they looked very weak), and as mentioned he added a lot of them himself. I don't understand how Andries as a former Sai adherent has greater COI than SSS108, who I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) to be a current Sai adherent. SSS108 in my opinion is editing much more tendentiously than Andries. I find SSS108's POV and approach to the SSB articles to be reminiscent of Terryeo's in the Scientology articles. I don't think it will be good for the neutrality of these articles to ban Andries from them while letting SSS108 edit them freely. I may add some relevant diffs to /Evidence. 67.117.130.181 09:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply

User:SSS108 according to his userpage [23] himself maintains a web site http://www.saisathyasai.com. This is a militantly pro-SSB site containing many attacks on SSB critics [24] including about Andries [25] . SSS108 has at least as strong a POV and COI as Andries does. 67.117.130.181 11:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply

67.117.130.181 is a new editor regarding this controversy and I would like to point out that all of his comments on the Robert Priddy page and on the SSB comments page side with critics. Although the abuse controversy is old and there are numerous positive articles written about SSB, 67.117.130.181 believes that this well sourced coverage about SSB is somehow "inaccurate in the real world" [26]. Since he is a newcomer to the debate, one is left to wonder why he/she seeks the introduction of critical original research into the SSB article. For example, 67.117.130.181 thinks Steel's critical and originally researched "annotated bibliography" (which has never been published except on Steel's website) is good material for the article. His/her comments reflect, in my opinion, a person with a poor grasp of the history to the SSB wiki-articles and past mediation and ArbCom disputes. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 16:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

This is irrelevant and has no bearing on the current discussion, and neither does it have to do with the "SSB controversy". It does not matter if 67.117.130.181 is conversant with the controversy off-Wiki and on-Wiki, this is about the behaviour of editors in connection with the editing of the Sathya Sai Baba article. Please remain on-topic and not go off on tangents. Ekantik ^talk 05:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

NPOV and sources

1) Wikipedia's NPOV policy provides that articles should utilize the best and most reputable source[s]. NPOV cannot be synthesized by merely presenting a plurality of opposing viewpoints, each derived from a polarized source. Instead, NPOV requires that high-quality, neutral sources be used for the bulk of the article, with more polarized sources utilized only when necessary to illustrate the range of opinion. Wikipedia:Reliable sources provides that scholarly sources are to be preferred, and offers advice on evaluation of non-scholarly sources. Wikipedia holds that particular attention to sourcing is vital for controversial subjects, and that exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

Wikipedia's prohibition on original research provides that editors may not synthesize viewpoints or draw conclusions of their own from primary sources or other raw data. Instead, Wikipedia articles document what reliable sources state about their subjects.

Especially in controversial cases, citations should be complete enough that readers may evaluate them, and specific enough that the supporting material can be easily retrieved and identified.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Proposed. reply

Comment by parties:

The "best and most reputable sources'" are highly critical of SSB. Wikipedia articles should summarize what such sources say. There is not a single scholarly biography of SSB. Examples of the "best and most reputable sources" are the BBC (The Secret Swami broadcasted on 17th June 2004 in This World [27]) , and India Today (A God Accused December 04, 2000 by Vijay Jung Thapa, Lavina Melwani, and Syed Zubair Ahmed [28]), The Times (Suicide sex and the guru by Dominic Kennedy on August 27, 2001), The Daily Telegraph (Divine Downfall 28 October 2000 by Mick Brown). On the other hand, I can understand of course, that an article that consists mainly of opposing viewpoints regardless if they completely follow all the policies is not very informative. The article should reflect the fact that the reputable sources, such as the ones mentioned hereabove, that have investigated the matter found the accusations convincing. Andries 21:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply

The fact that Jossi mentions Mother Theresa gives me the opportunity to point out the differences in the availability of sources between SSB and Mother Theresa. In the case of the latter there are reasonably reputable biographies available (I have read several of them years ago). In the case of SSB this is not the case, so this leaves secondary source newspaper and secondary source BBC documentary as the best available sources. Andries 00:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Non-withstanding the tremendous controversy surrounding this person (my opinion of which I prefer to keep private), to assert that the best sources for an article about him are a BBC documentary and a couple of newspaper articles while there are hundreds of sources available, is at best naïve. This is akin as saying that the best source for the article on Mother Teresa or Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama, is Christopher Hitchens. Not that I am comparing these people, but just as an illustration that may be useful: surely critics of Teresa and the Dalai Lama believe Hitcheks to be the best source, for obvious reasons. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Andries forgot to mention two other sources which he uses regularly in the Sathya sai Baba article. One is De Volksrant and Salon.com.

De Volksrant : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Volkskrant

Originally de Volkskrant was a Roman Catholic newspaper, closely linked to the Catholic People's Party and the catholic pillar. It became a left-wing newspaper in the 1960s. But even today it is still influenced by the Catholic Party and their centiments that explains why it is constantly involved in negative attack / criticism on a hindu Guru (Sai Baba).

I) It encourages its editors to write highly negative exceptional claims about Sai Baba changing from Male to Female and back to Male for having sex as claimed by Keith Ord and Nagel. The claims are described with the most obscene language / description.

II) Constant charade of negative attacks on sai Baba

III) Encourages editors to write the most Vulgar quotes / comments on Sai Baba. Eg: Vulgar quotes by Sacha Kester used in the Sathya Sai Baba article.

Question to Administrators about clarification on reliable source? Can we consider it as a reliable source? Don't mistake this question, this is just for comparision. Can an editor publish defaming criticism on a christian article because it was published in a local newspaper in Pakisthan / India influenced by Hindu / Muslim fundamentalist? What is a reliable source? Can any Newspaper with a number of circulation be considered a reliable source?

How reliable is Salon.com?

I have seen very naive explanation by its author on some very important Hindu concepts like he has no clue of what he is talking about?

Other References / Sources used in this article / workshop:

When I researched more on the sources used in the Sai Baba article / workshop, the results were surprising. I found more proofs of religious bias. Look at the following references.

1) Reference Tal Broke: Tal Broke is used as a reference for the claim that Sai Baba changed from male to female to have sex. When I researched more on Tal Broke I found that he is the author of the following book on Sai Baba titled Lord of the Air: Tales of a Modern Antichrist (Paperback) by Tal Brooke. Its available on Amazon.com. Also Tal Brooke is the President and Chairman for the Spiritual Counterfeits Project, which is a Fundamentalist Christian Organization

2) Reference Trouw: Trouw is a Christian daily Dutch newspaper and is part of the PCM group which also publishes the De Volksrant discussed above. This paper regularly publishes negative attacks on Sai Baba influenced by the christian fundamentalist.

3) The website home.hetnet.nl/ex-baba used in this workgroup as reference in some examples is owned by Reinier van der Sandt (technical webmaster) who is a fundamentalist Evangelical christian. There are some articles in the website to prove the anti christian centiment on Sai Baba

http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/engels/articles/antichrist.html

home.hetnet.nl also can link you to Sai Baba antichrist board - http://www.quicktopic.com/7/H/uVTiRX8McBie.

http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/engels/articles/simonis.html

http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/engels/recovery.html - This website has association with President of the Dialog Center International (DCI), founder of christian counter cult - Prof Johannes Aagrad.

• Sai Baba is often referred as "Anti Christ Incarnate" in the articles published in this website.
• The negative character attacks on Sai Baba in this website is aimed to stop the new christian converts to NRM(New Religious Movement) by Sai Baba(Hindu Guru).

Why is that these negative references / sources are being traced to authors who are fundamental christians? Is wikipedia being used by critics as medium for this anti christ conflict on Sai Baba?

Wikisunn 30th January 2007

I strongly suspect that Wikisunn is repeating and rehashing concerns voiced by SSS108 that are also placed on the latter's activist website. My opinion is that there is no basis to this concerns and it is yet another conspiracy theory. Wikisunn, I might also like to remind you that nobody (as far as I know) is arguing for the inclusion of these links in the Wikipedia article so I find your comments rather redundant. Ekantik ^talk 04:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply

It is up to Administrators and Arbitrators to decide if this is a concern or not. Since we are discussing about the sources I gave them all information I found researching on these sources and claims. Nobody can deny the facts written above either related to De Volkrant or Trouw or about Tal Brooke's book and the religious bias in this article. The only reason for edit wars is because people don't agree on controversial claims, questions them and also their sources. If we pretend there is no problem we can never solve the problem. If don't address the problematic claims and sources in the article now we will always have problems with this article.

Wikisunn 31st January 2007

Wikisunn, you may or may not realise it, but much of what you said is actually irrelevant for this ArbCom case. The links you provided to home.hetnet.nl are not an issue because the previous ArbCom case has already decided that sites like that are not to be linked to on Wikipedia, so what is the use of your bringing them up again when no one is arguing for their inclusion? This ArbCom case is not about deciding if the allegations against SSB have any merit, because that is not the purpose of Wikipedia.

And what exactly does Tal Brooke's religion/employment have to do with his testimony? You need to ask yourself: Does Wikipedia care about Tal's reputable and reliable testimony, or does Wikipedia care more about Tal being a Christian? Judging by your follow-up comments about other discussion boards (which are incidentally now defunct and again irrelevant as no one is arguing for the inclusion of material from it) it really seems that you engaging in a conspiracy theory and this is why you are presenting evidence that is rehashed from SSS108's attack-pages and passing it off as your own. Aside from that, I noted that you have provided no actual evidence of your claims for Trouw/De Volkskrant; where is the evidence that they are influenced by Christian fundamentalists and where is the evidence that they "regularly" publish negative editorials on SSB?

Please, take the time to familiarise yourself with the purpose and remit of this ArbCom case and take special care to consider if the information you present is relevant within the selected motion. Your history at Talk:Sathya Sai Baba have revealed that you have a difficulty with understanding the process of discussions at Wikipedia, and has also revealed that you engage a lot on discussion about the claims within the articles which is also not an issue for Wikipedia. I'd thank you to take the time to read WP:PILLARS. Ekantik ^talk 01:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Ekantik, You have quoted references from home.hetnet.nl on 28th January (4 days before me). I don't understand Why different rules apply to you and me. How come the same website becomes irrelevant for discussion with in 4 days. I know home.hetnet.nl is not going to be used in Sai Baba article, since we are discussing references from this website I brought the concerns regarding this website for discussion. You don't have to criticise me for discussing my concerns with administrators and arbitrators. Don't force your POV on others. As I said before it is up to the Administrators and Arbitrators to decide on these concerns. De Volksrant writes negative attacks on Sai Baba. I have already discussed the negative claims by De Volksrant used in this article (above). The Christian Daily Trouw also writes negative attacks on Sai Baba. One such article was "THE DOWNFALL OF A GURU SAI BABA" by Koert van de Velde.

Trouw is a national daily newspaper, with newsstand and home delivery circulation. It has a Christian foundation, and is assumed to be a left-oriented paper. http://www.iamsterdam.com/press_room/resources_for/overview_of_local. This paper is often referred as Dutch Christian Daily Newspaper or Christian Newspaper. If you search in google you will see more links related to this.

Controversial Claim related to Tal Broke: The source Tal Brooke is in question mainly because of the following controversial claim. Tal Brooke claims that Sai Baba changed from male to female and back to male from one instance to another to have sex: There was a long discussion related to this in Fred talk page between me and Andries about this claim referred by Nagel. Even Fred agreed that there is no good source to prove that Sai Baba actually did this. The main reason for edit wars are such controversial claims in the article. These claims were added by Andries when he was the only editor in the Sathya Sai Baba article. Some of the claim have poor sources and hence questionable and not reliable. Wikisunn 1st February 2007

Yes, Wikisunn, some of the claims in the article have poor sources, for example the claims sourced to Howard Murphet’s book that you inserted. Tal Brooke’s testimony is also described in Nagel’s 1994 University Press article called ‘’De Sai Paradox’’that was considered a reputable source during mediation. Trouw is generally considered a good newspaper in the Netherlands. What other poorly sourced claims do you think are in the article? Andries 17:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Andries, The claim related to Howard Murphet was in the article even prior to my editing. The article said " According to Howard Murphet, in his book Sai Baba Man of Miracles, the young Sathya was a vegetarian and was known for his aversion to animal cruelty and compassion for the poor, disabled and elderly." But this claim did not have a supporting reference. So I added the reference and key dates and events on Sai Baba's early years. Also remember, Events / Key dates on Sai Baba early years are only accounted in Kasturi's "Sathyam Sivam Sundaram" or Howard book "Man of Miracles" there is no parallel source available for this information.

One such example of poor source was Sacha Kester accounts from De Volksrant. In our discussion you agreed that you could not find the source for this claims by Sacha Kester other than the fact that it was published in De Volksrant. Now don't deny it and go back on your own words. There are still other issues that needs to be addressed. I still see we don't agree on the claim by Tal Brooke. Look at the two controversial claims from the article.

(1) There are a couple of claims that Sathya Sai Baba can change into a woman instantaneously. For example, in a Dutch article entitled "De Wonderdoener", Keith Ord claimed that he personally experienced Sathya Sai Baba literally transform his genitals from male to female. Keith Ord said that Baba was not a hermaphrodite but, from one moment to the next, completely changed from male to female, with the corresponding genitals of each. Keith Ord felt this gender transformation was a type of miracle and expressed the opinion that Sai Baba lives on another level than mere mortals. ^[1] Alexandra Nagel, in a 1994 Dutch article also related the story of Tal Brooke, as taken from his book Avatar of the night, in which Brooke related an account from a man named "Patrick" who alleged that Baba had a vagina and that he had coital sex with the guru. ^{[2] [3] [4]} She further stated in that article that this alleged sex change may be related to Baba's claim to be the incarnation of both the male and female aspects of God, Shiva and Shakti respectively.

2) "Aran Edwards, a British national, was described as "quite an ill person, mentally unstable and needed orthodox help", by David Bailey. Edwards was encouraged to write letters to the guru to help solve his "psychological problems". Edwards had never traveled to see the guru firsthand. David Bailey said that he eventually told Edwards, "Wake up. He doesn't even read these letters." Edwards was so distraught about the situation, he decided to commit suicide. Edwards was found hanging from a staircase in his home in Cardiff, London. Andrew Richardson, another British national, hurled himself off a bank building in Bangalore, India. Two letters were found on his body in which he said he was in a deep depression. He expressed a desire to see Sai Baba and Mother Teresa.[89]"

These controversial claims were never discussed in the talk page nor were put into a discussion with other editors. These claims lack sound editorial decision. I wonder why they were included in the first place.

Wikipedia policy and guidelines on content Decision http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Policies_and_guidelines clearly states as follows "Decisions on the content and editorial processes of Wikipedia are made largely through consensus decision-making." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making. Since these claims were never discussed in talk page with other editors, We can either discuss these in talk page with the administrators and arbitrators and come to consensus or We can request for a third party resolution by administrators and arbitrators on these controversial issue.

Wikisunn 1st February 2007

Wikisunn, I've decided that I am going to respectfully withdraw from discussing these issues with you unless you show evidence that you fully comprehend Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Discussion with you during this ArbCom case and elsewhere on Wikipedia have shown that you continually bring up irrelevant issues relating to the SSB-article (leave alone copying arguments from another party's attack-site and passing them off as your own research) and that you have continuing trouble with understanding the purpose of Wikipedia and its policies thereof. Most notably this: Wikipedia is not a place for discussing the viability of sources, Wikipedia is simply concerned with reporting information from sources.

I noticed that you have also brought up these issues on the talk-page of an Arbitrator, who also happens to disagree with your views as far as I could see. Thus there is no point in continuing this irrelevance when you haven't spent the time trying to understand what Wikipedia is all about. Respectfully, Ekantik ^talk 01:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Ekantik, the wikipedia content decision clearly talks about consensus between all editors. The two controversial claims were never discussed in any talk page or with any editor. These lack sound editorial judgement.Wikipedia clearly says Exceptional claims requires exceptional sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources.

In your statement you said "Most notably this: Wikipedia is not a place for discussing the viability of sources, Wikipedia is simply concerned with reporting information from sources. ". I would like to point that wikipedia stresses on reliable sources and not any source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources. Also there are wikipedia rules about biased contents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Biased_or_malicious_content. Regarding my discussion with Fred about the Sai Baba sex changing claim - your are totally wrong. His exact words were "I don't know that I fully understand the dispute about SSB turning into a woman and back into a man. I can imagine a good source for claims that he did, but not a good source for actually doing it. ". Please refrain from passing wrong comments.

Wikisunn 2nd February 2007

No wrong comments from this side, and I was not even talking about the "sex change" claim. The point is that Wikipedia's definition about reliable sources and your definition of reliable sources are two different things. I don't think that Wikipedia's definition is undergoing any drastic changes anytime soon so I suggest that we follow the Wikipedian definition of reliable sources. To sum, reputable sources means newspapers, scholarly books, etc. It is not Wikipedia's responsibility to judge whether the newspaper story is correct or properly researched unless the report is obviously unreliable which can be surmised if the newspaper is a tabloid, thus making the report unreliable. Since no unreliable/tabloid sources are being used in the SSB-article, there are no problems.

I notice that you have made a significant removal from your earlier comments, specifically about news reports about SSB's inability to walk. Do you now accept that SSB is unable to walk without help and that he moves around in a wheelchair and/or with the aid of others, thus meaning that the news report was correct? If I may remind you, you used sources from official SSB-websites to refute the claim. This is a good example of how you don't understand WP:RS - because material from official SSB websites is unreliable in that it is blatantly self-serving and inherently biased, whereas an "impartial" news report is relatively unbiased and factual.

Wikisunn, when you are a brand new editor and continually displaying a wrong understanding of WP policies and its applications thereof, you would be better advised to sit back and listen to what other people are telling you. I admire the way you seem genuinely willing to discuss these issues, but when several editors are telling you that your understandings are incorrect and informing you about the proper way of doing things and that you need to spend further time studying these matters, it might be time to sit back and consider the possibility that you may be wrong. Ekantik ^talk 00:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Ekantik, I realised that there is no point in this discussion with you. You keep changing your statements. You are not reading my edits fully and you continue to accuse me with wrong comments. In your previous reply you said 'I noticed that you have also brought up these issues on the talk-page of an Arbitrator, who also happens to disagree with your views as far as I could see". Then I pointed out that you were wrong and that the arbitrator agreed to the fact that the claim does not have a source of Sai Baba doing it. Now you are saying "I was not even talking about the "sex change" claim".

In the above response you said "I notice that you have made a significant removal from your earlier comments, specifically about news reports about SSB's inability to walk". I never removed SSB's inability to walk. Look at my statement again "Sathya Sai Baba is 81 years old. Today, he cannot even walk a few steps on his own and can only stand with support because of his multiple injuries since 2003> SSB in wheelchair - http://media.radiosai.org/pages/20050909/index.html. He uses wheel chair and golf cart to move around as he is physically disabled".

You still see the link. The statement says he cannot walk. Why do you keep misquoting me. When I point it out you don't even agree. There are number of proofs about Sai Baba on wheel chair published in very reputed newspapers. The Newspaper IndianExpress says "The godman got into a wheel chair and was pushed up a make-shift ramp into the house and later taken by a lift to the first floor". http://www.indianexpress.com/story/21444.html. Because of this repeated wrong comments and wrong accusations I have decided not to respond to your comments any more.

Wikisunn 2nd February 2007

Now that's responsible; don't take good advice from other editors on board, and don't read up on the important WP Policies, but quarrel anyway. I may observe that this is the sort of attitude that brought this issue to ArbCom in the first place, editors refusing to communicate with each other. Ekantik ^talk 02:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Activist editing

1) Wikipedia is not a soapbox for propaganda or activist editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Proposed. reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Off-Wikipedia activities

1) Generally, editors will not be held responsible on Wikipedia for blog posts or other comments made elsewhere on the internet. However, comments and blog posts that reference Wikipedia, and specifically reference individual editors and their contributions, may contribute to a negative environment on Wikipedia. In such cases, off-Wikipedia comments may properly be considered in arbitration proceedings.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Pending my evidence, and if my off-Wiki activities are to be noted, I will state that the majority of my off-Wiki references were made prior to my joining Wikipedia and I had no intention of joining at the time of those comments. After the conclusion of the first ArbCom case I decided to join Wikipedia to contribute to a host of articles (including SSB as well as create new ones), and after that my off-Wiki references have reduced to almost nil.

If parties such as SSS108 continue to bear grievances over Wiki-references made prior to my joining Wikipedia, it is up to them to find a resolution that satisfies them. I don't think it is altogether very fair to keep bringing up references made prior to my forming an account, and I must admit that I resent the way it is continually used against me for no real reason concerning my edits and participation in Sathya Sai Baba thereof. Ekantik ^talk 03:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Thatcher, Ekantik did make recent comments: [29] [30] [31]. The funny thing is that since this ArbCom Request was made, for the first time in 5+ years, Ekantik has stopped posting there. Does it have anything to do with the ArbCom Request? Check the dates yourself and draw your own conclusion. Once I exposed Ekantik's "Gaurasundara" sockpuppet, his public posting changed significantly. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 22:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Now SSS108 wants to get technical; after engaging in off-Wiki discussions on an almost daily basis and then removing myself from such discussions only proves that I have done so within the last two months or thereabouts. Big difference? Only the first example SSS108 gives is relevant for this particular section, in which continuing discussions referenced Thatcher's 48-hour block (suspended) on SSS108 ( see here).

For the record, this post was made in reply to SSS108: here. In response to this, SSS108 made an unsavoury remark that typically involves linkspam of his own blogs and websites. But in reference to my post, I simply reminded him of his 48-hour block and I'm afraid that I will have to stand by my advice to him made there in this regard:

"Joe108, you were served with a 48-hour block (suspended) on Wikipedia due to your disruptive editing and personal attacks. I know what you are trying to do; despite your stern warning, you are still misrepresenting me and my comments, least of all the fact that you were told that off-wiki discussions/websites are not within the purview of Wikipedia matters. Your incorrigible attempts to goad me are not going to work, even though it is fully consistent with your defamatory and slanderous behaviour over the course of over 12 months.

It looks like my advice to him fell on deaf ears as he continued to attack me there, and several sections on this Workshop page are already proof of the fact that he continues to reference off-Wikipedia matters as "evidence" that I cannot responsibly edit the SSB article, what to speak of making numerous attempts to goad me are still being conducted. I have to say that I find this to be incredibly childish behaviour especially since issues that are not within the remit of this ArbCom case' keep being raised. For obvious reasons: I cannot be trusted to be a responsible NPOV editor of the SSB article despite my various good edits there, all because I am a critic of SSB. The same argument would apply to SSS108 and Freelanceresearch, they are declared proponents and advocates of SSB.

But while we are on the subject, I find SSS108's comment about my withdrawing from active discussion off-Wiki is a dangerous violation of WP:AGF. For the record, I have been signalling my intention to remove myself from off-Wiki discussions for several months now ( example June 2006). Although I have continued to engage, I find it largely irrelevant to list here since the remit of this particular proposal is in reference to referencing Wikipedia itself. This has already been carried out by Freelanceresearch as listed here while SSS108 continues making attacks of his own: [32] and [33], [34], [35] to name but a few, although admittedly they are made towards a non-party critic. Ekantik ^talk 04:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Ekantik, why don't you provide links where I attacked you about your involvement with Wikipedia? You can't provide links because I have not said anything regarding this issue, although I am fully in my right to do so. Funny how you keep talking about not making "off-topic" comments and then you make "off-topic" comments and start posting links to non-relevant issues about non-involved editors. I am sure you have your reasons, as you always do. Everyone else is "off-topic" except you. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 06:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply

One, Two. These two examples show that SSS108 had every intention to update his defamatory blog by referencing my activity on Wikipedia, as per his usual habit of regular updates. And for the record, I changed my identity on my blog for reasons completely opposite to what SSS108 suggests. Other editors have already observed SSS108's tendency to refuse alternative explanations other than his own conspiracy theories. Ekantik ^talk 06:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply

"Every intention" does not translate into actual posts. Furthermore I have the screencaps where you changed your nic from "Gaurasundara das" to "Dark Knight" when I exposed your "Gaurasundara" sockpuppet. You changed it back to "Gaurasundara das" after you divulged that you had a sockpuppet. Do tell us why you changed your name only to change it back again? Oh yeah, that would be "off topic", wouldn't it? SSS108 ^{talk- email} 07:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply

No, SSS108, hiding behind a technicality like this is not going to work. I'd like to believe this claim in good faith, but unfortunately your history off and on-Wikipedia has shown that you show no hesitance in creating webpages to support any claims you wish to make. I'd also like to thank you for admitting that you maintain a daily obsession with viewing anti-SSB sites (even personal blogs of SSB-critics) and tracking any changes by making screen-captures. The two posts that I referenced clearly display a full intention to write posts about my behaviour on Wikipedia despite your above claim that you have not written about them. As a matter of fact I am surprised that you showed hesitance in this matter when you have never shown hesitance before?

I see that you decided to take a different tack instead: On 2007-01-05 you did pen a post (while this ArbCom case was under review) about me on your critic-blog, Gaudiya Kutir Wiki - Newest Editor. This post references information (taken from my spiritual blog) about my involvement with Gaudiya Kutir Wiki, a separate Wiki of a Gaudiya Vaishnavism Encyclopedia. This post also reveals how, even while this ArbCom case is currently under review, SSS108 did make an off-Wiki attack against me by denigrating my religion for no reason at all, what to speak of other slanders and defamations. Whereas this post is not strictly about Wikipedia matters, it can be considered an aggravating factor relating to WP:NPA#Off-wiki_personal_attacks. This is further evidence of SSS108's long-standing habit of bringing his personal vendettas with SSB-critics to Wikipedia, as he also did to Andries during mediation ( evidence) before the previous ArbCom case. I'm afraid that I'm going to have to repeat myself: SSS108 has shown no evidence of good faith in other editors and presents a persistently disruptive influence relating to the SSB-article, with off-Wikipedia attacks to make up for what he cannot say on-Wikipedia.

I failed to mention this before, but the example that I presented above shows evidence of off-Wiki attacks against ProEdits (Robert Priddy) and M. Alan Kazlev, both of whom are parties to this ArbCom case. Needless to say, SSS108's critic-blog about Priddy is chock-full of defamatory references to Priddy's on-Wikipedia behaviour and other issues and this counts as even further evidence of SSS108's hostility towards SSB-critics. SSS108's other (website) attacks on Priddy and Kazlev may have been referenced elsewhere in this Workshop (here's one example) but the fact that SSS108 is heavily involved with the editing of the Robert Priddy article also raises concerns. Ekantik ^talk 03:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I have every reason not to show good faith towards you. You are an Anti-Sai Activist and you seriously can't expect me to show you "good faith" when you wage vicious, defamatory and libelous attacks against me for which you have no proof. You can whine, babble and snivel as much as you like. You are a vicious defamer of Sathya Sai Baba and your numerous defamatory and derogatory accusations against him have completely compromised your alleged neutrality. There is no arguing about this any longer. You always must have the last word. So go ahead and have it and try to make your response less garrulous. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 07:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Pardon me, but now I think we can add WP:AGF to the list of WP policies SSS108 refuses to follow along with WP:NPA ( evidence). I'd also like to draw attention to my statement for this case, where I specifically stated that - despite SSS108's blatantly hostile attitude towards me - I am willing to assume good faith in him and am willing to work with him in stark contrast to this statement by SSS108 where he states his unwillingness to work with me. I agree with SSS108 that there is little else to be said in this regard. Ekantik ^talk 07:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

"Blatantly hostile"? "Willing to assume good faith?" I think your numerous derogatory and blatantly hostile comments against me and my invovlement on Wikipedia on Yahoo Groups and your blogs speaks in favor of me and against you. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 08:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I did not join Wikipedia to engage in a war with opponents. This motion is about how off-wiki attacks contribute to a negative environment on Wikipedia and this is exactly what SSS108 and Freelanceresearch are doing, carrying their off-wiki grudges and bringing to Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but specifically refusing to abide by Wikipedia policies and continually being antagonistic to me in spite of my stated intentions not to be a party to any personal grudges is a perfect example of disharmony. I'm afraid that I cannot accept responsibility for this as I have made every attempt to get SSS108 to stop perpetuating his aggressive behaviour and he has refused to do so, explicitly stating that he will no abide by WP:AGF and WP:NPA in the course of his edits on Wikipedia. Ekantik ^talk 19:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I just now saw that SSS108 has made attacks against M. Alan Kazlev (party to this ArbCom case) on a dedicated blog to him: [36], [37], [38]. This is addition to attacks on myself and Robert Priddy, both parties to thise case too. Ekantik ^talk 19:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Ekantik is apparently in denial considering his off-wiki attacks against others and his grudges about Freelanceresearch and me editing on Wikipedia (as he complained about our edits numerous times on a Yahoo Group, the QuickTopic forum and on blogs even after joining Wikipedia). And I have already provided full disclosure about my blog about M. Alan Kazlev. I also pointed out that I created the blog in response to Kazlev's attacks against me. I am perfectly entitled to defend myself against other's misrepresentations, including Ekantik's misrepresentations. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 00:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply

SSS108, I'd appreciate it if you were not selective with the facts. You fail to mention that off-wiki disuptes have a history that goes back at least five years, so referring to them as taking place "off Wikipedia" does not necessarily state their relevance especially in regards to ongoing disputes. I would also thank you to stop misrepresenting yourself as being "attacked"; it has already been shown that the support-campaign against SSB-critics has been of ad-hominem argumentation. At the risk of falling into the school-playground style of argument, if you give it then you shouldn't complain when you have to take it.

And in case you missed the point again, this is about how off-wiki attacks are still ongoing. Yes, Freelanceresearch has been off-wiki attacking while this ArbCom is going on, which at the very least adequately displays biased hostility and bad faith. I'm afriad that you cannot explain this away in a manner that will satisfy everyone. Ekantik ^talk 18:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Report - SSS108 still engaging in off-wiki attacks on his attack-blog with malicious and fraudulent allegations of deception: Yahoo's Covert Operations. As the process of this ArbCom case has revealed that SSS108 is surreptitiously acquiring information to use against me by means of several fradulent internet accounts after being banned from said discussion group, it should be well-regarded that SSS108 does not have knowledge of how administrative operations on said discussion group are carried out and thus it is mere speculation offered as fact meant to tarnish reputations. Citing WP:NPA#Off-wiki_personal_attacks is becoming rather redundant as SSS108 clearly refuses to bring a halt to his aggravating actions.

While we're on the subject, it may be worthy of mention that SSS108 has recently opened a new attack-blog to attack another (non-party) SSB-critic: Barry Pittard Exposed. SSS108, by his own admission, conceived this idea on 2007-01-15 and opened it on 2007-01-19. SSS108 continues to linkspam with his attack-blogs on off-Wiki discussion boards invariably posting links to his attack-blogs on party and non-parties to this ArbCom Case ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Just today he has launched yet another attack. In all observation, it appears that SSS108 is more concerned with obsessively denigrating SSB's critics on and off-Wikipedia as per the proceedings of this case. Ekantik ^talk 02:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Report - SSS108 has taken to making regular off-wiki attacks against me and other critics [39], this particular incident being notable because he has now begun posting offensive and manipulated pictures of me. Now he is claiming that I should take responsibility for the comments of other people, especially those who I don't know from Adam. What to speak of his recent lack of participation in this ArbCom case (and editing on Wikipedia as a whole) this is an individual who exemplifies the extreme limits of violating WP:AGF and, in my opinion, can no longer be regarded as a good Wikipedian and this utterly malicious behaviour is compelling proof of it. For the record this is not the first time he has posted offensive and manipulated images of myself and other Wikipedia editors, as he has many other such images in his collection, including Andries. Ekantik ^talk 04:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Report - In more off-wiki attacks, SSS108 aims to document my edits on Wikipedia in a series of articles (calling them "deceptions"), Ref. Ekantik ^talk 03:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed Thatcher131 03:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Well, I'm just a guy, and I offer these proposals for consideration by the arbitrators. I do agree that the comments on your blogs are not recent (at least, the ones I checked). I would like the arbitration committee to consider the problem of activists engaged in long-running battles elsewhere who join wikipedia to continue those battles. (this is a problem in several current and former cases, not just this one) Some people adjust to our particular rules and community, which is very different from a usenet or yahoo group or a blog, and some people do not adjust. Just being an off-wiki activist should not be reason to constrain someone's editing, but it might be a reason to keep them on a short leash, or to recognize that someone who has not adjusted after a few months is not likely to improve after being merely cautioned to do better. Thatcher131 03:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you Thatcher. In that case I would also like to emphasise that I have not joined Wikipedia to continue off-Wiki battles and have stated so several times, despite the unreasonable disbelief from the obvious candidates. This is easily provable by my extensive editing on several articles ( Shilpa Shetty, Shah Rukh Khan, Rani Mukherjee to name a few), and the SSB article is rather low on my list of priorities right now. I would also like the ArbCom (and other parties) to note that no other editor has a serious problem with my edits on any article anywhere, save for SSS108 and the Sathya Sai Baba article. Just by chance I discovered what people are saying about me behind my back (!) and I think this is indicative of the general response. Ekantik ^talk 03:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Activists on a short leash

1) Editors with a history of activism on a topic (pro or con) are not automatically prohibited from editing articles related to the topic, as long as they conform to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies regarding sources, original research, biographies, no personal attacks, and so on. If, after a suitable acclimation period, activist editors are unwilling or unable to edit in accordance with our policies and guidelines, they may be banned from articles related to their activism. Single purpose accounts may be banned from the site.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I do not personally regard myself as an "activist", just as an apostate and critic of Sathya Sai Baba. However, and even if I do say so myself, I have done a good job of keeping any bias out of the article. The two major edits I made ( diff1, diff2) related mostly to removal of POV, correction of bad grammar, removing redunancies, correcting misinformation, trying to put information in the order that they happened, and general cleanup. These were reverted by SSS108 (three times) for no other reason than the fact that he thinks my "activist" status prevents me from being NPOV.

Needless to say, this entire archive shows the extent of SSS108's behaviour while other editors and administrators as well as myself repeatedly advised him to conform to WP policies and guidelines including WP:NPA, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:VANDAL, WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:AGF, WP:DE, and WP:POINT. It should be noted that SSS108 refused to follow WP:NPA ( diff as per here) and indicated his intention to continue making personal attacks.

I agree with the proposal about single-purpose accounts. I personally consider SSS108, Freelanceresearch and Wikisunn as examples of such accounts. Ekantik ^talk 03:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Ekantik should stop playing Admin and citing all these policies like he is one. That's all he does is accuse others of violating every known Wikipedia policy ever created. I assume he will cite something against me for saying this even. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 07:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

What sort of a comment is this? If SSS108 is in violation of policies then these need to be cited. If SSS108 doesn't want to be cited for violating WP policy then perhaps he should check his behaviour to prevent being cited in the first place? I don't see the problem? Its not a question of "acting like an admin", it's a question of responsible editing. Ekantik ^talk 17:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Strange enough, although Ekantik is an editor from only August 2006, he is the only person I am aware of who continually flaunts numerous Wikipedia policies at others, accusing them of numerous violations. Not even Admins do that. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 00:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with Wikipedia outside the SSB-article. As you are a single-purpose account currently arguing with the same editors at SSB-relate pages, I don't blame you for not being aware of what goes on in the rest of Wikipedia.

SSS108, are you saying that if I spot someone deliberately vandalising an article or putting in unsourced negative information, I should not warn them via the templates at WP:TEMP? Really, that would be irreponsible, standing by and watching vandals make hay. Ekantik ^talk 18:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed Thatcher131 03:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sathya Sai Baba is weakly sourced

1) The Sathya Sai Baba article, despite containing many citations, remains weakly sourced due to the quality of the references used and the uninformative nature of the citations. The Arbitration Committee notes that Jossi has compiled a list of more suitable references.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Proposed. reply

"uninformative nature of the citations"? Kirill Lokshin 05:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Many of them are incomplete. Some lack information on the publisher and the year of publication. Some that are periodical references lack the article title or author name. Some lack page numbers. Some have website links but seem to imply that they are also available in print without citing the print publication. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

I had inserted more complete citations (See threaded discussion version with more complete citations including page numbers), but they were removed by Pjacobi ( talk · contribs) )(See e.g. [40] [41] [42] [43]) in spite of my protests (see threaded discussion and another threaded discussion), though I agreed with Pjacobi that some citations were overly long . Andries 21:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply

With the exception of the article by Lawrence Babb I am unconvinced that Jossi has provided a list that can be used for better referencing of the article. See also User_talk:TalkAbout#Babb_Redemptive_encounters. I admit that some of the titles may be used for the article The Sathya Sai Baba movement (which has since it start by me in 2004 always been a separate article) as I had already stated. I would recommend other editors who have more faith in Jossi's list to spend the time and money to check whether I was correct or not. Andries 00:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Jossi mentions two articles as sources written by Reinhart Hummel and Donald Taylor. The article by Hummel is already used as source and another article by Donbald Taylor is also already used as source. Andries 00:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I also would like to note that I have introduced the article by Reinhart Hummel as a source that Jossi recommends. I also introduced an article by Donald Taylor as a source. Andries 01:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

One sentence from Taylor's and once mention from Hummel? Surely these sources deserve better exposure. For example, Hummel's article is pretty interesting [44] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I admit that more of what Reinhart Hummel and Donald Taylor wrote could be used in the article. I cannot read Danish. Sorry. Andries 01:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Taylor's article is in a book edited by Richard Burghart Hinduism in Great Britain, and should be in English. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Oh then it is already used as a source too, especially for the related article Prema Sai Baba. Andries 01:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Books by SSB often do not mention the their publication year.

Andries 00:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I already tried to give better sourcing at Sathya Sai Baba/Cleanup and Sathya Sai Baba movement. Andries 19:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

SSS108 misrepresents comments by 67.117.130.181 regarding Brian Steel's bibliography. By the way, SSS108 should have given his reply to 67.117.130.181 in this section, because he is a party in the dispute. Andries 21:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I found an alternative bibliography apart from Jossi's list and Brian Steel's bibliography. here. I am not very enthousiastic about some of the academic sources e.g. I find think that Swallow makes implausible largely theoretical speculations regarding SSB's claim to be an incarnation of Shiva and Shakti that are at variance with the beliefs of both current and former devotees. Andries 21:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

You may be mistaken, Andries. Just a couple of examples below:

• An article by Hummel Reinhart: "Guru, Miracle Worker, Religious Founder. Sathya Sai Baba." Update: A Quarterly Journal on New Religious Movements (Aarhus, Denmark) 9 ( 3), 1985: pp. 8-19 -- A portrait of the Sathya Sai Baba movement which describes the role of the leader and what he claims to stand for, i.e. an incarnation of Sai. Looks at Sai Baba's childhood and family background, the activities of the organization, its meditation practices, and analyses the phenomenon from a functional approach.
• An article by Taylor Donald. "Phenomenal: The Significance of Miracles in the Sathya Sai Baba Movement." Religion Today 3 ( 1), 1986: pp. 9-11 -- Discusses the nature and function of the miracles in the Sathya Sai Baba movement, as well as their role in sustaining the power and authority of the leader.

An excellent and informative article could be written if these and many other sources available are explored. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Reinhart Hummel is a Lutheran Pastor and Director of Evangelische Zentralstelle fur Weltanschauungsfragen since 1981. Hummel argued that Sathya Sai Baba is Anti-Christian and is the Anti-Christ. Hummel clearly has a self-admitted bias and fundamentalist Christian POV and is not reliable for this reason, in my opinion. As a matter of fact, the relevant article has been published on Andries Anti-Sai site. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 22:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

It's really true that most sources related to SSB are weak. A Google Books search for SSB [45] finds close to 300 titles but almost all of them are new-age fluff. Brian Steel, a former Sai adherent who left the movement, has compiled an extensive bibliography of scholarly and other references that I linked at Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/Comments that IMO looks useful for researching the article. SSS108 disputed and un-hotlinked the URL and I asked Thatcher131 for advice but didn't get an answer [46]. (Thatcher131 has been doing an excellent job moderating the dispute in general but is undoubtedly very busy, so I wasn't bothered by this).

Brian Steel listed far more stuff than I was able to find through news database, Google, and JSTOR searches about SSB. It draws on his extensive reading done both as a member and later as a critic of the SSB movement and I think it is completely worthy of inclusion on the SSB article's talk page (I would like to move it there but not without prior discussion under the circumstances). If arbcom is deferring to Jossi about lists of sources then I'd like to invite Jossi to look over Brian Steel's bibliography and give an opinion. 67.117.130.181 09:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply

67.117.130.181, kindly provide us with the reliable or reputable references that mention Brian Steel, which would qualify him to be used as a reference in the article. Steel's only credentials are in Spanish. Strange that you argue that most of the sources are "weak" and then argue that Steel should be cited. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 18:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply

User:Andries

2) The Arbitration Committee notes that Andries has participated at Wikipedia for nearly three years, during which time perhaps half his edits have been to Sathya Sai Baba and related articles. Andries has declared that he is an ex-follower of Sathya Sai Baba, and is affiliated with an activist web site critical of Sathya Sai Baba. In the course of his editing, Andries has been blocked for 3RR violations on two occasions, and has been blocked once due to a violation of a prior arbitration remedy. He has been involved with two mediation attempts centered on the problems at the Sathya Sai Baba article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Proposed. reply

Comment by parties:

With regards to the block for violation of the arbitration remedy, please note that I had requested clarifiction from the arbcom that was ignored and that I reported myself for violation of arbitration only because I wanted clarity about what I considered and still consider a flawed interpretation of the arbitration remedy. [47] Andries 22:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I only remember a mediation by BostonMA ( talk · contribs). Andries 21:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Andries is unwilling to accept the ArbCom ruling and continually attempts to re-interpret the ruling so he can circumvent it. As one can see, Andries still refuses to accept the ruling. Unless ArbCom gives Andries a point-blank answer, this issue will never be resolved. Besides the mediation with BostonMA, a second mediation attempt was made with Wisden17 Ref and Andries behavior was deemed to be uncooperative and that is when I filed the first RFA. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 22:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I had already commented on this aborted mediation attempt in the previous abritration case. Andries 09:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

There really needs to be a finding about SSS108 if there's going to be a finding like this about Andries. See SSS108's site ( this page might be a good place to start) to see that SSS108 is not a neutral party. 67.117.130.181 11:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I already gave a full self-disclosure on the evidence page. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 18:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Editing by Andries

1) With respect to Robert Priddy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Andries has editwarred extensively and repeatedly inserted links to an attack site maintained by Robert Priddy [48]. HIs edits to Sathya Sai Baba (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) are generally responsible, requesting verification rather than aggressively deleting or reverting [49]. They include this edit adding sources, this edit suggesting a merger with The Sathya Sai Baba movement, [50], copyediting, adding source, and this one requesting a source for SSB being described as a philosopher. This query was soon reverted by Kkrystian ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with the comment "Rm "citation needed" notice. Andries not believing SSB is a philosopher is not a reason to question this fact. SSB is undoubtedly a philosopher. His philosophy relates to ethics, theology & society" [51].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sources used by Andries

1) Sources such as this BBC transcript, cited by Andries in this edit contain material which may be appropriately used, there are charges of sexual abuse of boys, but also material which may not be, the allegations of sexual abuse by a particular boy. Andries has sometimes used such material inappropriately, resulting in poorly sourced and irrelevant information being included in the article [52] [53] [54] [55].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

With regards to Thatcher131's statement regarding Wikipedia:Fact laundering, I can say that the BBC documentary is a result of investigation by the BBC of the allegations. Andries 22:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I do not understand why Alaya Rahm and his son cannot be mentioned in the article. They are important because they requested the leader of the USA SSB organization to have the allegations of sexual abuse by SSB investigated which the leader refused. I think this is highly relevant for the article. May be I miss something, but I would like to know what. I guess this has little to Wikipedia policies but more with good editorial judgement. Andries 14:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

It cannot be included because it is almost impossible to determine if this particular person is being truthful. What can be used is that the BBC investigation uncovered a number of such allegations. As to the leader, our article is not about him or his failure to adequately investigate. Fred Bauder 15:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply

In light of facts revealed about Alaya Rahm (including his decade long daily use of illegal street drugs, promiscuous sexual activities prior to meeting SSB -information withheld from his own parents- and the fact that he admitted he never suffered any psychological trauma that would have warranted seeing a therapist of any kind), it is understandable why the leader of the SSB organization did not believe Alaya Rahm. Even Alaya's parents initially questioned his motives. He claimed he was sexually abused after he was living a lifestyle his parents didn't approve of and after they threatened to cut him off financially (they were supporting him as an adult). SSS108 ^{talk- email} 18:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

More misinterpretations. The leader of the International SSB Organisation fully believed the Rahm family's allegations (due to their status as well-known and high-ranking followers) and stated that he would investigate with SSB when he visited India next. That he decided not to believe in the Rahm family's allegations is due to his own faith in SSB's innocence and doesn't have any reflection on the truth of the allegations either way.

Also, the "facts" that you speak about were made by a "witness" who was discounted both by SSB and the Rahm family. Unreliable sources. SSS108, please do not present your skewed misinterpretations as the "facts" when they are taken out of context. Ekantik ^talk 19:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

The leader of the Sai Org did not believe the Rahm Family. He never admitted believing Alaya whatsoever. He simply expressed doubts. Back up your comments with verifiable facts and stop trying to pass off your speculations as the truth. Ekantik has no idea what he is talking about. The information I cited above about Alaya Rahm was taken from "response to form interrogatories" and was not taken from Kreydick's deposition. Furthermore, Kreydick was named as a "witness" by Alaya Rahm himself and it backfired on him. Ekantik, please stop presenting your skewed misrepresentations as the "facts" when you apparently have not even read the court records for yourself. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 07:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Speculations? I was simply paraphrasing the BBC investigation. What "doubts" did the leader have? Doubts about what? The allegations or SSB? The latter is obvious as he stated that he went to India to talk to SSB about it. So please keep your speculations to yourself. SSS108 knowingly distorts facts by jumbling up events out of context. The events I am referring to took place around 1999, whereas this court case is a relatively recent affair. SSS108 is deliberately jumbling up 1999-events with 2006-events and presenting this as "facts" about the leader of the SSB Organisation, which does not reflect the events as they happened.

Rather than accuse other people of "not knowing what they are talking about", and if SSS108 knowingly distorts known facts and presents skewed misinformation in this way then, in my view, this doesn't say much for his personal support campaign of SSB leave alone presenting "facts" in this ArbCom case. Ekantik ^talk 19:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Ekantik, you are the one speculating. I have yet to see any confession from Goldstein believing any allegations. Goldstein is still an ardent devotee of SSB. No one is jumbling the 1999 and 2006 events. You said: "Also, the 'facts' that you speak about were made by a 'witness' who was discounted both by SSB and the Rahm family". This comment is in direct relation to the 2006 self-dismissed court case from Alaya Rahm. You apparently don't know what you are talking about just like you confused Kreydick's deposition with other court records that you apparently have not read. I clearly made the distinction between the material I commented on. Sorry you are confused. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 01:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I'll thank you to not to speak in a patronising manner and I am not confused about the issue. The BBC transcript clearly shows that the leader (Goldstein) took the concerns seriously on board (due to their status as high-ranking and "respectable" followers with long-time devotion to SSB) and stated that he will address the issue with SSB. This is a verifiable fact that anyone can check out even from the online transcript of the documentary at the BBC site. It automatically follows that Goldstein believed enough in the allegations to take the time to get SSB to address it (if he did not believe it he would have dismissed it straightaway although we all know that you dispute this).

You deliberately misrepresented this situation above by stating that Goldstein did not believe in the allegations due to developments that took place in 2006, not 1999 as per the original incident. Thus, you have been misrepresenting the situation in order to present a one-sided view of the facts and a POV. In my view this is itself a commentary on your actions on Wikipedia: when you misrepresent the facts to fit a certain POV, how can we be sure that you are telling the facts unless you are called up on it?

I'll also thank you to stop speculating on what I may or may not have read, as you do not know what I have or haven't read. Ekantik ^talk 18:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Repeating allegations made by others is not the same as investigating and reporting on the allegations. See Wikipedia:Fact laundering. Media stories that say "we are reporting that several allegations of misconduct have been made" should not be misinterpreted as saying, "We have investigated and are corroborating the allegations." The cited BBC story also engages in guilt by association (describing the suicides of two distraught former devotees and implying that SSB was responsible). Thatcher131 20:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Andries runs an attack web site

1) Andries ( talk · contribs) is the proprietor of Ex-Baba.com, described as "Website of concerned former devotees of Sathya Sai Baba." The site contains articles, testimony, links to the traditional media, and other content critical of Sai Baba, his organization, and his followers.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I confirm that I am affiliated with this website. Please note that the label "attack site" applies here to a disseminating critical information about a public figure which is different from what "SSS108" does with his attack websites on non-public figures. SSB acquired followers with his claims of being an embodiment of God, purity etc. Critics of SSB of course never made such claims about themselves. Andries 13:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Andries Anti-Sai Site also attacks non-public devotees of SSB. It is not solely a critique of SSB. It also publishes anonymous hate comments taken from various groups and forums. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 07:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed Thatcher131 03:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wikisunn

1) Wikisunn ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has to date edited only pages related to Sathya Sai Baba, takes strong pro-Sathya Sai Baba point of view, maintaining "Only those authors / webmasters whose claims match with the realities happening in Sai Baba's ashram can alone be considered as reliable sources." User_talk:Thatcher131/SSB#Unresolved_problems_in_Sathya_Sai_Baba.27s_Article (near the end). This extended dialog between the regular editors to the articles illustrates their positions. The posts by Wikisunn display a tendency to discount reliable sources if they differ from his own conclusions, "I know there are alot of authors / Webmasters either praising or defaming Sai Baba. But they can be treated as reliable source only, when the real facts / reality matches with their claims. By that what I meant is, if there is no truth in their statements and there is no connection between what they are saying and what is really happening in Baba's ashram then they are not reliable sources."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

I consider Wikisunn's behavior to remove statements sourced to reputable sources from the Sathhya Sai Baba article only because they do not fit into her/his belief system or view on Hinduism disruptive. The story of Sathya Sai Baba does not fit in any belief system that I can think of because it has too many contradictions and paradoxes. Andries 20:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

I agree that the above quoted comments by me in Thatcher's page should have been better phrased. I apologize for that. As I was a new user to wikipedia at that time, I did not know what correct wikipedia policies to quote related to these claims. All I wanted to say or convey is that the related claims from the article (which I discussed in Thatcher's page) are against sound editorial judgement, non reliable, poorly sourced and Wikipedia stresses on getting things right and using high standard references and these claims are not reliable. I have added detailed discussions below regarding my edits.

Wikisunn 24th January 2007

Editing by Wikisunn

1.1) Wikisunn in this edit removes well sourced information from an article in The Times which accurately attributed to The Times the opinion that Sathya Sai Baba's teachings were "a collection of banal truisms and platitudes". Wikisunn commented "I seek administrator’s help, please stop Andries from reverting this article again, adding vulgar quotes on Baba (breaking NPOV), non reliable sources. These edits were discussed in Thatcher's page" ( User talk:Thatcher131/SSB). He has inserted information based on unreliable sources [56].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply

If this was discussed on Thatcher's page, I can't find it after some searching. Fred Bauder 17:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Fred, see User talk:Thatcher131/SSB. I moved an extensive talk page thread there and it kept growing. Unfortunately I haven't been paying much attention lately due to enormous real life pressures on editing. Thatcher131 17:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Wikisunn ( talk · contribs) is new single purpose user to Wikipedia and does not understand policies yet. Andries 20:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I tried telling Wikisunn that his behaviour (in discussing SSB content-removal on Thatcher's sub-page ) was inappropriate before he proceeded to go ahead with his controversial edits, see section of talk page. Despite my twice informing him of the correct procedure (ie, discussing issues on the talk-pages of articles), he continued presenting his fallacious arguments and his misunderstandings of WP policies. Ekantik ^talk 00:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Further to my evidence on Wikisunn, he has been engaging in editing in a manner that I perceive as hysterical. After taking the time to patiently explain to him how his editing is against WP policies such as BLP and MOS and after he has continued to violate said policies by insisting on making his disruptive edits repeatedly, I took the step of placing "style warning" templates on his talk-page. Since then he has become openly hostile and threatening ( diff) and has been registering spurious complaints against me on Thatcher131's talk-page ( diff). I responded to the complaint. Essentially I am now frazzled after having taken the time to patiently and gently explain to an inexperienced editor how to engage in proper and responsible editing here at Wikipedia, only to have said person accuse me of incivility and personal attacks while displaying hostile and threatening behaviour. It should also be noted that Wikisunn's recent behaviour largely consists of personal attacks that partially replicate SSS108's style of rhetoric. Ekantik ^talk 02:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

I had discussed about my edits in Thatcher’s talk page User talk:Thatcher131/SSB for nearly a month, before editing the article. I had several discussions with Andries related to these edits as he was the author who provided the references in the article. The following were the discussions and analysis related to the edits.

1) There were claims in the article about Sai Baba changing from Male to female from one instance to another to have sex and this was claimed by Keith Ord and Nagel. There were obscene detailed descriptions of these claims. Further Nagel attributed the change to the Shiva sakthi aspect of Sai Baba.

Problems with this controversial claim:

a)This claim taken from de Volkskrant sounds fishy and raises questions such as this cannot be true as it sounds ridiculous and does not make any sense. Also this claim was never discussed in the talk page with other editors.

How can a human being possibly change himself from male to female and then back to male from one instance to another? When you look for answers from science – nobody has accomplished such a feat so far? When you look for answers from religion – no prophet has accomplished such a feat.

b)When I asked this question to Andries, he said he does not believe it is humanly possible but it is one of the trick by Sathya Sai Baba. How can some body do such a trick of changing oneself from one form to another?

c)Wikipedia greatly emphasises on getting the facts right and using high quality references in Biographies of Living Persons. This claim is against sound editorial judgement and breaks the Wikipedia reliability policy. I can discuss in more detail relating to this claim if need be. Also, many people may not be aware of what Shiva Sakthi Concept (Hindu concept), I have added a detailed explanation about the different schools of thoughts regarding Shiva Sakthi concept in User talk:Thatcher131/SSB under heading Misconstrued reference to Very Significant Hindu terminologies.

2) Edits on Sacha Kester: I challenged the reference related to Sacha Kester as her statement on Sai Baba were wrong. During my discussion with Andries related to this, Andries said that he could not find the source for these claims and that this claims were published in de Volkskrant. Wikipedia policy regarding poorly sourced material says, “Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source, and the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material. Unsourced or poorly sourced edits may be challenged and removed at any time. Sometimes it is better to have no information at all than to have information without a source.”

3) Comments about Kundalini Shakthi by naive authors: Salon.com’s editors comments about Kundalini shakthi shows that he has no clue / knowledge of what he is talking about and gives his ridiculous perspective or Point of View on the subject. Kundalini Shakthi / Kundalini Yoga / Kundalini Sadhana is a very advanced spiritual yogic practice / exercise prescribed in Hindu tantric sadhana for a man to achieve self realization / ultimate liberation from the cycles of birth and death. I have added a detailed discussion in User talk:Thatcher131/SSB under Misconstrued reference to Very Significant Hindu terminologies on what it is and why the editor’s comments are naïve and cannot be considered as reliable.

4) There were vulgar quotes on Sai Baba by Sacha Kester and Dominic Kennedy breaking the Wikipedia: NPOV which were also removed. We can discuss further on this.

Edits related to Howard Murphet: The statements from Howard Murphet were in the article even before I started editing the article. The article said " According to Howard Murphet, in his book Sai Baba Man of Miracles, the young Sathya was a vegetarian and was known for his aversion to animal cruelty and compassion for the poor, disabled and elderly." But this claim did not have a supporting reference I added supporting reference to these statements. I saw request for citations related to the scorpion incident, so added more information on that and some key dates/events in Sai Baba's early life from the reference.

Misrepresentation of my recent edits: Ekantik added biased non NPOV subcategory title in the article though not required and not supported by other editors. Here are the proofs of his edits to the article. [57], [58], [59]. When I disgreed and edited his wrong WP:MOS he added the first warning to my userpage [60]. 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 second warning [61]. That's when I decided to complain to Thatcher. His evidence that I threatened him is lies actually he was the one who threatened to block me in my userpage for differing from his views and edits. The above links from my userpage are proofs for it. He misused Wikipedia policy and gave me a warning for differing from his edits and misused wikipedia policies for pushing his POV. Wikisunn 25th february 2007

Other controversial issues in the article: These are issues not related to my edits but I would like to discuss on them. 1) In the wikipedia article on Sai Baba says “The Guardian further expressed concerns over a contingent of 200 youths travelling to the Baba's ashram in order to gain their Duke of Edinburgh Awards. “. Here they are referring to the award granted for Sai Youth UK for their humanitarian work in 2006.

Sathya Sai Baba is 81 years old. Today, he cannot even walk a few steps on his own and can only stand with support because of his multiple injuries since 2003> SSB in wheelchair - http://media.radiosai.org/pages/20050909/index.html. He uses wheel chair and golf cart to move around as he is physically disabled. Fact Vs Claims: If we look at the real facts Vs claims by Guardian any unbiased person can see these claims by Guardian of accusing Sai Baba are blatant lies. The fact that Sai Baba is physically disabled unable to take a step or walk around with out support itself proves that the above accusation is a lie.

2)Second controversial issue from article:

The article says The Times further reported in August 2001 that three men had died after placing hope in Sathya Sai Baba. “Aran Edwards, a British national, was described as "quite an ill person, mentally unstable and needed orthodox help", by David Bailey. Edwards was encouraged to write letters to the guru to help solve his "psychological problems". Edwards had never traveled to see the guru firsthand. David Bailey said that he eventually told Edwards, "Wake up. He doesn't even read these letters." Edwards was so distraught about the situation, he decided to commit suicide. Edwards was found hanging from a staircase in his home in Cardiff, London. Andrew Richardson, another British national, hurled himself off a bank building in Bangalore, India. Two letters were found on his body in which he said he was in a deep depression. He expressed a desire to see Sai Baba and Mother Teresa.”

Sathya Sai Baba never promised eternal life to his followers or escape from death or personal tragedies. Why is Sathya Sai Baba blamed or accused for these people’s death. The same reference also says these people were mentally depressed or had depression? Does n’t the whole logic seems biased and sounds as unfair accusation on Sai Baba? This reference is unfair accusation of Sai Baba and does not make sense though this was published in Time’s Magazine.

Question to Administrators and Arbitrators? What is your comment on these two references?. Wikisunn 24th January 2007

Robert Priddy

1) Robert Priddy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a former Sai Babe devotee who wrote a favorable book, Source of the Dream - My Way to Sathya Sai Baba (1997). He later left the movement and wrote an unfavorable book, The Sathya Sai Baba Enigma (2004). The Sathya Sai Baba Enigma is only held by one large library world wide according to Worldcat; it is published in India and not available for sale on Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I have his book at home. The contents is a copy of the articles on his website. Andries 20:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. Thatcher131 18:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Robert Priddy's web sites

1) Robert Priddy maintains two web sites. http://home.no.net/rrpriddy/Nos/index.html is a conventional author's web site with links to many of Priddy's works. http://home.chello.no/~reirob/, titled SATHYA SAI BABA stories, myths and deceits, is an attack site containing large amounts of opinion and what appears to be personal experience and unverifiable original research.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Priddy maintains 4 websites. His homepage, and the following Anti-Sai websites: http://home.chello.no/~reirob/, http://home.no.net/anir/Sai/, http://home.no.net/abacusa/ SSS108 ^{talk- email} 07:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Prop Thatcher131 19:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Robert Priddy edit war

1) There was an edit war at Robert Priddy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over the inclusion of the "SATHYA SAI BABA stories, myths and deceits" web site as an external link, involving Andries and SSS108, and to a lesser extent other editors. Andries and admin Pjacobi ( talk) argued on the talk page that the link was important to Priddy's notability as a SSB critic. SSS108 and admin Thatcher131 ( talk) argued that including the link violated the previous arbitration case, specifically Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Removal_of_poorly_sourced_information. In response to Thatcher131's opinion and warning [62], Andries edited the article to describe the contents of the website (unsourced criticism of Sai Baba) in lieu of linking to the web site [63] [64]. Thatcher131 blocked him for 24 hours and banned him from the article for one month [65]. See Talk:Robert_Priddy#Weblink_restored for discussion of the link.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

In contrast to what Thatcher131 stated here the contents of the Priddy's homepage that I cited was not unsourced criticism of SSB, but was quite innocent [66] and in full accordance to what WP:RS states about using self-published material.

"Self-published material, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about the author, so long as there is no reasonable doubt who wrote the material, and so long as it is:

• relevant to the self-publisher's notability;
• not contentious;
• not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing;
• about the subject only and not about third parties or events not directly related to the subject"

Again, I deny that I have broken any Wikipedia policy with my edits on Robert Priddy, (except for edit warring). Again, I do not see any good reason why this article should not follow generally accepted practice in Wikipedia of linking to the homepages of the article subject. I request that Wikipedia rules are applied consistently and fairly.

Andries 21:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply

To say that he is a critic is acceptable, to quote or describe his criticism, when it has not be published in a reliable third party source, is not acceptable, because at that point it is contentious, self-serving, and involves third parties not directly related to the subject. If the only source that says he is a critic is his own critical web site, then maybe he is not that notable after all. If no third party reliable source describes, discusses, evaluates or reviews his criticism, then you can't include it, and that is especially true when there is an arbitration ruling prohibiting it. Thatcher131 22:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Thatcher131, your comment falsely suggests that I described Priddy's criticism of Sathya Sai Baba in the article Robert Priddy. I did not. Check my edits. Andries 22:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Not only does Andries want to include Priddy's Anti-Sai link, he also wants to include material from Priddy's site. For example, see [67]. Andries thinks this material is within the guidelines of "reputable sources" [68] [69]. Since Andries believes this, this also means that he will reference Priddy's criticism the same way and will use the same excuse of "reputable sources" to justify it. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 00:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I'll admit to not being fully conversant with the issue here, but my personal understanding of it (based on what I have seen of the discussions) is as follows: SSS108 has been against the inclusion of that particular link for a long time. When asked for his rationale in doing so, SSS108 invariably refuses to answer and becomes rude, or begins to refer to the comments of administrators. This refers to User:Tony Sidaway who opined to Andries that the inclusion of the link was in violation of the first ArbCom ruling, and which Andries disagrees with. SSS108 has since then been removing the link based on the comment by Tony Sidaway and repeatedly citing it in all instances of discussion( example).

After Thatcher got involved, he apparently agreed with SSS108's and Tony Sidaway's comments about the controversial link and warned Andries to stop including, blocking him for a violation shortly thereafter. SSS108 has since been citing the opinion of "two" administrators" in support of his contention that the link should not be included. As is obvious now, this is under discussion especially since another administrator (Pjacobi) thinks it is alright to include the link, or whatever. My own opinion (if anyone is interested in it) is that the first ArbCom ruling was only bound for the Sathya Sai Baba article, and is 'not applicable to Robert Priddy as SSS108 keeps on alleging. This means that I respectfully disagree with Tony Sidaway's opinion of the matter, although I have not indulged in any editing on the RP article and just engaged in discussions on the talk-page.

However, I have asked SSS108 several times to explain his rationale for the removal of the link and has also been quibbling over whether the link in question is a "homepage" or an "Anti-Sai site". At present he is currently citing support by "two" administrators as the be-all and end-all of the issue, but he had been arguing for it's removal before and I wanted to know what rationale he was employing. He has only come back with rude replies to my questions (See threaded discussion One and Two). Ekantik ^talk 18:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I have filed a complaint about Skollur ( talk · contribs)'s behavior who followed generally accepted Wikipedia practices may have violated the arbcom decisions, just as I did on Robert Priddy [70]. I will search for more contributors who follow generally accepted Wikipedia behavior may have violated the arbcom decision by linking to the homepages of the subjects in question. I think that contributors who add the homepage of James Randi in the article James Randi may also have violated the arbcom decision. Randi criticized Sathya Sai Baba in his homepage. [71] May be arbcom members may consider an indefinite ban for the contributors who added the homepage of James Randi to the article James Randi. Andries 12:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

proposed. Although not strictly authorized in the prior case, I felt an article ban was within my administrative discretion and was less harmful than the alternatives. Thatcher131 19:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Pjacobi appears to have seriously misunderstood the previous ruling, or I have [72]. Also, SSS108 and Pjacobi edit warred on Talk:Robert Priddy over whether the web site should be hotlinked in the discussion. Thatcher131 19:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply

(Comment by involved party Pjacobi to maintain threading)

I still hold that you misunderstood the ArbCom ruling and that it is totally hypocritical to allow external links to stormfront.org, the zuendelsite, chick.com, xenu.de, but go amok for linking Priddy's attack site.

Also you seem to have (perhaps inadverently) contributed to the ill founded belief, that admins have special powers in content disputes.

Pjacobi 09:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Pjacobi made this point before and I already commented on it (on this page) at Prior remedies clarified or see the diff: [73]. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 06:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Pjacobi, it was arbcom who applied a content-based remedy in the prior case. I was interpreting it the best I could. I find your suggestion that the remedy only applies to SSS108 and Andries [74] to be plainly silly. If there a content-based ruling, surely it applies to the content, no matter who adds it. Your argument that the ruling applies only to SSB and not to allied articles like Robert Priddy is more sound, although I disagree with you. A more substantial clarification than the one offered below is definitely needed. Thatcher131 03:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I was thinking in terms of the Bogdanov affair ArbCom decision, where known POV-pushers are banned from the article, IPs and new accounts are reverted on sight, but not-single-issue-editors are free to edit within normal policy. -- Pjacobi 08:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Again, I want to state that I have not added criticism of Sathya Sai Baba to the article Robert Priddy that was poorly sourced. I challenge anyone who thinks otherwise to provide a diff that supports Thatcher131 false accusation against me. Andries 20:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes you did, Andries. See: [75]. You said this material is within the guidelines of "reputable sources" [76] [77]. Since you believe this, what is there to prevent you from citing Priddy's criticism the same way and use the same excuse of "reputable sources" to justify it? You are even advocating for the inclusion of the Sanathana Sarathi references, once again taken from Priddy's Anti-Sai website [78] [79]. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 01:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply

SSS108, no, the diffs that you provided did not contain criticism of Sathya Sai Baba. Yes, what I added was within the guidelines of self-published reputable sources, because the edit that I added was not contentious and did not contain statements about third parities. Yes, it is true that there is nothing to prevent me from adding Priddy's criticism except my knowledge of the guidelines and policies, and common sense. The important fact is that I did not add poorly sourced criticism of Sathya Sai Baba to the article Robert Priddy, in contrast to what you and Thatcher131 assert. 'PLEASE CHECK MY EDITS BEFORE ACCUSING ME OF SOMETHING. It seems that you simply do not understand the guidelines and policies regarding self-published sources. Andries 17:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Apparently, you don't understand the guidelines and polices from the ArbCom ruling. You were warned twice and even banned because of it. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 17:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply

SSS108 runs several attack web sites

1) SSS108 ( talk · contribs) is the webmaster/proprietor of several web sites and blogs that attack Sai Baba's critics, including Robert Priddy Exposed, Sanjay Dadlani Exposed, Sanjay Dadlani References, and others. Some blog posts reference other wikipedia editors by name and call attention to their editing activities [80] [81] [82] SSS108 also runs http://www.saisathyasai.com/, described as "A PRO-Sai Site exposing the lies, deceit & dishonesty of critics of Sri Sathya Sai Baba", which claims to debunk negative stories about Sai Baba and expose "the lies, deceit and dishonesty of former followers, ex-devotees, critics and skeptics of Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba." See also User:SSS108/ArbCom Answers To Thatcher.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed Thatcher131 02:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Ekantik runs several attack web sites

1) Ekantik ( talk · contribs) runs several web sites and blogs attacking Sai Baba and his supporters, including Gerald 'Joe' Moreno Deception, Gerald 'Joe' Moreno Deception On Wikipedia, Lisa De Witt, and Sai Baba EXPOSED!. Some of the content is directed at the on-wikipedia activities of Gerald Moreno, whom Ekantik believes is SSS108, and Lisa DeWit, who is alleged to be User:Freelanceresearch.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I would like to state that most of my sites are currently inactive, as well as the fact that my blogs against other parties were created prior to my joining Wikipedia. They were initially "notepads" to track and document their slanderous and defamatory attacks against myself as well as my response to said attacks. I will shortly be providing evidence of this. Ekantik ^talk 04:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

At the risk of being technical, I do not have any websites, just blogs. Blogs are, by definition, personal diaries. Ekantik ^talk 04:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

"Personal diaries" that you use as a forum to push your Anti-Sai agenda and defamatory and vicious campaigns against others. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 17:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

You are entitled to your opinion. As you have formally declared yourself as a proponent and advocate of SSB, it is perfectly understandable why you would object to anything that is not praising the object of your advocacy. Ekantik ^talk 03:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed Thatcher131 02:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Yahoo Groups

1) Many participants in this case also participate in the Yahoo Group sathyasaibaba2. A search for the term "Wikipedia" brings up 270 posts, including references to this arbitration case [83] [84]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I have largely discontinued my participation in said yahoogroup (for obvious reasons) although I have been a member of it since September 2000. I was made a moderator of sathyasaibabadiscussionclub in December 2005 (prior to my joining Wikipedia) and my role mainly consists of keeping discussions calm although I participate sometimes. Ekantik ^talk 04:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Ekantik's comments are untrue. Not only does he continue to make defamatory accusations against SSB on the sathyasaibabadiscussionclub Yahoo Group, he is the prime moderator who accepts/declines submitted posts, can ban members and who approves new members to the group. Ekantik is watering-down his role on the group. When he took over the group, the first thing he did was purge 253 members (that he considered "inactive"). This indicates that he is more than just a voice of reason in the group. Ask to join the group and find out for yourself. He uses the name "H.H. Swami Saiexposedananda". SSS108 ^{talk- email} 17:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

SSS108 obviously has not researched his claims properly. If he had bothered to read my initial statement properly he would have read that I became a moderator in December 2005. The purging of inactive members occurred only a couple of months ago or thereabouts which makes his claims untrue. Besides that, I fail to see what concern it is of his how the discussion group is managed.

SSS108, I have already asked you (several times) to stay relevant. This particular proposal deals with sathyasaibaba2, not sathyasaibabadiscussionclub. If you have nothing to say about my nil participation there then that's fine. On the other hand you might like to discuss your continuing participation there? Ekantik ^talk 04:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Ekantik is being dishonest, as usual. Ekantik became a known moderator of the sathyasaibabadiscussionclub (SSBDC) in early November 2006 and even Angelic pointed this out on the QuickTopic forum on Nov 6th [85]. Ekantik responded to Angelic's comment the same day (Nov 6th) and did not deny being the moderator [86]. Furthermore, Ekantik admitted being a moderator on Nov 7th and said he was the one who banned Angelic from the group [87] (and called him a "criminal" simply because he disobeyed his rules on the group). Now Ekantik is trying to say he became a moderator only in December 2006. A bold-faced untruth. Ekantik, if you did not want your involvement with the SSBDC discussed here, you should not have brought it up to begin with. You did. There you go again ranting about "staying relevant" when the only one taking the conversations off topic is you. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 07:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Actually, I stand corrected. Ekantik was a moderator from at least April 2006. He gave Angelic a "stage 2" warning in late October [88] (must be a member to view) and if one views the "Files" folder [89] (must be a member to view), one can see how Ekantik (whose Yahoo ID is "saiexposed420") created the "ban" file in Aug '06, the "farewell" file in April 2006 and the "rules" file in July 2006 SSS108 ^{talk- email} 07:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply

This is becoming more tiresome and irrelevant. If SSS108 wants to get technical and discuss the assumption of moderatorship versus "known" moderatorship, that is really an issue for him to resolve. For the record, the logs of the group are available to moderators and they show me assuming moderatorship in December 2005, I can make a screen-capture of this if it is deemed necessary. I've already done so as a matter of fact. If SSS108 or anyone else didn't know about my assumption of moderatorship in December 2005, it is not my problem. In the meantime, I would like to observe that SSS108's remarks about being "untrue", "dishonest as usual", making "bold-face untruths," etc. are gross violations of WP:NPA.

In answer to SSS108's query as to why I brought up my moderatorship of the SSBDC in the first place, that was in the interests of self-disclosure. This proposal is about membership of sathyasaibaba2, not sathyasaibabadiscussionclub, but I revealed my moderatorship of SSBDC because I have nothing to hide. I'd also like to ask why SSS108 has obviously entered the SSBDC surreptitiously under a different identity after he was banned by the owner? This is a rhetorical question of course; he could not be able to provide information about file creations etc. if he wasn't a lurker. Ekantik ^talk 07:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Amazing that you continue to deny being the moderator pre-December '06 even though it can (and has) been shown you were moderating the group as early as April 2006. This goes to show how you purposely distort the truth and actually think you can get away with it. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 18:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Where did I deny being a moderator pre-December 2006? I have stated thrice already (fourth time now) that I was made - a - moderator - in - December - 2005. So please, follow your own advice and stop distorting the truth and thinking you can get away with it. Take the time to read through what people are saying before typing some thing and clicking on 'Save Page'. Ekantik ^talk 02:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I apologize. I was thinking 2006. However, when you said you "largely discontinued my participation" with the SSBDC group, you are not being truthful. You continue to post your personal Anti-Sai views there, even as recently as January 18th 2007. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 07:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Largely discontinuing my participation means that I am not as active as I used to be, vis-a-vis making posts on an almost daily basis. I am the moderator of that group and I have to approve new members and postings that I have to regularly check for. Thank you for telling me information about my latest posts that you could only have acquired by deception via a surreptitious account after being banned twice. Ekantik ^talk 17:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply

You only cut back on your activity once I exposed your "Gaurasundara" sockpuppet and this issue was brought to Admin's attention. Prior to that time, you were making numerous posts on a daily basis on the SSB2 yahoo group, the SSBDC yahoo group, your blogs and on the QuickTopic forum (all easily confirmable). Furthermore, you did not ban me twice from the SSBDC. I was banned once for making a single post on the group and you banned a friend of mine. You can speculate as much as you like as to how I am obtaining the information from the SSBDC group. You don't have anything to hide? Right? Or are you saying that you would ban just for reading the posts made on the group? SSS108 ^{talk- email} 01:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply

SSS108, it has already been established that you do not know the facts as per your three-time mistake about me being the moderator. So please, I'll thank you not to continue this discussion unless you are in possession of the full facts and the correct interpretation of them thereof. Furthermore, it is your personal opinion that I cut back on my activity after my sockpuppet was "exposed". And by the way, my sockpuppet was not "exposed", you are misrepresenting that issue again. You make it sound like I was engaging in "illegal" activity when there is a perfectly legitimate reason for my sockpuppet as has already been discussed. See how selective you are with the facts?

Daily posts on ssb2, ssbdc, qt and blogs? I posted on my blog daily? Are you sure?

You were banned twice from the SSBDC; once by the owner and once by myself (in backup of the owner's ban) when I discovered that you had re-entered the forum under another account (whitejasminerose). Your comments here reveal that you have again re-entered the forum under yet another misleading account. The SSBDC message archives are closed to the public and only members can read them, so it is pretty obvious how you are reading them. Since you are banned from the group, why do you continually try to re-enter the group once your fake accounts are discovered and banned? This shows that deception and misrepresentation is not beyond you and is consistent with your behaviour at Wikipedia, even during this ArbCom case. I'm sorry, but these are the facts.

Thanks for degenerating this Wiki ArbCom case into an issue of off-wiki forum administration, and I'll thank you not to continue these irrelvant discussions. Ekantik ^talk 18:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed Thatcher131 02:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Freelanceresearch

1) Freelanceresearch ( talk · contribs) is Lisa De Wit, who posts in the Yahoo group as conscientiousobjector2000. In the Yahoo group, De Wit is a frequent target of attacks but also a frequent deliverer of attacks. [90] [91] [92].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Within said group, I have attempted on numerous occasions to appeal to Freelanceresearch to desist from making personal attacks and to concentrate of having rational, calm and productive discussion (the same goes for SSS108 by the way), but she has repeatedly refused to agree and continues making vicious and appalling slanders against SSB-critics with the flimsiest of evidence. This has been true since her joining that group (November 2002) and her personal attacks against other members of that group were made from her fourth recorded post onwards.

In fairness I admit to attacking Freelanceresearch and SSS108, largely in response to attacks made against myself. My repeated appeals to desist from attacks and to concentrate on productive discussion have fallen on deaf ears, hence my self-extrication from said group. Ekantik ^talk 04:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

What does that have to do with wikipedia Ekantik? Likewise, I have been attacked by you other anti-Sais on the SSB2 board and called all kinds of names such as tranny, lesbian, boylover, etc., not to mention all your blogs attacking anyone who confronts you with your abusive behavior and lies. Here on wikipedia you tried to secretively have me banned using your surreptitious name, Ekantik in retaliation. THAT is the issue. You guys are using wikipedia as a propaganda tool for your smear campaign and your actions show you will do practically anything to try to manipulate the public, including infiltrating wikipedia. Freelanceresearch 07:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

What it has to do with Wikipedia is the fact that this section has been opened up in this Workshop. According to the terms of WP:NPA#Off-wiki_personal_attacks, your recent posts at sathyasaibaba2 (referenced above) canbe considered as aggravating factors during the processing of this ArbCom case. At the very least, it shows that you have a biased and hostile attitude to SSB-critics who want to edit the article. I made two major edits ([ diff1 diff2) that were reverted for no other basis than the fact that SSS108 questions my NPOV stance. Effectively denying that my edits are improvements to the article (with agreement from other edits) is bordering dangerously on WP:AGF and WP:NPA.

If you would like to make a case that I am using Wikipedia as a "propaganda tool", feel free to prove it. Reverting my edits on the basis of my status as a critic is not in line with Wikipedia policies. On the other hand there is ample evidence that yourself and SSS108 are single-purpose accounts who do very little except argue with Andries. The fact that more is discussed on the talk-page than there is work put into the article is ample proof.

And for the last time I did not "secretively" try to get you banned, please stop repeating this inane falsity. It's there in my edit history and my reasons for reporting your bad behaviour at Talk:Sathya Sai Baba fully warranted a report at WP:AN/I. I have explained this in full here. Ekantik ^talk 04:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Actually, Ekantik started attacking Freelanceresearch first and I have it documented on my website. Not only that, Ekantik attacked me first and some of his vicious, libelous and defamatory accusations against me include (a partial list):

• I was sexually abused by Sathya Sai Baba.
• I have a "shit & piss porn fetish".
• I am a homosexual.
• I have "been caught posting on teen porn sites".
• I am "being investigated by concerned authorities".
• I am a "sexual pervert".
• I am "unemployed".
• I am "leeching off the state".
• I am a "possible alcoholic".
• The Sai Org is paying me money to defend Sathya Sai Baba.

I have asked Ekantik numerous times to back up his claims with proof and he refuses to do so [93] [94]. Other refs: [95] [96] [97]. I give Ekantik full persmission to provide ArbCom with his alleged "evidence" against me for any of the allegations listed above. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 18:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Is this ArbCom case going to be a venue for a school-playground fight along the lines of "he hit me first!"? And since I have already stated that these activities were made prior to my joining Wikipedia, what rationale is being employed to list evidence of past assaults? For the record, I could similarly make a long list of scandalously false and blatantly untrue accusations made by SSS108 and Freelanceresearch, such as that I am homosexual, confused about my gender, a paedophile, and so on, but I don't see any need to do so because I am not sure if this is within the remit of this ArbCom case. Can any arbitrator clarify this?

Its pretty clear that there have been attacks made on both sides. My main point is that my status as a critic and apostate of SSB does not interfere with my editing of the SSB article despite claims made by SSS108 and Freelanceresearch, who are still engaging in such attacks off-Wiki even now. This in itself shows that both these parties are clearly harbouring grudges and vendettas against me. They cannot cite any instances of my supposedly objectionable behaviour at Wikipedia (because none exists), so they resort to defaming me and flogging dead horses instead.

I'd appreciate it if any arbitrator or clerk could step in to keep this irrelevant behaviour off the remit of this case. Ekantik ^talk 04:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I've also already said that my issues relate prior to my joining Wikipedia and despite my many requests to both Freelanceresearch and SSS108 to stop the personal attacks and engage in productive discussion, they have repeatedly refused to do so so I think they have forfeited their claims. This is true also on Wikipedia, where both parties have been continuously referencing my past off-Wikipedia activites as "evidence" that I am not a reliable NPOV editor. My edit history on the article sorely begs to differ. Ekantik ^talk 05:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Ekantik is no dummy. He watched and criticized me through the entire mediation with BostonMA. Ekantik cautiously joined Wikipedia, being very careful about what he said and did here. Unfortunately for him, he made several significant mistakes that divulged his true identity when he was attempting to portray himself as a neutral editor who was not involved in the Sai Controversy. Ekantik constantly advocates for Andries agenda and propositions on the SSB-related articles. In my opinion, one cannot separate Ekantik's extra-Wikipedia defamation campaigns against Sathya Sai Baba with his presence on Wikipedia. He will constantly attempt to undermine any view that opposes his own and his Anti-Sai advocacy can be seen in his comments on the SSB talk page. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 06:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply

More conspiracy theories. If I appear to support Andries then that is purely down to the fact that I agree with his reasonings on some topics. For the record there are several things about which I do not agree with him, but SSS108 has never bothered to ask before making accusations and conspiracy theories. The proposal has already been made that "activists" are not forbidden from editing Wikipedia pages so long as they observe Wikipedia policies and guidelines when doing so, which, in my opinion, automatically excludes SSS108 as he has persistently and repeatedly violated several WP policies and adamantly refused to follow WP:NPA ( evidence).

If I "undermine" SSS108's view it is purely because I disagree with his rationale on editing the article, especially since he has refused to answer direct questions ( threaded discussion) and generally represents a hostile presence as has been noted by several parties in their statements and in their discussions. If SSS108 followed WP policies (especially WP:NPA and WP:AGF) then perhaps the other involved editors would be able to assume good faith in his edits and general behaviour. This has not been the case, unfortunately.

These inane arguments about joining Wikipedia and being "very cautious" etc. are ridiculous in my opinion and are a serious violation of WP:AGF. For the record, I am currently involved in the editing at Shah Rukh Khan, Rani Mukherjee and Shilpa Shetty, all of which have been the subject of controversy past and present. As the Shilpa Shetty article is a current event right now, let me just say that I have been the heaviest contributor to the article; This is what it looked like before I started working on it, and I'd say that I have been responsible for around 90% of the article as it stands now. And yes, the controversy sections are almost entirely my work where I have taken great pains to reference every controversial claim in full regards to WP:BLP. I have not shied away from controversy and if I have any disagreements with other editors over content disputes, it usually turns out that their disagreements have no basis in WP policies.

After nominating the article for In The News, it was added to the "In The News" template on the Wikipedia Main Page ( evidence). At the risk of blowing my own trumpet, I am especially proud of my (ongoing) work on the Shilpa Shetty article and this is ample proof of my capabilities as an NPOV editor. And at the risk of repeating myself, no other editor on Wikipedia has a serious problem with my edits on any article save for SSS108 and the SSB article: all because he thinks my status as a critic disqualifies me from being NPOV despite my edit history on that article. Now there's a conspiracy theory? Ekantik ^talk 07:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply

You are not a known defamer and libeler of Shilpa Shetty. So comparing your work there with your interest in the SSB articles is without comparison. It's also amusing how you continually cite WP policy like you are an Admin. Keep blowing your own horn. Your extra-Wikipedia defamation campaigns against Sathya Sai Baba and your embarrassing public exposures speak for you to the contrary of your alleged neutrality. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 18:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I do not need to be a "known defamer or libeller" of Shilpa Shetty to edit the article, providing that I follow WP policies in that regard. SSS108 just seems unable to comprehend this very basic point. As a matter of fact, I happen to be something of a Bollywood enthusiast (which pretty much explains my affiliation with WP:INCINE) and the fact that I am largely responsible for a 'Controversy' section on Shilpa Shetty is ample proof that I insert and reference "negative" information according to the procedures of WP:BLP. And now the article has been featured In The News thanks to the huge amount of work I put into it before the article subject attained prominence in world newspapers. I have opened a new section on my user page to document this achievement and referenced a couple of comments from administrators about how the item was ITN-worthy.

SSS108 is always free to have his own (negative) opinions of me. Just so long as it is known that no editor on Wikipedia save for him has a serious problem with my edits on any article. Even as far as my edits on Sathya Sai Baba is concerned, SSS108 doesn't have a case and can only resort to criticising me based on past incidences of off-Wiki behaviour that occurred prior to my joining Wikipedia. His negative opinions of me (and assumption of bad faith thereof) are based purely on malice. Ekantik ^talk 02:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I see you are misrepresenting the facts yet again. You joined Wikipedia in early August 2006. You created your blog attacking me and my involvement on Wikipedia in September 2006 and contributed to that blog until October 2006. Since August 2006, you criticized me on the SSB Yahoo Group for my invovlement on Wikipedia. Therefore you claims that you off-Wiki behavior occurred prior to joining Wikipedia are patently false. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 07:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Now that we can try to keep this section on-topic, I'd like to submit some recent examples of Freelanceresearch's off-wiki attacks:

• 1 - Attack against myself and ProEdits (Robert Priddy), Jan 3rd 2007
• 2 - Attack against myself as "sociopathic", Jan 14, 2007
• 3 - Replication of [2] at separate forum.
• 4 - Attack on me for alleged "hypocrisy", Jan 20, 2007

These type of posts reveal an ongoing tit-for-tat argument between Freelanceresearch and a non-party SSB-critic, but the attacks against myself and other parties are certainly aggravating factors as per WP:NPA#Off-wiki_personal_attacks. Ekantik ^talk 06:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Is this the "poor me" hour or what Ekantik? If I included some of your disgusting posts attacking me, it would take pages (and bore everyone to death). I am NOT a single purpose account. I have made a few edits on other articles but my browser was very incompatible with wikipedia until it was upgraded recently (June) AND I do not like to edit unless I actually have good resources or know how to edit on wikipedia which are skills I have only recently begun to acquire so please stop lying about me and trying to manipulate people with those lies. I have griped a lot on the talk page for two years because Andries is so dishonest regarding his biased manipulations of the article and no one would rein him in. Freelanceresearch 05:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply

No this is not "poor me" hour, I'm sorry to say. The fact is that, under the terms of this particular motion, you are still attacking SSB-critics off-Wiki and this shows bad faith at the very least. It is not enough to say that you edit some other pages to escape being a single-purpose account; the bulk of your contributions are related to the SSB-controversy and you have edited the page in the past too. I haven't taken a precise look at your contributions (someone else may wish to do so) but I am aware of some POV-contributions. Besides that, you were warned twice with being blocked for disruptive behaviour ( diff 1, diff2) by Administrator JzG and specifically cited as a single-purpose account. I have described the whole thing in full here. If you do not know how to use the Wiki-markup language and so on, that's fine I suppose, but there's no denying the fact that your behaviour relating to the SSB-controversy has been, well, less than excellent shall we say? Ekantik ^talk 17:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, Ekantik, we know. That is why you publicly attacked Freelanceresearch on various public forums and blogs. Your extra-Wikipedia attacks have been, well, less than excellent shall we say? SSS108 ^{talk- email} 01:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Here we go again with more misrepresentations and selective facts. Or is SSS108 saying that I do not have the right to defend myself when I am accused (without evidence) of being a child molestor, child porn addict, paedophile, and worse? Yep, these are definitely "attacks" which Freelanceresearch has been continuing since the beginning of her membership of said yahoogroup. It is nice to see that by ignoring horrific and unjustifiable attacks by Freelanceresearch, SSS108 is tacitly approving and affirming their collaboration. Ekantik ^talk 18:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Update: Freelanceresearch is now levelling extremely serious allegations of paedophilia against me on off-Wiki forums: [98], [99]. I expect that we can now take it for granted that her participation on the SSB article is negligible and disruptive to say the least, what to speak of being completely unable to co-operate with other editors. Ekantik ^talk 02:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Update: Freelanceresearch has made denigratory comments against other editors yet again ( diff), this time accusing me of POV-pushing and making adversarial remarks that assume extremely bad faith. Ekantik ^talk 16:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Prop Thatcher131 02:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Sathya Sai Baba

1) Sathya Sai Baba is a prominent Indian holy man with many hundreds of thousands of followers worldwide. He has substantial support from prominent persons in the Indian government. His spiritual teachings advocate devotion to God, truth, right conduct, peace, love, and nonviolence [100] [101], see also "A Friend in India to All the World" New York Times archives, originally published December 1, 2002. There is however, substantial evidence that he is a pedophile who preys on young male devotees and makes sexual advances to young men [102] [103] [104]. There is also substantial evidence that the miracles he performs are performed by sleight of hand [105]. These charges have had little effect on his popularity, except in some Western countries, with some devotees maintaining that despite the probable truth of the allegations, he remains worthy of worship [106].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

There is no evidence that SSB is a pedophile. There are no testimonies from boys, children or parents of children that support the erroneous claim that Sathya Sai Baba is a pedophile who engaged in sexual interactions with children. No convictions. No charges. No complaints filed with the police or in courts of law in India. No nothing. Even Mick Brown, in the Telegraph article, said that SSSB has never been charged with any crime, sexual or otherwise. The total number of alleged victims mentioned in the referenced articles is 6. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 07:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

There is substantial evidence from numerous sources. However, so long as he stays in India under the protection of a government who protects him from prosecution there can be no conviction. Wikipedia policy aside, we have an obligation to warn. Fred Bauder 19:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Fred, what you fail to realize is that Anti-Sai Activists have been behind all of these media sources. Michelle Goldberg, from salon.com, worked in cooperation with Anti-Sai Activists to write her article against Sathya Sai Baba and her emails have been published on Andries Anti-Sai Site. Goldberg even told Meloy that she hoped her article would "bring much attention to your struggle". Even Andries conceded that various media were sympathetic with critics. Critics have boasted (and continue to boast) that they were behind a majority of the media that discussed the allegations. Even Ekantik claimed he was personally involved in The Guardian article against SSB. To date, not even one single alleged victim has even tried to file a court case or basic police complaint against Sathya Sai Baba for any alleged sexual improprities. Swami Premananda and Chandraswami (called the "pope" of India) both have high ranking Indian devotees. Needless to say, they were prosecuted and convicted. Saying that Sathya Sai Baba is being protected by the government is unsubstantiated and POV. Governmental officials have simply recogized what ordinary people have, i.e., SSB has never been charged or convicted of any crime and not even one alleged victim has even tried to file a court case or basic police complaint against him in India. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 07:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

SSS108, please stop recycling and rehashing statements that you have made many a time and at many an Internet venue. Whereas molestation victims may not have filed complaints in India, they have certainly filed them in their own countries. Your other arguments about "boastful critics" also hold no water, as you are effectively stating that they have no brains of their own to do their own independent investigations. This is true of the US State Dept., UNESCO, BBC and so on, and it is understood that big organisations rarely make a statement without due protest. For you to insinuate things the way you do are actually making institutions like the US State Dept. very foolish. And by the way, Chandraswami is not the "Pope of India" and is miles away from a status like that. This shows how you are not familiar with guru-politics in India. This might also be the time to mention that you are favourable towards Swami Premananda (Sai Baba-lookalike guru who has been convicted for rape and murder) as you have a picture gallery dedicated to him on your website and you were also responsible for creating an activist page about how he is innocent. Besides that, Swami Premananda is also a small-time guru and cannot be compared to Sai Baba, who is admittedly a "bigshot".

SSS108 please stop telling blatant lies. I have stated many times that I was not involved with the Guardian article as per your skewed interpretations. I have explained myself fully on my blog and presented reasonable explanations. My only involvement with the journalist who wrote the Guardian article was when he emailed me to pass on the contact details of a British victim of Sai Baba's sexual molestations to him, and I replied to his email. That's it, no other involvement before or after. So I'd thank you to quit presenting your skewed interpretations, even though I fully expect you to write your rationales for stating such or posting a link to your attack-blog. Your interpretations are erroneous and I have told you many times, yet you continue spreading this disinformation. Ekantik ^talk 18:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I agree with Arbitrator Fred Bauder about the allegations being listed by numerous reputable sources. The BBC is one such, who spent several months travelling worldwide and interviewing victims, high-ranking followers and other involved figures. It is certainly a piece of investigative journalism that can be used as a reliable and reputable source for Wikipedia. Ekantik ^talk 19:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Ekantik, no one lied about you. You said, out of your own mouth the following about The Guardian article:

• "We already knew about this issue months before the date pf publication of course. In fact it was mooted as a front-page story, but at the last minute a development in a legal issue involving PM Tony Blair took precedence and the Sai Baba article was moved to Page 3. No matter, open the paper and it all goes BOOM! in your face...How did you like the distractions, Moreno? Sorry I couldn't take part while I was busy participating in this development...We run the Exposé and the Exposé continues."
• "And yes, I know all about what has gone on behind the scenes. This is the stuff I am working on while you idiots are arguing endlessly over who's a bigger pervert than who when the biggest pervert of all (Sai Baba) has just been exposed today (Saturday 4th November 2006) in a very nice Page 3 spread in a highbrow British newspaper like The Guardian. Of course, I already know which page it's on even though I don't have it yet. In a few hours I'll go out and purchase a hard copy. :-)"

And you even boasted that you had warned proponents about Paul Lewis' article "months ago" and you cited as proof a Yahoo post you made on April 24th 2006 (6 months before the article was published). In that Yahoo post, you made mention to the UK Sai Youth Group traveling to Puttaparthi and sexual abuse claims. This is exactly what Paul Lewis reported ( Reference). So do tell us why you said what you said if it is all "lies"? SSS108 ^{talk- email} 07:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply

As I predicted, SSS108 has presented his skewed interpretation of this affair. I have explained and clarified this issue in full, yet SSS108 continues to present misinformation. I'm afraid that I cannot avoid posting a link to one of my blogs for all parties to see the clarification, but here it is.

This might be redundant, but can we please stay on topic? This particular motion is about whether there is evidence of allegations against SSB. Ekantik ^talk 18:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Your blogged post has been refuted [107]. You can say I skewed the facts as much as you like. The fact remains that you boasted "participating in this development" and you knew "all about what has gone on behind the scenes". You yourself cited as proof a post made 6 months earlier on a Yahoo Group in which you pridicted something was "going down" in November (which was the same month Paul Lewis' article was published in The Guardian. I'm glad other's can read your eqivocation about your involvement in The Guardian matter. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 01:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply

This is no refutation, and my own account etablishes the full facts as they happened. Whatever was "going down" in November is the trip itself as was stated on the official website of the Sai Youth, yet another perfect instances of SSS108's constant misrepresentations and conspiracy theories based on selective reading and next-to-no actual investigation. I've already stated that there was no contact between myself and the journalist in question, bar one email in which an ancillary topic was discussed (contact details for a British molestation victim of SSB). Rather, I am glad that everyone can read your selective misrepresentation of the facts about my "involvement" in the Guardian article. At the risk of being off-topic (I cannot help it whenever SSS108 gets into these tedious discussions) I notice that you still have not responded to my challenge to get your ideas confirmed by the journalist in question. Have you done so? If not, why not? Such an action would resolve the matter straightaway, aski him how long he has been in contact for? I don't think any result will fructify for obvious reasons. Ekantik ^talk 18:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply

As per the motion of this particular section, it appears to be true that SSB is certainly accused of sexually molesting young males. I have just seen an announcement about a molestation victim (Ullrich Zimmermann) coming forward with video clips of the interviews, which looks to be something of a new development. Direct Link. Just thought I'd add this information to the current discussion about SSB's being accused of sexual molestation. Ekantik ^talk 04:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Critics of Sathya Sai Baba

1) There are a number of persons, most former devotees, who have written exposés of Sathya Sai Baba or who maintain websites critical of the guru [108] [109]. Numerous boys and young men have reported his sexual advances in various venues.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

7 is not "numerous". Most of these alleged victims initially said they saw nothing sexual in what was done to them. Their stories changed and are full of numerous contradictions. Ex-devotees are the one's who are exaggerating numbers, making it sounds like hundred of "children" and "young males" were abused. However, when Alaya Rahm filed his lawsuit against the SSB Society (that he ended up self-dismissing "with prejudice"), no one came forward to support him whatsoever. Not even one other alleged victim. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 07:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I admit that many young men who were requested by SSB to drop their pants and received a genital oiling or some other genital fondling did not experience this as sexual, but they would have experienced this as sexual if it were done by any other person (except a doctor). They only believed it not to be sexual because they were so (self-)brainwashed that SSB was divine and had only good intentions. Apart from the genital oilling there are also quite a lot of more serious accusations. Andries 14:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Not all of the alleged victims dropped their pants. Andries Anti-Sai site has the testimony of a 27 year old man (age withheld) who is listed as a "sexual abuse witness", although he told me in my email correspondence with him that he was not a sexual abuse victim. Sathya Sai Baba allegedly tapped him for a second on his groin and told him he thought too much of women. That's it. That's his sexual abuse claim. The testimonies from other alleged victims are so contradictory, it is ridiculous. From 39 year-old recovered memories to SSB moaning out loud for everyone to hear through a curtain in the private interview room, the allegations are simply unbelievable. Of course, Anti-Sai Activists have gone relatively unchallenged for the past 9 years and people have been duped about the allegations. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 07:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

These are personal opinions. Plus, the number of victims of SSB is far larger than those referenced on critic-websites. This is mainly due to the fact that several of them request anonymity and/or a desire to move on with their lives and not get involved. Ekantik ^talk 18:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

So you say. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 19:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

There is NOT substantial "evidence" that Sai Baba is a pedophile. This a blatant LIE. There are many SUSPICIOUS accusations from almost ALL WHITE ADULT men (who were EIGHTEEN or older when they claim they were "abused") who are ALL FOREIGNERS. There are absolutely NO Indian children or adults who have come forward and given their names. Evidence is something you present in a court of law. Accusers have absolutelyNO coroborative witnesses or evidence to justify their claims. I have asked them for almost four years to supply some and they continually are proven to be liars who have nothing but a carrot to dangle. NOT one person has EVER even tried to file a charges with the police in India as directed on the very consulate website that unconstitutionally warns travellers about an unnamed spiritual leader. Whoever ok'd this ridiculous warning should be fired. The Indian gov has made a VERY public statement denouncing the accusations and THEIR word trumps all newspaper articles. Freelanceresearch 05:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Well if this is not a blatantly POV-statement then what is? And why the need to mention people's ethnicities ("ALL WHITE ADULT MEN") and whether they were foreigners? It doesn't change a thing whether SSB is accused of molesting a foreign child or an Indian child, it is still molestation. Furthermore you will not be aware of any of the developments because you have not carried out any form of unbiased investigation into them, despite being given all facilities to do so. Notably, you have asked for the email addresses of various molestation victims in a bid to contact them and get their side, but you failed to do so even when the details were given to you yet still denouncing them as "liars and scoundrels" and whatnot. This is not an unbiased participation and are extremely passionate remarks.

And actually, the word of the Indian Government (As you referred to his issue) does not trump anything. It is a fact that SSB has many devotees/supporters in the Indian Goverment, but it is also a fact that many (if not all) the signatories to the letter were his devotees too. Therefore their "word" is POV and unreliable and it is extremely unlikely that they carried out an unbiased investigation into the matter too. The letter in this regard is nothing more than a measure of confidence in SSB.

The US State Dept., BBC etc carried out their own investigation. Ekantik ^talk 18:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Where are all the outraged parents whose "children" were allegedly molested? Not even one single parent has publicly complained or made any sort of grievance against SSB for allegedly molesting his/her "child". Neither Ekantik (nor any alleged world-class journalist who claimed to have investigated the matter) has been able to independently confirm any acts of pedophilia against SSB.

We know about the US State Dept "investigation". They said the reports of inappropriate sexual behavior were "unconfirmed". The BBC (by even Andries admission) was biased and sympathetic with critics. And there are numerous ex-devotees who boasted about working with the BBC to make the documentary against SSB. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 05:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Um, wow. Damn. I had no idea that was the kind of stuff that was involved. So that's what the United States Department of State travel advisory warning was about... Smee 14:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC). reply

Counter attack

1) Supporters of Sathya Sai Baba have mounted a vigorous counter-attack against his critics, see a site maintained by SSS108, User:SSS108/ArbCom_Answers_To_Thatcher#Answers_By_SSS108. Also http://robert-priddy-exposed.blogspot.com, http://sanjaydadlaniexposed.blogspot.com, http://sanjay-dadlani-references.blogspot.com and http://martinalankazlev-exposed.blogspot.com

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Fred, why don't you take a look at some of the major websites and webpages that have vigorously attacked Sathya Sai Baba (some going back to 1997). The following list is only a partial list. This list does not include numerous threads on forums, individual webpages and many folders dedicated to this issue. My effort is nothing compared to the "vigorous" attacks made by critics and ex-devotees on the following (past and current) Anti-Sai webpages against SSB, devotees and proponents for years:

• 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)
• 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)
• groups.yahoo.com/group/SaiBabaExposed (Deleted Yahoo Group That Belonged To Ekantik)
• saicopycats.blogspot.com/ (Active Blog with Anti-Sai material)
• saibabaexposed.blogspot.com/ (Active Anti-Sai Blog)
• saibababhajans.blogspot.com/ (Active Anti-Sai Blog)
• saibabaexposed.livejournal.com/ (Active Live Journal Account)
• saibabaexposed.wordpress.com/ (Active Word Press Account)
• morenojoe.blogspot.com/ (Active Blog)
• lisadeewitt.blogspot.com/ (Active Blog)
• simonbrace.blogspot.com/ (Active Blog)
• geraldmoreno.blogspot.com/ (Active Blog)
• saibabanotes.blogspot.com/ (Active Anti-Sai Blog)
• saibabatribune.blogspot.com/ (Active Anti-Sai Blog)
• wikimoreno.blogspot.com/ (Active Blog)
• vclass.mtsac.edu:940/dlane/saidebates.htm
• clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/sathyasaibabadiscussionclub (Active Anti-Sai Yahoo Group)
• saipetition.net/ (Active Bogus Petition Against Sathya Sai Baba)
• kheper.net/topics/gurus/Sai_Baba.htm (Active Anti-Sai Section)
• bdsteel.tripod.com (Active Anti-Sai Site)
• saibabaguru.com (former Anti-Sai Site)
• geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/4972/eng/main_e.htm (former Anti-Sai site of Paul Holbach)
• myfreeoffice.com/saibabaexposed/index.html (former Anti-Sai site)
• psg.com/~ted/bcskeptics/sbmir/db-book.html (former Anti-Sai section)
• geocities.com/marioarturo2/descubrimientos.html (former Anti-Sai site in Spanish)
• membres.lycos.fr/tussier/saibaba.htm (former Anti-Sai site in French)
• prevensectes.com/saibaba.htm (Active Anti-Sai site in French)
• saibabaexpose.com (Active Anti-Sai Site)
• saiguru.net (Active Anti-Sai Site)
• tamilchrist.ch/sai-baba/baba.htm (Active Anti-Sai Section)
• sathyasaivictims.com/ (former Anti-Sai Site)
• snowcrest.net/sunrise/intro.htm (Archive To Anti-Sai Forum)
• indian-skeptic.org
• saibaba.da.ru/ (Active Anti-Sai Site in Russian)
• bcskeptics.info/resources/skeptopaedia/s/saibaba/index.html (Active Anti-Sai section)
• exbaba.it/ (Active Anti-Sai Site in Italian)
• saibaba-invigilator.blogspot.com/ (Active Anti-Sai Blog)
• rickross.com/groups/saibaba.html
• factnet.org/cults/Sai_Baba/Bhagavan_Sri_Sathya_Sai_Baba.htm
• sekty.net/?id=17&p_id=439
• stelling.nl/simpos/shree_sai_baba.htm
• skepdic.com/saibaba.html
• alerte-sai.com/ (former Anti-Sai Site)
• flameout.org/flameout/gurus/satya.html

SSS108 ^{talk- email} 05:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I also wanted to add that critics have been attacking SSB and his devotees (in an organized way) since 1997. Very few devotees and proponents have attempted to refute the allegations (based primarily on SSB's advice to not engage critics). My website is relatively new, coming out a little over 2 years ago. Before that, the only defence waged by supporters was on forums and yahoo groups. That's it. So Fred's comment is misleading as the "vigorous counter-attack" is recent. The only "vigorous" attacks (admittedly), over the course of many years, have been by critics, skeptics and ex-devotees of SSB. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 07:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Except for one small problem, the "vigorous counter-attack" on SSB-supporters that have taken place on SS108's websites, forums and yahoogroups consist almost entirely of ad-hominem attacks on SSB-critics. The argument is basically this: "The allegations against SSB are unbelievable because they are made by a bunch of liars and scoundrels". Extremely little effort has been made to actually analyse and defend SSB and all the problems that critics and apostates have against him, and some of these defences have contained outright denial of some issues that are as plain as day. So the "counter-attack" by SSB-supporters is really a case of argumentum ad hominem and nothing more. Ekantik ^talk 17:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

The vigorous counter-attack by Ekantik consists almost entirely of ad hominem attacks against SSB, devotees and proponents. A classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. Considering that SSB has never even been charged with any crime, sexual or otherwise, the entire case made against Sathya Sai Baba by ex-devotees is based on rumors, speculations, anonymous stories and the like. For example: [110] & [111]. As a matter of fact, many of the points I make on my site were made by Ekantik when he was a devotee (not brainwashed, mind you) of SSB. Ekantik even described himself as a rebel who believed in SSB's God-hood based on "direct experience" and not stories told about SSB, etc. Now, however, he argues the opposite although nothing has changed as far as evidence, court-cases, police compliants, etc., against SSB. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 19:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Pardon? This motion is about how supporters of SSB (like SSS108, Freelanceresearch etc) have waged a vigorous counter-attack on SSB's critics. Criticism of SSB is different to criticing his critics. The point is that instead of attackign critics in defence of SSB (even after he himself states that he needs no defence) supporters would be better off either being silent as per his directives or at least stick to the topic by defending him. Launching purely ad-hominem attacks is just a measure of desperation and pure malice in my view.

But I'm glad SSS108 brought this matter up as he claims that my attacks on SSB are almost entirely ad-hominem. Since I carry out my "attacks" on my blog which is by definition a personal diary, I initially meant it to be a reflection of my own journey ( See initial post). However it has turned into a massive success with some serious and original research being carried out (example 1, 2, 3 4, and many more. Not that I am arguing for the inclusion of this material on Wikipedia mind you, but there's no denyinf that my "attacks" on SSB has brought out some very valuable information about SSB to the general public that would otherwise remain unknown.

SSS108 is notoriously overusing the word "attack". In my view he should judiciously investigate whether the premise of any particular issue is one of discussion or debate. If supporters of SSB cannot handle it if serious issues regarding SSB are brought up that may shake their faith, they may be seriously advised to discontinue their participation in such discussions especially when they are sourced reliably in official literature and such. Ekantik ^talk 18:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I may have made this point above, but SSS108's numerous defamatory websites and blogs are often specifically about critics. And at least three of them including myself are parties to this ArbCom case. His attack-blogs against Robert Priddy and M. Alan Kazlev specifically reference their contributions to Wikipedia (example: "After many years of hiding in his hole, Robert Priddy decided to make his grand entrance on Wikipedia and fell flat on his face." [112]) As well as other numerous derogatory remarks about the onset of senility, Alzheimers Disease, and so forth. I haven't gone through his blog about Kazlev much but I assume it is more of the same. Ekantik ^talk 19:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, I just went through SSS108's attack-blog against Alan Kazlev and there are references to Wikipedia: [113], [114], [115]. Ekantik ^talk 19:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Ekantik, and your point is? Thatcher already discovered my blogs (as they pertained to Wikipedia) a long time ago. I also gave a self-disclosure as well. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 06:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

There is NOT substantial "evidence" that Sai Baba is a pedophile. This a blatant LIE. There are many SUSPICIOUS accusations from almost ALL WHITE ADULT men (who were EIGHTEEN or older when they claim they were "abused") who are ALL FOREIGNERS. There are absolutely NO Indian children or adults who have come forward and given their names. Evidence is something you present in a court of law. Accusers have absolutelyNO coroborative witnesses or evidence to justify their claims. I have asked them for almost four years to supply some and they continually are proven to be liars who have nothing but a carrot to dangle. NOT one person has EVER even tried to file a charges with the police in India as directed on the very consulate website that unconstitutionally warns travellers about an unnamed spiritual leader. Whoever ok'd this ridiculous warning should be fired. The Indian gov has made a VERY public statement denouncing the accusations and THEIR word trumps all newspaper articles. Freelanceresearch 05:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Having chosen to not investigate the allegations, statements by spokesmen for the government cannot be considered reliable. Fred Bauder 14:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I am in full agreement with this view. Ekantik ^talk 18:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply

It's pretty difficult to investigate allegations when no alleged victim even tried to file a basic police complaint or court case against SSB in India. I surmise this is why Government Officials spoke in favor of SSB. Although alleged victims communicated with an Indian Magazine about their allegations, they failed to file any kind of police or legal action, as would be required of anyone else. Saying the Government would protect SSB is akin to placing the cart before the horse. If court cases for alleged sexual improprieties were filed and dismissed, then one could use this argument. It hasn't happened so this argument is speculative and without merit. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 06:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply

But the fact that SSB has a huge number of supporters/devotees in the Indian Govt. doesn't say anything one way or another about the possibility of their being biased, right? Therefore, their letter is nothing more than a measure of confidence in SSB's innocence without making a proper investigation into it. That is what is being discussed here. Ekantik ^talk 19:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Man these guys just love to create "attack sites" to attack those they think are attacking others don't they? What a wonderful solution to a perceived problem... ad hominem attacks on the attacker. Another organization/religion has an official doctrine for this, aptly entitled: "Attack the attacker" ... Smee 13:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC). reply

Travel advisories

1) A travel advisory has been issued by the United States Department of State, "U.S. citizens should be aware that there have been unconfirmed reports of inappropriate sexual behavior by a prominent local religious leader at an ashram (religious retreat) located in Andhra Pradesh. Most of the reports indicate that the subjects of these approaches have been young male devotees, including a number of U.S. citizens." [116]. See also this UNESCO press release.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Undisputed fact. Andries 19:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Not undisputed. Very much disputed. As a matter of fact, Critics have boasted on accomplishing the US State Dept Warning themselves and even attempted to get various other countries to issues warnings, but failed. All fully documented too. The US State Dept Warning also stated that the reports were "unconfirmed". SSS108 ^{talk- email} 07:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Regarding the UNESCO notice, this is similarly Very much disputed. Critics have boasted that it was their unremitting "e-bombing" campaigns that resulted in the Unesco Withdrawal. This was also reported by Mick Brown in The Telegraph article. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 08:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

"Disputed" by an activist who actively describes himself as an advocate and proponent of SSB. This disputation is non-notable, and achieves the effect of saying that US State Dept. and UNESCO cannot think for themselves or do their own investigation, but listen almost entirely to the "unsourced lies" about SSB. Hardly a credible argument. Besides that, it is an opinion about "boasting". Very rarely do organisations publicly censure a public figure on their own initiative, and more often they do so in response to protests and the like. Ekantik ^talk 17:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Unesco has since stated they regretted the entire issue and withdrew their media release from their site [117]. Also, the material on my website (regarding these issues) was taken directly from Anti-Sai Sites. Unesco was influenced by a systematic and unremitting "e-bombing" campaign by ex-devotees. When ex-devotees boasted about accomplishing the Unesco Withdrawal and the US State Dept Warning, there is little left to say. They have said it all. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 19:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

UNESCO has stated no such thing and confirmed to the BBC that they did not regret issuing the original advisory of September 2000 [118]. That's a more complete evaluation of the affair with direct quotes from various officials and representatives. Ekantik ^talk 18:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Sorry Ekantik, I provided the link with their letter of regret before and here it is again [119]. I am not sure what the BBC allegedly confirmed or did not confirm. Since one must rely on the words of Anti-Sai Activists, I cannot accept their claims about Unesco. I have a scan to the actual letter. No need to depend on my words. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 06:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Sorry SSS108, that was already discussed in the link I provided. The latest information is that UNESCO confirmed to the BBC investigators that they did not regrest issuing the original release of September 2000, despite any letter that you may have received and which you have already told us about anyway. Please try to familiarise yourself with the issue as it happened in sequential order. UNESCO's current position is that they do not regret issuing the September 2000 release, thus implying that they still stand by it. Investigators into this issue are welcome to contact the BBC editors to verify this information, although the relevant quotes are contained in the link I provided. Ekantik ^talk 01:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

I would think that the United States Department of State is a much more reputable source than an attack web site... Smee 09:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC). reply

• Abuse of Children in the Name of Religion
  United Kingdom - House of Commons:

Sai Baba and sexual abuse of children no. 886

That this House, mindful of the many accounts and witness statements of the sexual abuse of the male children of devotees by the Indian guru, Sai Baba, calls upon the Foreign Secretary to use the Travel Advice for India page of the Foreign Office Website to issue guidance to British families intending to visit the Ashram of Sai Baba about the possible danger to their male children of individual audiences with the guru.

UK Parliament, 26.02.02 House of Commons]

Interesting in relation to United States Department of State... Smee 09:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC). reply

• A holy furore rages in Britain, November 05, 2006 - Not sure if y'all are already aware of this...

  DELHI: Old allegations of sexual abuse of boys by spiritual guru Sathya Sai Baba have created a fresh furore in Britain. The issue snowballed after the British press reported that 200 boys would visit India on a month-long humanitarian pilgrimage starting November 13, organised by the Sai Youth Movement, a division of the Sri Sathya Sai Organisation.

  Interesting stuff, reputable sources... Smee 09:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC). reply

Comment by Party: Actually this DNA-India article is a replication of the original article in the UK's Guardian newspaper which, in turn, has been replicated in derivative ways in many Indian newspapers recently. Ekantik ^talk 17:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Smee, I am glad you brought this up. As a matter of fact, Ekantik claimed that he was directly involved in Paul Lewis' The Guardian article, from which the subsequent press release was taken [120]. Ekantik boasted that ex-devotees knew about the article months before it was published and even claimed that he warned proponents about the publication 6 months prior on a Yahoo Group (which turned out to be true). After exposing this information on my website, Ekantik said I misrepresented his words. Just read his comments and see how anyone can misrepresent them. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 19:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Untrue, I havbe just stated the matter above. A link to a full clarification is posted there. Here we go again with more misrepresentations; where did I claim to be "directly involved" with the Guardian article? Please read my clarification in full and stop misrepresenting the facts. Ekantik ^talk 18:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply

This travel warning is UNCONSTITUTIONAL given the fact that no accuser has EVER even tried to file charges in India as required by law. Secondly, the Indian government has made a public statement denouncing the accusations. Whoever ok'd that warning should be fired considering the KNOWN facts. Freelanceresearch 06:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply

If you feel that strongly then perhaps you should contact the US State Dept. and apprise them of your concerns. However it not an issue for Wikipedia. Ekantik ^talk 02:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply

SSS108

1) SSS108 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits Sathya Sai Baba with a positive point of view, sometimes editwarring to preserve a positive point of view or minimize negative information [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130]; sometimes inserting information from unreliable sources "scientist" who observed SSB's aura [131] (See this comment) hagiography [132] statement by Indian government officials [133] [134] [135]; sometimes removing reliable sources [136] and relevant external links [137]. Here he removes queries regarding original research. SSS108 maintains a website which attacks critics of SSB User:SSS108/ArbCom_Answers_To_Thatcher#Answers_By_SSS108.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

There is a tremendous amount of positive information about SSB that was never mentioned in the article. Since most of the negative information was added, I simply added the positive. Regarding the aura material, it was referenced to a Sri Lankan newspaper that no one has shown to be unreliable. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 07:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Editors have to use their common sense when determining the reliability of a source according to WP:RS. The fact that it is published in a newspaper says nothing about the reliability of the information. Not only is it pseudoscientific, but the author of the article is almost wholly replicating information from published SSB-sources. Thus, the information is unreliable. I haven't got any other problem with the aura information being inserted into the article, just so long as it is reputably and reliably sourced. Ekantik ^talk 17:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

As per the diff listed by Arbitrator Fred Bauder, SSS108's removal of well-sourced information (regarding UNESCO) was unjustified under the poor excuse of watering-down the information as per WP:BLP#Writing_style. Aside from the fact that it needs to be placed near the top of the 'Controversy' section in order to display its status as an early event (it took place in 1999). Ekantik ^talk 18:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Before I joined editing the article, we know what type of "common sense" was being used in the article. Ekantik, thank for saying that just because something is published in a newspaper says nothing about the reliability of the information. I happen to agree. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 19:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

A difference is distinguished by common sense that is derived from editorial judgement about a particular issue and it's reliability. A report of a child being molested in a reliable news source is far more reliable than a pseudoscientific op-ed article about a person's aura in an obscure newspaper that is obvious flattery. Or would you beg to differ? Ekantik ^talk 18:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Your proof that the article was an op-ed?

Not even one single journalist has been able to independently confirm that a single "child" has been molested. It is all hearsay and critics and ex-devotees have boasted about being behind a majority of these so called media reports. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 04:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply

SSS108, I've told you countless times that I'd thank you to stay on-topic. This is not about child molestation, but about your argument to include a pseudoscientific article about SSB's aura. But thank you for providing your POV anyway. You only need to read the article to see that it is not a news report of any sort but is an op-ed that, coincidentally (?), rehashes almost exactly is printed in official SSB literature. I would not be surprised if the author turned out to be follower of SSB which bring sup more issues about POV, but still I find it troubling that you have trouble distinguishing news reports from op-eds. Ekantik ^talk 18:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply

SSS108 has again engaged in edit-warring and has broken 3RR ( See threaded discussion). I understand that as a result, the article has now been protected. The discussion leads to a section of Talk:Robert Priddy where SSS108 has yet again been cited for violating WP:NPA. Ekantik ^talk 18:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Where is your proof that I broke the 3 revert rule? Why haven't I been banned for it? Please note the difference between reverts and removing information as per the ArbCom ruling that is not bound by the 3 revert rule. Provide diffs please. And Thatcher never said he protected the article because of my edits. Trying to twist the facts, as usual. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 04:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I already gave a link to the threaded discussion on Thatcher's talk page, where Administrator Mel Etitis opined that SSS108 broke 3RR. Diffs: 1, 2, 3. My own opinion is that this is not strictly a violation of WP:3RR (it takes four reverts for that) SSS108 was served with a 48-hour block (suspended) precisely because of this sort of behaviour in relation to the SSB-article. Thatcher also opined that 3 reverts was "arguably" a violation of 3RR: diff, although this behaviour is certainly revert vandalism.

As for why SSS108 hasn't been blocked for it, one may need to view the relevant section on Mel Etitis' talk-page and SSS108's talk-page too. As far as I can see, this is an example of SSS108's repeated bad behaviour of aggression and blatantly challenge of authority in regards to personal attacks on othe editors. SSS108 would be advised to not be so pedantic; it is pretty obvious that Thatcher placed a protection beecause of edit-warring with SSS108 as an involved editor, he does not have to cite SSS108 for that, why is this getting so pedantic? Ekantik ^talk 19:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply

The Robert Priddy article is still under protection because of SSS108's edit-warring, I just noticed. Ekantik ^talk 19:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Savidan

1) Savidan ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits Sathya Sai Baba in a constructive manner.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Strong Support - Ekantik ^talk 03:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Kkrystian

1) Kkrystian ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits Sathya Sai Baba with a positive bias [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143]; sometimes adding unsourced information [144] [145] [146] and sometimes removing relevant external links [147].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

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) reply
• 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) reply
• 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") - diff1, reverting good-faith edits with little or no explanation ( diff1, diff2), continuing to insert original research into the article ( 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 original research defamatory articles on SSB critics (including Wikipedia editors) that is partisan to the controversy. Incidentally the defamatory website Kkrystian wants to repeatedly include is owned and maintained by SSS108. - Update: And again.
• Perhaps a minor affair but Kkrystian does not always explain his actions with edit summaries despite being requested to do this ( see request). Ekantik ^talk 18:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I have been criticised unfairly for my infobox edits. I protest strongly. They are not POV edits. Krystian 20:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Which infobox are you speaking of, Kkrystian? I don't think you have been criticised for any edits to any infobox? Ekantik ^talk 15:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Ekantik

1) Ekantik ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits Sathya Sai Baba in a constructive way [148] [149] [150]. However he admits ownership of critical blogs Gerald 'Joe' Moreno Deception, Gerald 'Joe' Moreno Deception On Wikipedia and Sai Baba EXPOSED!

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 21:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Ekantik began disputes with me regarding the SSB article and I discovered his "Gaurasundara" sockpuppet before he made any further edits. The fact remains that Ekantik was untruthful about his involvement with the SSB article. Ekantik claimed that he was not a POV editor [151] [152] [153] and the reason he began participating on the Sathya Sai Baba article was based soley because of various RFCs [154]. Turns out, he has an undeniable POV and he came to the article for reasons other than various RFCs. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 07:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

This doesn't really explain anything. Jossi asked me if I considered myself a POV-editor and I said "no", and that is true of the entire gamut of my contributions to Wikipedia as a whole. Am I a POV-editor in relation to the SSB article? Possibly, given that I am a critic and an apostate which raises conflict of interest issues, these are disqualified by the fact that all my edits to SSB-article have been improvements in respects to removal of POV, updating grammar and spellchecking, rewriting information into a proper order, correcting bad English, and so on. This cannot be disputed by any editor.

Any "disputes" I may have had with SSS108 are in regards to his faulty arguments (and general bad behaviour) in respects to his own POV-edits (which have been covered elsewhere). I don't think that dispute is the correct word, it is discussion that takes place on the talk-pages of all article. It is also true that I decided to edit the SSB article because of the various RFCs registered by other parties; I was working on many different articles before I got involved with the SSB article, and also Adminisr Savidan cited the same reason for his own involvement. At the end of the day, I have edited the SSB article in a constructive way and this is indisputable and accepted by all parties excluding SSS108, who continually exhibits bad faith and reverted my constructive edits without adequate explanation. The only reason he cited are to the effect that "I am a POV-editor and thus I am an unreliable editor".

And just for the record, I have every intention to provide "positive" information into the SSB-article such as the important milestones of his career, major achievements, and so on. Of course, efforts will be made to use reliable sources but I am perfectly happy to include positive information that is not already in the article. But that may have to be done later because almost all parties involved agree that the article is in a mess (thanks to continual and damaging revert-wars) and it needs to be substantially rewritten before any new information can be added in. These have been my stated intentions from the very beginning of my involvement in the article: to cleanup the messy article and remove fancruft and help to promote it to FA-status. Ekantik ^talk 17:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Ekantik, say as much as you like (as is your wont). It won't change the fact that you were untruthful about why you came to the SSB article and how you were trying to present yourself as a neutral editor who was not involved in the Sai Controversy. You have been watching the SSB wikipedia article for a long time (far before you began editing it) and were criticizing me all the while. Now you expect others to believe you came to the article because of various RFCs. I don't buy it. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 19:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

These are your personal opinions and I personally couldn't care what you "buy" given your blatant hostility. However, I would need to ask you to, for crying out loud, please stick to the topic. This motion is about whether I have made constructive edits to the SSB-article; do you dispute that?

I suspect that you don't, because if you did you would have provided examples by now and you haven't. Therefore I can only assume that you haven't got any objections to this motion. Ekantik ^talk 18:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I would also like to restate the fact that I have not joined Wikipedia to engage in a war with anybody. My contributions to the SSB-article are minimal and I was engaged in heavy editing of other pages before I got involved with this article. Furthermore my edits were constructive but were reverted because of personal grudges. Ekantik ^talk 18:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Your contributions to the SSB article are minimal because I discovered your sockpuppet and your true identity shorty after you began editing there and claiming you were not involved in the Sai Controversy and you were a neutral editor. However, from your numerous comments on the Talk-Page, one can see how you were immediately hostile towards me. I now know why. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 06:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Personal opinions again, coloured by bias and hostility. My edits on SSB are consistent with my work on many other articles that usually revolve around general cleanup and maintenance, removal of POV and rewording poor grammar and correcting spelling.

Again, does SSS108 have any problem with my constructive edits as per the motion of this particular section? If yes, please state it. If not, please restrict personal comments to a minimum. Ekantik ^talk 17:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Update: I have shut down Gerald 'Joe' Moreno Deception On Wikipedia out of my own will and with no undue presure from others. The reason is because there is no reason to keep it operational. Ekantik ^talk 03:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Freelanceresearch

1) Freelanceresearch ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who edits with a positive bias towards Sathya Sai Baba has inserted original research from an unreliable source [155].

This is either pure ignorance or a blatant lie. this QUOTE was directly from the Blitz interview article from highy respected journalist Karanjia's Blitz magazine, NOT original research. Anti-Sais quote people from mag or news articles ALL the time.This is the type of lie we continually have to deal with when dealing with these people. Who can edit an article with such dishonesty and attempts to change the rules to suit their bias? And now Andries is complaining because the quote is too long to suite his editorial tastes?

Freelanceresearch 05:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 21:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

I do not think that the widely quoted interview with SSB published in the 1976 Blitz magazine is an unreliable source for this article. On the other hand I do not think that inserting such a long quote from an interview with SSB shows good editorial judgement. Andries 21:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

He's using SSB for a source. Fred Bauder 22:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, what she inserted was from a published media interview with SSB. Of course, I am aware that third-party sources are better, but I thought that this was allowed. If SSB is accused of something then we can at least quote what he has to say about the subject, at least to some degree. But may be I miss something? Andries

It should also be noted that this is the only interview given by SSB to the media (barring a more recent (2000) interview that is next-to-useless for information) and quite possibly the only reliable and "trustworthy" citable source material on account of it's being a media interview. IMHO defining this source as unreliable runs the risk of dangerously reducing the number of reliable sources for use in the article, as the article is already suffering from a serious lack of reputable and reliable references. Ekantik ^talk 03:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Emperor ani

1) Emperor ani ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made strongly POV edits [156].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Support - Emperor appears to be a devout follower of SSB (as discussions on the talk-page showed) and doesn't appear to have a working knowledge of WP policies, especially WP:RS. Ekantik ^talk 03:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Andries' editing privileges restricted

1) In light of his ongoing activism at Sathya Sai Baba and the repeated failure of lesser dispute resolution mechanisms, User:Andries may not edit any articles in any way related to Sathya Sai Baba for a period of one year. During this time, he may not initiate or respond to any dispute resolution actions related to such articles, including but not limited to requests for comments, Mediation, or postings to the administrators' noticeboard. He may, however, engage in discussion and make suggestions at the relevant article and user talk pages.

If necessary, this remedy may be enforced with blocks of escalating duration beginning at up to 7 days.

This remedy is not to be construed as license for others to engage in hagiography at Sathya Sai Baba.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Proposed. reply

Comment by parties:

Agaim, I did not engage in activism. I request that UninvitedCompany proves that I engaged in activism in the Sathya Sai Baba article. I also request him or her to prove that I have repeatedly and seriously violated Wikipedia policies which would justify the harsh sanction that s/he proposes. Andries 21:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Andries, when you controlled the article for 2 years, the entire article was proof of your Anti-Sai activism. The external links section with link-spamming to your and other Anti-Sai sites and the prevalence of original research proves that abundantly. Even recently you attempted to promote Brian Steel (an Anti-Sai Activist) by citing him. You are an Anti-Sai activist. Are you saying you are not? You even appeared on a program speaking against SSB, whose contents you refused to translate for ArbCom on my request. All of this proves you are an activist. Perhaps if you defined "activism", and explained how you do not engage in it, that would help. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 22:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I admit that I am an activist outside of Wikipedia, but apart from that I also have an intellectual interest in that matter. I did not engage in activism in Wikipedia. The book by Brian Steel that I cited was a reasonably reputable source and written by Steel when he was still a devotee. Your attempt to prove that I am an activist in Wikipedia by saying that I use a devotee book for the article is unconvincing. Regarding the original research and "link spamming" this has already been treated in the previoous abritration case and I will not repeat it here unless requested by arbitrators. Andries 09:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes you do Andries. No need to make a huge argument because ArbCom is smart enough to see through your denial. Your past link-spamming to critic's site is proof of your activism on Wikipedia. The fact that you continue to argue for Steel's book, but then argue against "reasonably reputable sources" written by Murphet, etc., is proof of your continued activism and bias. You solicited the petition against SSB on the article and on your user page (as well as citing and linking to an anonymous and defamatory letter against SSB) [157]. You solicited the BBC documentary on your userpage [158]. Your pushed your personal defection story numerous times. I could go on and on about your numerous attempts to push your Anti-Sai Activism on Wikipedia. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 18:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I do not consider links to www.exbaba.com and www.saiguru.net on the article Sathya Sai Baba "link spamming", because they are informative, relevant to the article, and also contain reputable source material. Wikipedia allows considerable freedom on userpages. What matters are my edits on the article Sathya Sai Baba, esp. the edits made after the previous arbcom case, because I assume that the amnesty from the arbcom that we received is still valid. UninvitedCompany and other Arbcom members, please let me know if this amnesty has been retracted. I do not consider the book by the gullible Howard Murphet that is so full of uninvestigated miracle stories that are quite easily accepted as the genuine as a reasonable reputable source. Andries 19:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Can the arbcom members who support this motion please provide evidence that I have seriously and repeatedly violated Wikipedia policies after the amnesty that I received in the first arbcom case? I would be surprized if anybody was able to find one single edit in which I seriously violated Wikipedia policies in SSB related articles since the previous arbcom case. Andries 01:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Andries, the fact that you call Howard Murphet "gullible" shows once again that you are pushing your POV on wikipedia! That you cannot see this is reprehensible. Very similar to when you called me brainwashed. You continually violated wikipedia policies by trying to push your anti-Sai point of view. Most anti-Sai material is NOT well-sourced. Freelanceresearch 21:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I see frank discussion of sources, such as describing the writings by Howard Murphet as gullible and hence unsuitable for use in Wikipedia as necessary. I regret my labels for you in 2004. Andries 23:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I strongly oppose this remedy as it will achieve nothing except to ban a contributor who has provided 80% of the material in the SSB article (as per his own statements). Andries has been notably efficient in providing sources for the article, making it NPOV, and has been the target of frequent personal attacks by opponent activists. He has also protected the article from POV edit-wars ( diff) and continues to do so, nor does there appear to be any evidence that he has violated WP Policies and Guidelines since the First Case. Ekantik ^talk 05:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

These responses show the problems that will continue to undermine the NPOV to the SSB articles. Andries continues to believe that links to Anti-Sai sites "are informative, relevant to the article, and also contain reputable source material" (despite their copyright violation status). Ekantik/Gaurasundara supports Andries because they are Anti-SSB collaborators. Even if Andries is blocked, Ekantik will pick up where Andries left off and will continually argue and support for anything Andries advocates for. As a matter of fact, he already does. This problem has no end in sight considering Ekantik's bitter and hostile position against SSB on the interent. It is absurd to think that someone who defames and libels SSB so viciously on the internet is dedicated to NPOV on Wikipedia. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 17:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

SSS108, please do not make unresearched remarks such as that "I support Andries because..." especially since you have no idea of what my position is because you have not bothered to research the same. I have already explained my intent in numerous places on Talk:Sathya Sai Baba, and I am unconcerned whether you believe them. For the record I do not even know which links in particular you are referring to. I could similarly argue that your institutional bias is being displayed by your constant references to "collaboration", ignoring the collaboration that exists between yourself, Freelanceresearch and Kkrystian. I could similarly claim that it is absurd to believe that someone who defames and libels critics of SSB so viciously on the internet is dedicated to NPOV on Wikipedia. Unfortunately your edit history is proof of your partisan bias that has not been resolved since the First Case.

In effect, please refrain from making presumptuous and judgemental remarks about the motives of other editors based on extremely little evidence. I do not need to point out the fact that we are only here because of your disruptive editing, edit-warring, refusal to follow WP policies and guidelines, repeated personal attacks, refusal to work with other editors, tendentious editing, and much more, for which you received a 48-hour (suspended) block. If there is any finding against Andries being banned (for reasons that do not seem clear despite his productive work on Wikipedia) then a similar finding should be made against you for your unproductive work on Wikipedia. I agree with 67.117.130.181 in this regard. Ekantik ^talk 02:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Freelanceresearch is attacking Andries in offsite forums relating to proposed motions here: example 1 example 2, making disturbing references to Wikipedia admins and characterising SSB-critics as psychotics and anti-Semites. A repetition of Example 2 is posted here with an additional (and highly objectionable) accusation of white supremacy.

Under the terms of WP:NPA#Off-wiki_personal_attacks, this is sufficient basis to question Freelanceresearch's good faith in editing the SSB article, and are certainly aggravating factors and can be included as evidence of bias and extreme hostility in ArbCom cases such as this. Ekantik ^talk 02:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Linking to posts in the sathyasaibaba2 yahoo group where abusing opponents has become a form of art is entertaining though I do not see much relevance for Wikipedia. Andries 23:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply

It is very amusing that Ekantik/Gaurasundara is attempting to take a stand against extra-Wikipedia "personal attacks" when he is the most vicious defamer of SSB and Sai proponents on the internet (as already discussed on the evidence page [159]). Ekantik has viciously libeled Freelanceresearch on the internet as a "stupid White Trash lesbian", "Butch Dyke" and a "lesbian" who likes to "much carpets and use strap-on dildos" [160], among numerous other disgusting slurs and defamations. Ekantik even created a blog specifically attacking Freelanceresearch and attacks her about her involvement with Wikipedia [161]. Far be it for Ekantik to point out others "personal attacks" when he is the worst "personal attacker" in the Anti-Sai group. Citing WP:NPA#Off-wiki_personal_attacks, Ekantik just implicated himself. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 00:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

SSS108, you obviously don't have a clear idea of WP policies and guidelines even though I've asked you to study them several times. If you want to go that far, you may as well accept the fact that Freelanceresearch has been a continuous abuser of SSB-critics on an almost daily basis since she joined that forum (November 2002), and so are you for that matter and I can provide a long list of the sadistic and vicious slanders and defamations made by the both of you, especially about your referencing of Wikipedia example. What to speak of the fact that you are currently engaged in heavy criticism of SSB-critics on internet forums at this moment, although admittedly they are not parties to this ArbCom case. Very amusing indeed. However I will not bother referencing these because off-wiki personal attacks are not within the purview of this Wikipedia ArbCom case as such. If you want to participate in this discussion, be relevant.

This issue has been brought up because Freelanceresearch's off-wiki personal attacks against Andries involve and describe the processing of this ArbCom case ("Andries FINALLY Spanked By Wikipedia Administrators") and this is sufficient evidence that proves her lack of good faith and hostility to the parties of this case. There is not much more to say once a party starts accusing the opponent of anti-Semitism, psychosis and white supremacy with no basis - these are aggravating factors.

For the record, Freelanceresearch has engaged in further comment of Wikipedia in connection to SSB, but I will list these examples in my evidence. Ekantik ^talk 00:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Ekantik/Gaurasundara, as I said before, it is amusing that you, of all people, should be complaining about other's "attacks" about editors on Wikipedia when you created a blog specifically attacking me and my involvement on Wikipedia. You also attacked me numerous times on the SSB2 Yahoo group about my edits and involvement on Wikipedia, as documented on the evidence page [162]. And where did Freelanceresearch accuse you or Andries of Anti-Semitism or White Supremacy? Remember, stay on topic and keep your comments relevant to the involved editors. I would also note that you keep introducing off-topic material under non-relevant categories. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 02:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

SSS108, as I said before, stay relevant and read the comments properly. By your definition, your comments are off-topic since this is a section about Andries, not myself or you. Your comments about my blog supposedly attacking your edits on Wikipedia are misleading, and will be treated in my Evidence. Freelanceresearch's claims about anti-Semitism and white supremacy are connected with her discussions about Andries' editing privileges restricted as the examples themselves show. At the very least the subject line of the posts are enough evidence of bias and hostility, which has been shown on this page as well. Are you denying that Freelanceresearch is currently engaging in "aggravating events" relating to this Wikipedia ArbCom case? I should think not. Since you are a close collaborator of Freelanceresearch it is understandable why you would want to make a comment, but we would really prefer her to explain herself as you are not her representative.

And again, please take the time to read WP policies. This is not off-topic, it is directly relevant to this motion regarding Andries. If you continue with your tendentious arguments that lead nowhere then I will see no reason to continue this exchange, which is indicative of your behavioural problems as a whole. I sincerely regret that I do not need patronising tutorials in Wikiquette from yourself since you have violated it (and several other policies) on innumerable occasions. Please refrain from turning the end of every single proposal into an endless and tedious arguments that I have no time for. If Freelanceresearch is or has been engaging in acts contrary to this ArbCom case, that is her lookout (and the ArbCom's of course). Ekantik ^talk 02:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

All of my accusations regarding anti-Semitism as well as sociopathic behavior, histories of drug and/or alcohol abuse in the anti-Sai group is VERY well documented as I use direct quotes and admissions from the people themselves (such as Ekantik's volumous ranting and other online activity) as well as links to the orgs or others they are connected to. I have every right to document what is happening on wikipedia with regard to arbitration. Not to mention Ekantik has recently posted comments regarding wikipedia about Joe and me so I find his argument hypocritical and self-serving. Freelanceresearch 05:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply

The thread is about "Andries' editing privileges restricted". It has nothing to do with Freelanceresearch. Stop introducing irrelevant material into non-relevant sections. You had every opportunity to make your case on the evidence page. I suggest you use the evidence page and save us all the time of having to read your non-relevant comments. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 03:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

SSS108, you just don't get it. Under the terms of WP:NPA#Off-wiki_personal_attacks, I am citing evidence of Freelanceresearch's off-Wiki attacks on Andries relating to Andries' editing privileges being restricted. If you had followed the conversation you would have realised this point long ago. I am getting tired of having to explain everything to you just because you have a disagreement. It hardly matters because my evidence has now got it's own dedicated section. I suggest you restrict yourself to citing evidence instead of continuing to quibble because you cannot understand WP policies and their effects on ArbCom cases. Ekantik ^talk 04:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

The proposed restriction has absolutely nothing to do with Freelanceresearch in any way, shape or form. You are here to defend Andries because you both belong to the same Anti-Sai group. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 06:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for proving that is is utterly pointless in trying to have a reasonable discussion with you. Ekantik ^talk 04:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

This ban is too much. Andries has made some mistakes but it's apparent that he's trying to edit responsibly and weigh sources carefully. Many or most of SSS108's objections are tendentious. I don't think it would be good for the articles to ban Andries from editing them, since they are in a lousy state right now and he is very conversant with the available literature. I suggest letting Andries' 1 month ban at Robert Priddy finish out, and possibly put Andries under probation or mentorship giving the admins explicit jurisdiction. Andries' edits that got him that ban were because he felt Thatcher131 was misinterpreting the previous arb ruling and didn't have jurisdiction. I concur with Pjacobi at Talk:Robert Priddy that Robert Priddy is an article about Robert Priddy and not about SSB. As such, its documentation should be assessed according to its relevance to Robert Priddy and not to SSB. Inserting a link to Ann Coulter's writings at Ann Coulter is much different from inserting one at Bill Clinton. (Coulter writes vituperative criticism of Clinton and other living politicians).

Note: re-AFD'ing Robert Priddy as suggested by Andries and others might take care of the problems related to that article. It survived an earlier AfD but I think the bibliography from Priddy's web site was not assessed carefully enough at that time. Despite some effort I was not able to rigorously document that Robert Priddy meets the requirements of WP:BIO. 67.117.130.181 13:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply

67.117.130.181, at least represent the facts a little more objectively. You have not been able to document Priddy's requirements of WP:BIO in the least. You presented one link to a non-official Sai-related website that had a review to Priddy's book. As it turns out, the website in question wrote that book review because they published Priddy's book! That's all you have been able to cite. Neither you, Pjacobi, Andries or anyone else has been able to provide even one single reliable or reputable source that directly or indirectly mentions anything about Robert Priddy. If I am wrong, provide these reliable sources here for everyone to see. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 18:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply

In my opinion Priddy doesn't meet WP:BIO and I believe I said that on the talk page. I believe he may have enough notability within the SSB saga (e.g. due to the Sai Towers republication of Source of the Dream) to warrant mention in one of the articles someplace, but not enough to be the subject of his own separate article. 67.117.130.181 18:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Andries asked for clarification about the previous arb ruling here and Tony Sidaway wrote [163]

Andries has come back politely with what amount, in my view, to clear signals that he requires much closer direction on this matter. I suggested that clarification from the arbitrators might be a good way of resolving this matter, and his query here is the response. Andries has shown by his responses and actions that he is eager and willing to comply with the arbitration and in my role as a clerk I commend his queries to the Committee, While this is clearly a dispute that could have become very rancorous, it seems to me that Andries is doing his best to avoid that path and seek clarification.

Andries did not receive clarification so eventually went ahead with his own interpretation of the arb ruling. I think Tony's assessment above is consistent with my earlier suggestion of mentorship rather than a big ban. 67.117.130.181 19:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply

A stray note but don't know where else to put it: The issue of Robert Priddy's notability keeps on coming up now and again, where Andries says it can be solved with another AfD. Perhaps so, but I noticed that SSS108 is misleading people when he says that the previous AfD was unsuccessful because he was deemed to be too close to the dispute. Taking a look at the AfD page, this doe snot appear to be the case. The article was voted 'Keep' because several voting editors agreed that Priddy was notable enough for his own article. Ekantik ^talk 14:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Besides the 3 editors who voted "keep", all the others are collaborators with Robert Priddy. Ekantik voted "keep" under his Gaurasundara sockpuppet. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 06:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Irrelevant. I could similarly argue that the AfD was initiated by a critic of Priddy (SSS108) and supported by another critic of Priddy ( Freelanceresearch), except that Freelanceresearch didn't actually vote one way or another. All editors stated their reasons for keeping the Robert Priddy article invariably mentioning his notability. And for the record, this was my first ever edit under my legitimate sockpuppet and I was unaware of being logged in under that account. I refrained from voting (or re-voting) under this Ekantik account as that would be a violation of WP:SOCK. Let's not be selective with the facts, hey? Ekantik ^talk 05:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

There were only 5 votes to keep. 2 were not involved in the controversy. 1 was indirectly involved and 2 were directly involved. You must remember that Freelanceresearch did not cast a vote. So my RFC was not supported by another critic of Priddy. Please research the matter first, stop being selective with the facts and stop engaging in pointless arguing. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 17:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

SSS108, please, you have already made the astute observation that the ArbCom members are "smart enough". A fine insight indeed, so please stop deliberately misrepresenting everyone's position by asking them to research issues that are open to everyone's view. I already told you that Freelanceresearch did not cast a vote. If you are dedicate to telling the facts then why have you been misrepresenting the fact that the Robert Priddy AfD was Kept because you were "deemed too close to the dispute" ( diff1, diff2)? There is no "controversy" either. I'll state it again: You were not "indirectly involved", you were the one who proposed the AfD. Whether this counts as a vote for deletion or not is academic and I'm glad you brought that up, this means that all "votes" cast were to Keep the article invariably mentioning Priddy's notability and not because you were "too close to the dispute".

I agree with you about engaging in pointless arguing, it has been stated already in several of the Party Statements that there is no use in reasonably discussing things with you. I suggest you carry on this discussion (if necessary) in the appropriate venue if and when such a venue is created, as this is a section to discuss Andries' privileges being restricted. Ekantik ^talk 02:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply

If you didn't want this issue discussed here, you should not have included it in a non-relevant section. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 17:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Sources

2) Editors involved at Sathya Sai Baba are encouraged to use better sources and improved citation style.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Proposed. reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Ektanik to edit under a single user name

3) User:Ekantik is instructed to make all future Wikipedia contributions related in any way to Sathya Sai Baba under a single username.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Proposed. reply

Comment by parties:

Almost all of his contributions related to SSB were made by Ekantik ( talk · contribs). He only voted to keep the article of the SSB critic Robert Priddy with his sockpuppet, Gaurasundara ( talk · contribs). Andries 22:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply

That's right. I have never contributed to the SSB article with any other username except "Ekantik", nor do I intend to do so. I therefore think that this proposal is invalid. Ekantik ^talk 02:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Prior remedies clarified

1) The remedies at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba regarding poorly sourced information remain in force and apply to all editors working on the Sathya Sai Baba article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Proposed. reply

Comment by parties:

To remain in force, it needs to be clarified. Explicitely statinfg that it applies to all editors is one third of the needed clarification already (but highly unusual). -- Pjacobi 07:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Especially it needs clarification whether giving attack sites as external links on their or their author's article page is allowed or forbidden. Some comments on parallel cases (stormfront.org, chick.com, xenu.de) would be illuminating. -- Pjacobi 09:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

The stormfront, chick and xenu links belong to people who have been mentioned in reliable or reputable sources. Robert Priddy has not been mentioned in any reliable or reputable sources, related or unrelated to Sathya Sai Baba. Period. I am uncertain why Pjacobi keeps attempting to compare apples with oranges. There simply is no comparison between the reputability/notability of the owners of stormfront, chick, xenu and Robert Priddy. Priddy is not publicly known for anything. If he is, I ask once again that Pjacobi provide the reliable or reputable sources to make his case. All Pjacobi has been able to cite is the Indymedia forum. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 22:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

The remedy for non-notabiliry is AfD, not cutting out facts from an existing article. -- Pjacobi 08:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Then why didn't you file a AfD? Whom else is supposed to file it when I was already deemed to be too close to the dispute? What "facts" are you talking about? Most of the article must be accepted on the word of Robert Priddy because they cannot be referenced to any other source. Funny that you talk about "facts" but can't reference any to reliable or reputable sources (you still can't) and you are so desperate for "facts" you even cited information from the Indymedia forum. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 19:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Yet again, an AfD is unnecessary and I have previously addressed the matter here. Ekantik ^talk 05:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I sincerely think that this remedy ought to be subject to a rethink or redefinition, especially given that this motion was not thoroughly discussed during the previous ArbCom case ( link). I have noticed a similar situation with the Swami Kriyananda article - SK is a spiritual leader who is also criticised over allegations of sexual abuse. Links to "negative information" are posted within the article and also within External Links. Detailed discussion on what actually constitutes "poorly-sourced negative information" in relation to SSB should perhaps ensue. Ekantik ^talk 05:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

This is still unclear since the previous remedies went beyond normal Wikipedia editorial policy (e.g. there is no general prohibition even for BLP's against linking on a talk page to well-sourced content on a site that contains original research elsewhere) and therefore appeared to apply only to the named parties in the arb case (see also Pjacobi's remarks at Talk:Robert Priddy). If arbcom wants to impose special restrictions on non-named parties it should put the article itself under probation. In my view that is not necessary or justified though--I'm not aware of problematic editing by non-named parties in these articles. I put a few other thoughts about BLP's and talk pages here. In general, assessment of links and other materials per BLP principles needs to be at the editorial judgement of editors, with possible exception of those under sanction. It's simply not helpful to the cause of encyclopedic content to aggressively shut down discussion on talk pages of useful materials introduced by careful editors.

The set of affected articles is also still unclear--for example, this arb case started over link reversions to Robert Priddy's writings at Robert Priddy, not the SSB article. There's a big difference between wanting to cite the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 in the biography of George W. Bush, and wanting to cite it in the biography of Michael Moore.

Overall we should also keep in mind that SSB is a religious leader with supposedly 50 million followers, making him comparable to a major politician. There is a ton of published material about him that's adulatory to the point of uselessness as WP sourcing but is nonetheless the basis of the movement surrounding him. He is not a private, vulnerable personality like Seigenthaler and these articles aren't really the right place to invoke extreme overprotective interpretations of BLP policy. 67.117.130.181 05:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Open remedy

4) The committee reserves the right to amend these remedies as required and to issue additional remedies as necessary to provide a positive environment for collaboration on the Sathya Sai Baba article, even if no additional case is brought forward.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Proposed. reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Pardon the tenacity of a humble editor, but surely this remedy is somewhat redundant, since you already have the option to introduce a "motion in a prior case"? David Mestel^{( Talk)} 21:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Agree with David Mestel. 67.117.130.181 06:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: