Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba/Evidence

Jossi's statement on this page is unrelated to the article Sathya Sai Baba, but related to the articles guru and talk:Sikhism, both of which are not the subject of conflict between the adverseries. SSS108 never had any serious disute on the article guru with Andries and hardly made edits on the article guru.

Jossi wrote on this page

On 21:59, June 2, 2006, User:AmiDaniel blocked Andries with an expiry time of 24 hours (WP:3RR violation on Talk:Sikhism -- second offense)

The burden of proof that a comment on this page is related to the article Sathya Sai Baba is on the person making this comment. I do not have to prove for each of the many off-topic comments on this page that it is unrelated to Sathya Sai Baba Andries 06:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC) amended 21:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi's statement on this page was related to the article apostasy which is not the subject of conflict between the adverseries. It was not related to the article Sathya Sai Baba, nor to New Religious movements as Jossi incorrectly states.

Jossi wrote on this page

• 15:40, July 24, 2005 "I have to admit that I have been a POV pusher on the latter subject [New Religious movements, Apostasy] because I am an ex-cult member and I hate to be called a liar with regards to a very difficult experience of my life that I tried to tell in an accurate, factual way to others."

Andries 06:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I wanted to push my POV on apostasy in a dishonest way then I would never have made such a statement and when you look at talk:apostasy and the history of apostasy then you will see that I have not removed critical information about apostates from the article, except when user:Zappaz made a mistake with a reference. I only added information that rebuts or nuances this critical information, e.g. the statement by Duhaime. [2] Andries 17:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)amended 23:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following comments by Jossi on this page are unrelated to the article Sathya Sai Baba, but are related to the article post cult trauma which is not the subject of conflict between adverseries.

Jossi's evidence on this page

• 22:30, June 19, 2005 – Andries added: 'Calumny' Confirmed by Andries Krugers Dagneaux, 8 April 2002, ex-Sathya Sai Baba after 9 years
• 12:03, 25 Jun 2005 – Challenge by User:Tony Sidaway.

In addition I think that adding original research in the external link section is at worst a very mild violation of policies. Also, quite a lot of the information that I posted in the internet testimony was also published by a reasonably reputable source i.e. a broadcast by a Dutch TV news programm i.e. Tabloid on (SBS 6) in which I told my story. See a copy of the video movie in which I told my story on Dutch TV in Dutch language. You can ask one of the many Dutch speaking contributors in the English Wikipedia to verify my statement in this regard. [3]. Scroll down to "Over Sai Baba in Tabloid (SBS 6)" Andries 06:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 13 November 2004 user:Andries removed a link to his essay from the external links section in the article brainwashing that he had originally added himself because he found it inappropriate. Andries 13:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the complaint by user:SSS108 on this page that I divulge personal information (i.e. his name) is very strange and I think highly exaggerated, because he lists his homepage on his user page as of 8 July 2006. In turn his homepage mentions his name [4] as of 8 July 2006 “Looking for Joe Moreno? Joe "Gerald" Vishwarupa Moreno” “ In addition, he even reverted himself to a version on the article Sathya Sai Baba that mentions his name [5] Here is user:SSS108 complaint about this issue on this page as a reference

"First of all, I would like to point out that Andries constantly divulges personal information about me by listing my real name on Wikipedia. I have asked him to desist from doing this (Ref) and (as one can see) he refuses to stop. Unlike Andries, I have not used my real name as my "wiki-name". Therefore, I request the ArbCom to ask Andries to stop divulging my full name on Wikipedia."

Andries 09:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 04:08, 6 July 2006 SSS108 reveals his real name again after SSS108 requested Andries to stop divulging person information on 18 April 2006 Andries 07:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SSS108 writes on this page regarding the question to divulge personal information

"The entire face of the controversy has changed and Andries has made it very personal."

I think that SSS108 has made the controversy personal, not me, with his many, often off-wiki ad hominem arguments and his shameless defamation of critics of SSB. The mediator user:BostonMA considered SSS108's off-wiki ad homimem attacks on me and defamation of me so serious that he even took the time to solve some of it User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya_Sai_Baba/www.saisathyasai.com. Note that SSS108 used to link to his webpage regarding me. See also talk:Robert Priddy Andries 03:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following statement by SSS108 on this page is misleading

"I would also like to point out that most of the "original research" that Andries complained about, that was added to the Sathya Sai Baba (henceforth referred to as "SSB") article, was not added by me but by Thaumaturgic.The reason I did not object to the "original research" taken from my site was because Andries allowed the "original research" of Anti-Sai Activists taken from their sites."

First of all, SSS108 personally repeatedly re-added his original research from his website in reverts. [6] [7] [8] Secondly, he reverted me repeatedly when I wanted to remove all original research including "original research of Anti-Sai Activists". [9] [10] This shows that I was willing to remove original research after complaints on the talk page and that user:SS108 blatantly continued to violate the policy Wikipedia:No Original Research even after many warnings and discussion. After several months and only after a mediator intervened he stopped reverting me. I believe that he stopped reverting me only because he realized that he would lose all credibility if he continued to blatantly violate the Wikipedia:No Original Research Andries 13:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SSS108 responded to my argument as follows in this page

"Andries failed to mention is that he objected to material taken from my personal website ((View Thread 1 - View Thread 2), yet refused to remove the links that directly solicited his personal Anti-SSB website (which locked users into a framed page where a full menu of Anti-Sai links were provide; which I believe was observed by BostonMA as this was discussed in mediation). I refused to remove references to my site as long as Andries refused to remove the links that solictied his website."

What SSS108 is saying here is because I had used anti-SSB websites with online copies of reputable sources such as the BBC or University press articles as convenience links in the reference section then SSS108 finds it okay to quote himself from his personal homepage in the main text of the article. I had tried and tried and tried to explain to him that there is a huge difference between it, but to no avail. See for example here my fruitless repetitive attempt to educate user:SSS108 on basic Wikipedia policies. And I always agreed to linking to the website of the original publisher if the contents was available online, instead of convenience links to anti-SSB websites. Andries 16:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• [11] SSS108 is quoting himself. Andries 03:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following statement by user:SSS108 on this page is misleading

"Regarding this same issue, Andries also attempted to push the link to saiguru.net (another Anti-SSB Site) which is a mirror site to the hetnet.nl/~exbaba site (which happens to be Andries Anti-SSB website). Saiguru.net duplicates content (verbatim) taken almost exclusively from Andries website. In order to get around my complaints about Andries linking to and promoting his personal Anti-SSB website, he instead links to the saiguru.net site and says that is okay even though the content originated from his site to begin with! Therefore, all of Andries claims to complying with Wikipedia policies (past and present) are patently false and misleading."

First of all the website http://www.saiguru.net is not a mirror of the website http://www.exbaba.com with which I am affiliated. I started linking to http://www.saiguru.net instead of http://www.exbaba.com, because I considered it somewhat inappropriate to link to a website with which an editor is personally affiliated. I am not affiliated with http://www.saiguru.net It is maintained by another webmaster (Lionel Fernandez) than http://www.exbaba.com (Reinier van der Sandt). I do not think that I broke any Wikipedia policy by linking to the website http://www.saiguru.net. Andries 07:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following statement made by user:SSS108 on this page is unrelated to the article Sathya Sai Baba, but related to the article list of cults which is hardly a subject of conflict between adverseries

Andries attempted to cite the original research of Alexandra Nagel (an article which was specifically addressed in mediation with BostonMA and shown to be an un-reliable source that also constituted original research: Ref) on the List of groups referred to as cults (Ref). View the partial discussion thread that ensued.

In addition, I deny that I broke the Wikipedia:No Original Research or Wikipedia:Verifiability with this edit. I cited an article by Nagel that quoted a reputable source (book by Chryssides) which justified my edit and made this explicit with the Wikipedia:Cite guideline that I followed meticulously and that was unambigous in this respect until user:Jossi changed it, because as he state he did not agree with the way I interpreted the guideline. [12]. Jossi was the first one to change this guideline triggered by the discussion between user:Jossi, user:Andries and user:SSS108 on Talk:List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults/archive6#Original_Research. I thought and still think that it safe to assume that the article by Nagel cites the reputable source (book by Chryssides) correctly and that I thus followed all the then applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines with my edit.Andries 08:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the following statement made on this page by user:SSS108 misleading

• And is if this isn't enough to make my case that Andries is acting contrary to good faith, a controversial edit regarding Jens Sethi (going back to April 22nd 2006, which was a point to be mediated by BostonMA before he left on May 6th 2006: Ref), was edited back into the SSB Wikipedia article today itself (July 7th 2006), by Andries (Ref), without discussion, agreement or forewarning.

First of all I do not see how my edit contradicts good faith. Yes, the question whether to include the criminal complaint filed by Jens Sethi in Munich was agreed upon to be a subject of mediation and has been discussed extensively, so it untrue as SSS108 that I re-inserted the statement "without discussion". This has been discussed extensively at User:SSS108/Introductory_Paragraph_Sandbox#Jens_Sethi More importantly he completely reverted my edits to a version that contains errors. I had removed the errors with my edit. Here is the version by SSS108 that contains errors [13]. I explained on the talk page why I removed the clean up tag that I considered exaggerated [14] ,but user:SSS108 re-added it without explanation until now. If user:SSS108 were a constructive editor then he could simply have removed the statement about Jens Sethi filing a criminal complaint in Munich that I rea-added while remaining the rest of my edits or at least explain in the talk page why he revert all my edits. Andries 10:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi wrote on this page

Evidence related to Andrie's use of selective quoting and editorializing in related articles and subjects, that makes it difficult for SSS108 and others to assume Wikipedia:AGF

Jossi cannot speak on behalf of SSS108. SSS108 was not involved in the two examples mentioned hereunder. Andries 16:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the article guru which is not part of the conflict between the adverseries I want to comment on the evidence provided by Jossi on this page

• 16:50, 13 May 2005 Example of two summaries by Andries of a citation about Sathya Sai Baba in the article Guru, compared against the original source, in which Andries adds allegedly misleading interpretations with the purpose of asserting a viewpoint.

I admit that I made a serious mistake here, mainly because I mixed up information that I had received privately and personally from the person i.e. Lousewies van der Laan (she is my cousin) who raised the question in the European Parliament and from Chris Patten with the information that is publicly available. I privately received information from Van der Laan and Patten because it was me who requested Van der Laan to raise this question in the European Parliament. In addition, I don't know much about the European Parliament and its procedures and that is why I mixed up the European Commission with the European Parliament. In contrast to what Jossi stated, it was not my purpose of asserting a viewpoint.Andries 14:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC) amended 19:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 10 September 2005 by Andries explanation about this mistake. 12 September 2005 by Andries, Andries apologizes for this mistake. Andries 16:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi further writes on this

"Andries made these interpretations without having access to the source, a fact that was discovered only after Andries was challenged to provide a reference."

I edited out of memory and I made a mistake due to special and exceptional circumstances. Jossi is making it much bigger than it really is. I have more than 13,000 edits [15] on the English language Wikipedia so I have a right to make some mistakes without getting punished for it. This should be taken into account when assessing the evidence against me. Andries 14:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the article charismatic authority which is not part of the conflict between the adverseries

Jossi writes on this page

Example of Andries using selective quoting to assert his viewpoint that leaders exhibiting "charismatic authority", as per Webber's definition, are "unpredictable" (He adds Sai Baba and others to the List of charismatic leaders.)

• 19:41, January 21, 2006 Diff showing Andries editorializing by selectively citing from a book and not providing the necessary context for NPOV. :
• Edit by Andries: "[Eileen Barker asserts that] most new religious movements are founded by charismatic leaders, and considers these leaders unpredictable."
• 17:30, January 22, 2006 This was resolved by accessing the source and citing correcttly and in context: "Eileen Barker asserts that by definition, charismatic leaders are unpredictable, for they are not bound tradition or rules."

This may be a subtle difference but it illustrates this specific behavior, which again, makes it difficult for editors to accept his edits in good faith.

• 19:41, 21 January 2006 Jossi removed the referenced statement from a reputable source that according to Eileen Barker charismatic leaders are unpredictable and states on the talk page that this removal is perfectly okay. 24 January 2006 In addition, this was resolved by re-insertion of this referenced attributed material from a reputable sources by Andries, 17:28, 22 January 2006 not by Jossi. I find the difference between my original summary and Jossi’s later summary so subtle that even now I cannot see the difference. If anybody is interested in the question who the real culprit was in this dispute then I will gladly give a reply. Andries

• 6 October 2005 edit by Jossi. Please note that above mentioned case was not the first time that Jossi removed referenced material from a reputable source from the article charismatic authority. The material that Jossi removed was the fact that dr. Schnabel considered Rajneesh and Prem Rawat charismatic which was later moved to the list of charismatic leaders Andries 16:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SSS108 repeatedly removed relevant information supported by a reputable source with these edits [16][17] I had asked for a reason for this removal 30 March 2006]see thread, which SSS108 did not give. 30 March 2006 The removed information was as follows

"In 2006 followers of Shirdi Sai Baba in the Ahmednagar district filed a suit, in the court of Rahata, to restrain followers of Sathya Sai Baba from claiming he is a reincarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba. The case is pending as of January 2006."<ref>Sigh Baba article in the Mumbai Mirror 11 Jan. 2006.</ref>

Andries 15:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:SSS108 defends this edit on this page by stating that he merely moved contents from the main text of the article to the external link section, but this defense violates the official Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not that states “Wikipedia articles are not: Mere collections of external links or Internet directories.”. It is not my job to teach single-purpose editors like user:SSS108 again and again the basics of Wikipedia policies. It is user:SSS108’s duty as a Wikipedia editor to read the policies and guidelines and to obtain more experience by editing a variety of articles, not just heavily controversial articles.

• Clarification 5: Regarding Andries comment about me "repeatedly removing relevant information supported by a reputable source", Andries is apparently misleading the ArbCom with inaccurate information. The media article that Andries referred to is still located on the SSB article (Ref: 3rd Media Article From Bottom). All I did was move this media article to the Media Section as confirmed by the very same link that Andries cited himself against me: Ref: Line 248. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andries 18:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC) amended 04:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following statement by SSS108 on this page regarding this edit is untrue.

"Update: One will note that Andries just changed his argument against me from accusing me of "removing relevant information supported by a reputable source with these edits" (which was untrue) → to the argument that → "Wikipedia articles are not: Mere collections of external links or Internet directories [..]”

No, I think I was misunderstood. I did not change or retract my accusation that SSS108 removed "relevant information supported by a reputable sources". I only wanted to make it clear that his defence for his removal of contents from the main text in the Wikipedia article and adding instead an external link that describes the contents is unjustified and reveals his ignorance of Wikipedia policies and good Wikipedia practices. Andries 19:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 22 April 2006 edit by user:SSS108 who removes attributed contents sourced to a reputable source on the article Sathya Sai Baba Brown further states there with regards to Sathya Sai Baba’s claim of omniscience that sceptics have produced documentation that shows clear discrepancies between Baba’s reading of historical events and biblical propehecies and the generally accepted accounts." <ref>Brown, Mick The Spiritual Tourist 1998 Bloomsbury publishing ISBN 158234034 Chapter In the House of God pp. 73 - 74page 73><br>”Pondering his claims for omniscient knowledge, sceptics have produced documentation clearly showing discrepancies between Baba's reading of historical events and biblical prophecies and the established accounts"</ref>

06:22, 24 April 2006 Andries states on the talk page his intention to re-insert the statement by Mick Brown (in the list nr. 10) and requests a disagreement with reasons. 05:33, 24 April 2006 SSS018 does not give a reason why he disagrees and writes that he will revert and refers to mediation. Andries amended21:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This assertion that can be explained negatively is relevant for the notability of this public figure who claimed to be omniscient and acquired followers on the basis of that claim. Relevant guideline Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Andries 22:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:SSS108 repeatedly removed an attributed statement i.e. sexual abuse of boys by SSB on the article Sathya Sai Baba referenced to a reputable source i.e. an article in salon.com [18] [19] [20] Here SSS108 removes the statement about sexual abuse of boys even after I referenced it with three reputable sources i.e. Salon.com, press release from UNESCO, and The Telegraph 26 April 2006. The allegations by critics of sexual abuse of boys are relevant to the notability of this public figure who claims to be God and free of desires and acquired followers on the basis of these claims. The relevant guideline in this case is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Andries 01:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 19 April 2006 SSS108 removed books about Sathya Sai Baba by the then followers Brian Steel and Robert Priddy who since then have become critical former followers. Andries 04:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 06:22, 24 April 2006 Andries states on the talk page his intention to re-insert the books by Steel and Priddy and requests a disagreement with reasons. 05:33, 24 April 2006 SSS018 does not give a reason why he disagrees and writes that he will revert and refers to mediation. Andries 21:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the following statements are related to the article guru which is not the subject of conflict between adverseries, not to the article Sathya Sai Baba

Jossi wrotes on this page

• 20:23, 2 June 2006 by Sfacets: "The page has an oversized criticism section which is being held to apply to Gurus of any teaching, wether it be Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist or NRM. The perpetrator of this criticism, Andries, who, according to his user page is counter-cults, and is using his POV to criticise religious teachers of all religious movements."

• 19:47, 11 June 2006 by Sfacets wrote on talk:guru when arguing about the nr. of external links that "[..] The crtiicism section is small when compared to the combined sections on religions, and in relevance when compared to the sheer size in numbers of adherants to these religions. Which is the point we have been trying to establish since the begining, when you started pilling on the critical links." Andries 05:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC) amended 01:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• [21] user:Jossi writes on this page *Request for mediation 20:09, 29 Apr 2005 Zappaz and Goethean vs. User:Andries re: Guru. Zappaz and Goethean complaint is that Andries, is attempting to use WP as a place for advocating against gurus.

Please note that the assigned mediator i.e. user:Stevertigo on the article guru made several decisions in my favor and voiced several opinions that I had voiced too. [22][23]Andries 22:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi tries to provide evidence that editors think I added too much criticism to the guru article, but he wrote himself on talk:guru that he thinks otherwise in this thread

Okay. let me try to summarize the concerns against this article by Goethean, Zappaz, and Jossi.

• Disproportionally much critical information (Goethean, Zappaz, Jossi)
• Sources for this article should mainly be Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh plus Indologists, not Western psychiatrists, skeptics etc. (Goethean)
• Use of obscure scholars as a source i.e. Jan van der Lans & Reender Kranenborg. (Goethean)

Andries 06:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that we have moved on from the above in the last 5 days. What is needed now is to develop the sections about gurus in Buddhism and Sikhism, hopefully leaving the criticism section as is, and not adding more stuff to it (unless you want to link to other articles for more info).≈ jossi ≈ 16:26, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Note here is the version of the guru article on 15 May 2005 when Jossi wrote the above statement Andries 05:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 23:24, 19 December 2005 Andries toned down inaccurate criticism of SSB without any request or complaints on the talk page. Andries 20:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 30 March 2004 by user:Sam Spade about the article Sathya Sai Baba and Andries' edits on that article, "Amazingly NPOV. I am very impressed with your impartiality, and the thoroughness, this is really a very fine article. You are clearly a very solid editor to edit something this close to you so well. Many people tell me (or show me by their POV edits) that they are unable to edit on articles close to them personally." Andries 11:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 30 March 2004 by user:Jay about the article Sathya Sai Baba and Andries' edits on that article, "I agree [with user:Sam Spade ], I've seen Andries single-handedly change the page from a stub, I've tried hard to spot and remove POVs but not succeeded yet !" Andries 11:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Andries has also been praised by user:M Alan Kazlev for his neutrality on Beliefs and practices in the Sathya Sai Organisation on his off-wikipedia website about my involvement in Sathya Sai Baba related articles in Wikipedia as follows

"The second is his and Lisa's wikipedia paranoia, already referred to (including posting long complaints on Wikipedia, but not actually doing something regarding editing the page in question in a Neutral Point of View manner, because they believe that Wikipedia (or at least the Sai Baba pages) are under the control of an ex-baba and anti-cult activist, Andries Krugers Dagneaux. I have however found Andries to be very willing to present a neutral point of view, and where criticised he acknowledges and tries to improve the content (see e.g. this discussion This shows an admirable openness). "Andries 11:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 23:24, 24 Apr 2004 by user:Sam Spade calls the article Sathya Sai Baba "intensely informative and balanced'" Archived thread on featured article nomination Andries 20:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC) amended 11:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[24] statement by User:Jossi on this page

“Andries exhibits a high degree of animosity against his ex-guru (Sai Baba), and by extension to gurus in general, [..]”

I deny this. Here is what user:Andries wrote earlier on talk:guru

• 1 June 2006 Statement by user:Andries “Again and again I have been saying that I am not anti-guru, but I, like Kranenborg and so many other people, have problems distinguishing the reliable gurus from the unreliable gurus. There are some gurus that I respect, e.g. Prabhupada, though I do not like his rather dogmatic teachings. Andries 16:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)”][reply]

Andries 21:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC) amended on 18:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, I admit of course that I feel animosity against the subject of arbitration, but I fully knew from the start that this encyclopedia was not an anti-Sathya Sai Baba forum and that it was not a place for advocacy and that it was inappropriate to write down atrocity stories in articles. Andries 18:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi wrote on this page

Andries' recent statement in the talk page of this evidence page (see diff), best describes Andries' dilemma: He feels compelled, as per the citation he provides, to Having given their hearts and lives to groups that were supposedly dedicated to the truth, leavetakers find it intolerable that those groups should continue to operate and attract new members under what now appear to be false pretenses. Non-withstading the sympathy one may feel for Andries' traumatic disappointment, Wikipedia articles are neither designed to advocate for or against anything, as per WP:NOT, nor to assist its editors with the resolution of their personal conflicts.

I find it inappropriate that my statement in the talk page of this evidence page in which I constructively tried to analyze and think of solution for a general problem in Wikipedia is used as evidence against me by Jossi. Andries 20:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article Prem Rawat, is unrelated to Sathya Sai Baba and is not a subject of conflict between adverseries user:Andries versus user:SSS108

• 9 July 2006 by SS108 on this page
  • Andries is also very active on the Prem Rawat article in which he pushes his Anti-Guru POV. On the Prem Rawat Forum, Andries and other Anti-Prem Rawat people get together to discuss Wikipedia editors (in some cases disparagingly) and the Wikipedia Prem Rawat article. This reference is important as one can see the strong Anti-Guru POV being expressed on this forum that is directly tied back to Wikipedia in which Andries, and other Wikipedia editors, are prime participants.

I disagree that this is relevant for this arbitration on Sathya Sai Baba. In addition, I deny that I have made ad hominem attacks on that off-wiki forum on active editors, though I admit that I have ridiculed one editor once long ago on a preceding forum for which I apologized. And even if it were otherwise, which I continue to deny, then I think it is irrelevant for this arbitration or any other arbitration, because I think there is free speech outside of Wikipedia. I have probably criticized the edits of some active Wikipedia editors on that off-wiki forum (which I think is perfectly permissible) but do not remember when where and how. Andries 18:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC) 21:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10 July 2006 by User:SSS108 on this page

It is important to point out that the Allegations Against Sathya Sai Baba article (that Andries created) was listed on Wikipedia for 22 months although its content was also present (almost verbatim) on the main SSB article (also done by Andries). Andries saw nothing wrong with promoting his Anti-SSB agenda on the main page on a separate page for 22 months. He also saw nothing wrong with his numerous Anti-SSB links (despite his newfound sensitivity about What Wikipedia Is Not) and his citations of non-reputable sources and the original research of Anti-Sai Activists."

I admit that I have used in the past some references and sources on the article allegations against Sathya Sai Baba (that now re-directs to Sathya Sai Baba) that do not fulfill the formal criteria of reputable sources. If SSS108 wanted to have this corrected then he could and should have made that clear on the talk:allegations against Sathya Sai Baba which he or nobody else for that matter ever did. SSS108 first voiced his complaint about inappropriate sources in the article allegations against Sathya Sai Baba on talk:Sathya Sai Baba 17:27, 21 January 2006 I replied then that I would correct it. [25]Andries 22:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 15 Jan 2006 Andries asks Jossi where he broke WP:NOT.15 Jan 2006 Jossi answers to Andries that "You may have not "broken the policy" but you are surely using Wikipedia to advocate your point of view, as stated by you several times including recently on your own user page.[..]" To which Andries replies that 15 January 2006 "opposing an uncritical attitude towards cults and new religious movements within policies is not advocacy"Andries 19:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 17 June 2006 by Andries on talk:guru asking Jossi where Andries broke Wikipedia policies and guidelines lately. Jossi failed to give a concrete example 17 June 2006 Andries 19:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The articles cult, guru and other articles mentioned in this subsection are not subject of the dispute between adverseries, however I find it important to make it clear that SSS108's accusation that I am anti-cult and anti-guru is a one-sided caricature.

• 28 January 2006 Andries removed the category cult leaders from the article Sun Myung Moon, founder of the Unification Church. Andries 03:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 10 December 2004 Andries tones down criticism of ISKCON. Andries 03:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 23:29, 19 August 2004 Andries opposes the classification of the word cult for the Children of God and writes that the use of the word cult is unencyclopedicarchived thread Andries 01:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC) amended 01:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 4 February 2006 Andries supports deletion of critical material on the guru Maharishi_Mahesh_Yogi and calls 5 February 2006 an article from a reputable source about the guru "(excessively) negative and critical" archived thread Andries 05:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC) amended 21:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 10 August 2004 Andries introduces in the Wikipedia:Words to avoid guideline the neutral term new religious movement as an alternative for the term cult. 03:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Andries 21:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 15 October 2004 self-admitted Unificationist member user:Ed Poor [26] praises my edit on cult on the talk page. Andries 03:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 1 July 2006 user:Pjacobi wrote on my talk page regarding about me this arbitration "I consider you to be one of most constructive and sober members of the "anti-cult-fighters" here." Andries 03:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Guru/archive5#Why_gurus_are_controversial_in_the_West_.28restored.29 Archived thread] Andries writes on talk:guru there are quite a lot of uncontroversial gurus. Andries 03:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 23 September 2004 Andries wrote at talk:cult that members of minority religions suffered from unjustified persecution and stigmatization. Andries 15:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 4 March 2005 Andries removing a Christian link from the article ISKCON/Hare Krishna Hindu group describing it as "biased". Andries 08:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SSS108 wrote on this page

• Andries wrote (Ref):

"Perhaps the most scandolous accusation by western ex-members, first voiced in print by Tal Brooke in 1976, is that Sai Baba is a homosexual paedophile and that he sexually abuses his young male followers and the students from his schools and the Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning during private interviews."

Andries attributed this statement to Tal Brooke's book, Avatar of the Night. This comment amounts to nothing less than defamation. Those of us who have read Brooke's book (original and subsequent versions) have yet been able to find any reference where Brooke alleged what Andries attributed to him.

I admit that this was inaccuarately worded. Tal Brooke only wrote that SSB had sex with young male followers. The accusations that SSB had sex with boys and students from his schools were only later made and well documented in reputable sources so SSS108's accusation against me that I engaged in defamation is completely untrue. SSS108 could and should have discussed this inaccurate wording at talk:Allegations_against_Sathya_Sai_Baba and then I would most probably have corrected it. He never discussed it there or anybody else for that matter. What I meant to write there is that Tal Brooke was the first one to voice the accusation of sexual abuse of men by SSB which is accurate and undisputed. Andries 00:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SSS108 wrote on this page

• Andries implied that SSB was an "accomplice of 6 murders"' with no references and added a section entitled "Cult Leader" (Ref)

Sorry, SSB was an accomplice to four murders, not six according to Kevin Sherped's book. So yes that was inaccurate. There were six murders in a confusing and mysterious incident in 1993 but only four were shot by the police for which Keven Shepherd wrote in his book that SSB was an accomplice. The Times and salon.com have labelled SSB as a cult leader. salon article article in the Times. Again, SSS108 could have asked for references etc. but never did so. Andries 00:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SSS108 wrote on this page

• Andries added the words "demon, the Antichrist or charlatan" (Ref)

Nothing inaccurate with that one. Glen Meloy described him in a reputable source (The Telegraph) as a "demented demonic force" Telegraph article. Tal Brooke described him as the antichrist in his book Avatar of the Night. Basava Premanand described him as a charlatan on the website of the BBC.BBC article Again, SSS108 should have could have addressed this on the talk page etc. Andries 00:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC) amended 22:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SSS108 wrote

• "A Very Disturbing Trend" thread: Andries inaccurate wording regarding Carroll and Brown (Ref)

The case of Carroll is unrelated to the case of SSB and in addition I deny that my wording there was inaccurate. In the case of Brown I admit that I should have written "probably untrue", but on the other hand the case is clear, SSB claimed to have re-surrected Walter Cowan from death who according to the doctors and the nurses of the hospital never died. Andries 01:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SSS108

• "Disgraceful Edit" thread: Andries inaccurate wording on the Prem Rawat Article (Ref)

This is unrelated to the article Sathya Sai Baba. In addition I want to state that the minor if not very minor inaccuracies in wording are highly exaggerated by user:Jossi and single-subject editor user:Momento For example, Momento complained that I treated God and Lord of the Universe a synonyms. The root cause is not the accuracy of my edits but the hypersensitivity of the subject. User:Bishonen gave me an award for my edits on the Prem Rawat article 22:46, 16 February 2006 Andries 01:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SSS108

• "Complete Distortion Of Facts" thread: Andries inaccurate summarization of Alexander Deutch's comments (Ref)

This could have been better contextualized, I admit. Andries 01:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally do not consider adding original research in the external link section a serious violation of policies and guidelines, but since I am accused of it by Jossi then I think it is important to make it clear that SSS108's behaviour is much worse than mine in that respect. Andries 02:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• [27] by SSS108's criticism of Basava Premanand (a major critic of SSB) added by SSS108 in the external link section Andries 02:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• [28] [29] [30] [31]SSS108 repeatedly adding his original research in the external link section of the article Robert Priddy (a major critic of Sathya Sai Baba) and having an edit war with user:M Alan Kazlev about this Andries 02:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• [32] SSS108 adding his original research in the external link section of the article Beliefs_and_practices_in_the_Sathya_Sai_Organisation. Andries 03:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both SSS108 (on this page) and Jossi (on my talk page) have accused me of being a self-admitted POV pusher by referring to the now removed statement on my user page that I opposed an uncritical approaced to cults and new religious movements. I continue to think that

1. Wikipedia should not have an uncritical approach against anything and
2. Opposing an uncritical approach is very necessary in the case of New Relgious Movements and cults because folllowers have the tendency to write uncritical entries. An example of this in the case of Sathya Sai Baba is the entry of SSB's biographer Kasturi that contains as of 18 July 2006 hagiographic phrases like "VKN told me that Swami asked him to write a tribute on Kasturi in SS (see below) - a rare expression of Swami's Grace. Apart from Swami rushing to Kasturi's hospital bedside at the time of his last moments and giving him vibhuthi, another rare blessing was Swami [...] 'Loving God' is not only Kasturi's life story. It is the story of God and jîva, guru and sadhaka, the story of Swami making Kasturi an exemplary instrument in His avataric mission, an inspiration to humankind. It is a message for all. That is probably why Swami got Kasturi to write it."

Note: Swami refers to SSB

Andries 21:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC) twice amended as per talk page on Jossi's request. 22:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both Jossi and SSS108 have interpreted the mistakes that I made on the SSB as advocacy. To assist the members of the arbcom in deciding whether I made real mistakes or was engaging in advocacy, I think it is important that they are able to compare my behavior on SSB related articles with my behavior on unrelated articles. Of course, the only one who is able to pinpoint my mistakes on unrelated uncontroversial articles is myself because only I tend see them. And it only me who corrects them. So most probably I have committed more mistakes that nobody ever saw. Andries 22:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 21:54, 11 February 2006 by Andries erroneously wrote that the Vistula-Oder offensive ended on 31 January 1945. -21:07, 21 February 2006 Andries corrected this. The official end date was 2 February 1945. Andries 22:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 18:39, 22 May 2004 erroneous edit by Andries on kinetic energy. I regret this one very much because I think that Wikipedia can and should be correct on such basic subjects. Andries 22:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Goethean wrotes on this page

• [33] my response, Andries' counter-response.

Please note that I admitted after some initial resistance that Feuerstein's opinion belongs in the article. Here is what I wrote "Goethean, I know from experience that what Feuerstein wrote is dangerous nonsense but if I was writing in bad faith and only wanted to warn people against gurus then I would never have allowed Feuerstein's quote in the article. Can we get back to discussing the article instead of disucssing my motives? Andries 16:36, 3 May 2005 (UTC)" Andries 19:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Andries constantly divulges my real name (personal information) on Wikipedia. I asked him to desist (Ref) and he refuses to stop. Since I have not used my real name as my "wiki-name", I request ArbCom to ask Andries to stop divulging my full name on Wikipedia. It appears that Andries (or an Anti-Sai affiliate of his) forwarded my name and misleading information about me that ended up generating personal attacks against me on Wikipedia (Ref). Andries has yet to deny his questionable involvement in those matters.

Clarification Regarding Andries Comments 1 [34]: Regarding Andries logic that since I cite my website link (for reasons of transparency) on my userpage and since my name is listed on my site he can therefore divulge my name on Wikipedia, and generate personal attacks against me, I believe he is wrong and others have been banned on Wikipedia for doing this. I believe Andries should abide by the policies on Wikipedia. SSS108 ^talk-email 15:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification Regarding Andries Comments 2 [35]: Regarding Andries following comment: "04:08, 6 July 2006 SSS108 reveals his real name again after SSS108 requested Andries to stop divulging person information on 18 April 2006": I would like to point out that Andries has always demanded transparency from my behalf, which I have always agreed to. The reference Andries cited was not taken from any talk or user page. Andries was the first person to add my site to the SSB article: Ref (notice the strange linking exclusively given to my site and the promotion of the ExBaba.com site, which is a framed site that reloads Andries Anti-SSB Site) and he was the one who attributed my name to it (a standard I have since followed). When Thaumaturgic attempted to attribute Andries name to his Anti-SSB Site, that is when Andries changed the story about his webmaster status. I think this suggests Andries is not willing to be as transparent as I am. SSS108 ^talk-email 14:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Outside Wikipedia: I have compiled a temporary page that provides what I consider to be compelling proof that suggests that Andries is not being entirely honest about his webmaster status on the hetnet.nl/~exbaba site (which is the largest Anti-SSB site on the world wide web). View My Temporary Page
• Inside Wikipedia: July 27th 2005: M Alan Kazlev made specific mention to Andries webmaster status (Ref) → In the very next post (same day), Andries did not deny being the webmaster, but instead solicited his personal link (Ref) → Dec. 6th 2005: Thaumaturgic attributed the hetnet.nl/~exbaba site to Reinier and Andries (Ref) → Dec. 6th 2005: Andries removed his name but left Reiniers (Ref) → Very next day, Dec. 7th 2006 (4 months after M Alan Kazlev brought up this issue with no denial from Andries): Andries claimed he was not the webmaster but Reinier was the webmaster (Ref). Why the "real" webmaster would cite Andries as the webmaster for one week (an unnecessary action for such a short period of time), yet fail to update this information for 3 years (when the site was being updated with hundreds of articles during that time) is a question Andries has yet to answer. Andries also has not answered if the hetnet.nl/~exbaba site is registered under his name.

Clarification Regarding Andries Comments [36] [37]: Andries stated, "I am not affiliated with www.saiguru.net. It is maintained by another webmaster (Lionel Fernandez) than www.exbaba.com (Reinier van der Sandt)". I never mentioned "Exbaba.com". Reinier is the webmaster for the "Exbaba.com" domain (Ref). However, a simple view of the source code for exbaba.com shows that it is actually a framed page that loads the "hetnet.nl/~exbaba" domain. I am talking about the hetnet.nl/~exbaba site, not "exbaba.com" (they are different sites with different domains and therefore can have different webmasters). Andries and the saiguru.net webmaster are associates (Ref) SSS108 ^talk-email 03:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• View WikiPage About Andries Anti-SSB/Guru/Cult POV Pushing (Updated July 15th 2006).
• View Hinduism Peer Review for "Guru" (Ref).
• Andries also created his own userbox stating: "This user opposes an uncritical attitude toward cults and new religious movements" (Ref)
• Recent warning by FloNight ^talk (Ref) to Andries about his "strategy" in getting his content into articles regarding his following statements on the Prem Rawat talk page: Ref.

• I have created a temporary page that highlights Andries animosity against SSB and his apparent inability to be objective, balanced and fair when it comes to SSB/Gurus/Cults due to his perceived trauma in the SSB "cult": View Temporary Page.

By his own admission, Andries took his Anti-SSB campaign to the air on January 30th 2002 and appeared on the Dutch TV show "Tabloid" (on SBS6 in the Netherlands), in which he publicly spoke out against SSB (Ref). In this broadcast, most of the images of SSB had black bars across SSB's eyes (apparently in an effort to block the "negative energy" emanating from them) and Andries solicited his Anti-SSB website.

• On March 16th 2006, BostonMA asked Andries to reconsider his answers regarding Premanand's credibility (which called into question Andries ability to distinguish between partisanship and NPOV: Ref). Needless to say, Andries ignored BostonMA's comments and refused to change his position on Premanand (Ref). BostonMA also took difference with Andries attempts to link his article (True-believer syndrome) to the SSB article (Ref) and expressed the opinion that Wikipedia is not a soapbox and it appeared that Andries's edits were to convince people of the merits of his favorite views.

• Andries is acting contrary to good faith, by making a controversial edit regarding Jens Sethi (going back to April 22nd 2006, which was a point to be mediated by BostonMA before he left on May 6th 2006: Ref), which was edited back into the SSB Wikipedia article today itself (July 7th 2006), by Andries (Ref), without discussion, agreement or forewarning.

Clarification Regarding Andries Comments [38]: When I said Andries made this edit "without discussion", of course I meant that Andries did not discuss why he made this edit after a 25 day silence. Andries had not made controversial edits since June 10th 2006 (as confirmed in the History Tab). After 25 days of silence, Andries included this controversial edit without discussing why he was re-adding it, even though no mediation or consensuses were obtained. SSS108 ^talk-email 08:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Andries is very active on the Prem Rawat article in which he pushes his Anti-Guru POV. On the Prem Rawat Forum, Andries and other Anti-Prem Rawat people get together to discuss Wikipedia editors (in some cases disparagingly) and the Wikipedia Prem Rawat article. This reference is important as one can see the strong Anti-Guru POV being expressed on this forum that is directly tied back to Wikipedia in which Andries, and other Wikipedia editors, are prime participants.

Clarification Regarding Andries Comments [39]: Although the Prem Rawat article is unrelated to SSB, Andries Anti-SSB/Guru/Cult advocacy on the Prem Rawat article and forum (yes, Andries discusses SSB there as well: Ref) are directly supportive of my claims against him. This suggests that Andries is part of an organized, Anti-Prem Rawat group (that is also very much Anti-Guru/Cult) whose efforts can be traced back directly to Wikipedia. Therefore, Andries POV and behavior on the Anti-Prem Rawat forum (in which he advocates for his Anti-Guru POV and which is directly tied back to Wikipedia) is relevant to my complaints against him. SSS108 ^talk-email 22:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It is my contention that Andries is attempting to undermine the SSB Wikipedia articles with a never-ending supply of negative material that is disproportionate to the amount of positive material on SSB. Evidence is as follows:
• Andries proposed controversial edits: Ref 01 - Ref 02, the "to do" list on the SSB talk page and a recent (July 15th 2006) assertion of intention to add new material (Ref). This supports my contention that Andries Anti-SSB edits are ever-multiplying, without an end in sight and are intended to dominate the article with opposing views.
• It is important to point out that the Allegations Against Sathya Sai Baba article (that Andries created: Ref) was listed on Wikipedia for 22 months (See History Tab) although its content was also present (almost verbatim) on the main SSB article (also done by Andries). Andries saw nothing wrong with promoting his Anti-SSB agenda on the main page and on a separate page for 22 months. He also saw nothing wrong with his numerous Anti-SSB links (despite his newfound sensitivity about What Wikipedia Is Not) and his citations of non-reputable sources and the original research of Anti-Sai Activists.
• Andries also threatened that he has a "great repository" of Dutch articles that he would use if he was provoked any further (Ref).

Clarification Regarding Andries Comments [40]: Complaints about the Allegations Against Sathya Sai Baba (AASSB) article were made on the SSB Talk Page, not the AASSB Talk Page, and Andries knows it! A few examples: Ref 01 - Ref 02 - Ref 03 and in the archives to the SSB Talk page: Archive 3: View Menu. SSS108 ^talk-email 23:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Andries wrote (Ref):

"Perhaps the most scandolous accusation by western ex-members, first voiced in print by Tal Brooke in 1976, is that Sai Baba is a homosexual paedophile and that he sexually abuses his young male followers and the students from his schools and the Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning during private interviews."

Andries attributed this statement to Tal Brooke's book, Avatar of the Night. This comment amounts to nothing less than defamation. Those of us who have read Brooke's book (original and subsequent versions) have yet been able to find any reference where Brooke alleged what Andries attributed to him.

• Andries implied that SSB was an "accomplice of 6 murders"' with no references and added a section entitled "Cult Leader" (Ref)

• Andries added the words "demon, the Antichrist or charlatan" (Ref)

• "A Very Disturbing Trend" thread: Andries inaccurate wording regarding Carroll and Brown (Ref)

• "Disgraceful Edit" thread: Andries inaccurate wording on the Prem Rawat Article (Ref)

• "Complete Distortion Of Facts" thread: Andries inaccurate summarization of Alexander Deutch's comments (Ref)

• "Issue Regarding Emails" thread: Andries misleading statements against me in mediation (Ref)

• "Factual Account" thread: Andries made misleading comments to BostonMA about Nagel's articles (Ref). My response ended this thread (Ref)

• Andries incorrectly cited Premanand's book title (Ref). I informed Andries of this mistake (Ref). M Alan Kazlev raised a huge fuss because of his perception of my tone (Ref). Andries completely ignored my comments, the huge fuss and edited the SSB Wikipedia article with the incorrect title (Ref). Afterwards, Andries blamed me for his confusion (Ref). Strange enough, Andries corrected the title in February 2004 (Ref).

• Clarification: Since this is the first time I ever requested a RFA, I was uncertain how to name my request. I chose the name "Sathya Sai Baba" because that is where most of my disagreements with Andries occurred. I couldn't think of a title that adequately reflected "Andries Anti-Sathya Sai Baba/Prem Rawat/Guru/Cult POV Pushing" (a title that would sum up the totality of my arguments against Andries). In my opinion, all these topics overlap, are inseparable and point to a pattern of behavior from Andries on Wikipedia. SSS108 ^talk-email 06:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of the "original research" that Andries complained about, that was added to the Sathya Sai Baba (henceforth referred to as "SSB") article, was not added by me but by Thaumaturgic. Andries, for two years, published and promoted the "original research" of Anti-Sai Activists. The reason I did not object to the "original research" taken from my site was because Andries allowed the "original research" of Anti-Sai Activists taken from their sites. Thankfully, the mediation process (through BostonMA) resulted in the removal of most of the "original research" (Ref 01 & Ref 02). However, even after mediation, Andries continued to allow and cite the original research of Anti-Sai Activists. For example, on the True-believer syndrome Wikipedia article (that Andries created), Andries made an edit on April 4th 2006 in which he specifically removed a "statement unsupported by references", yet failed to remove the original research from the Anti-Sai Activists and unreliable sources Tony O'Clery and Paul Holbach. Even more recently, on June 12th 2006, Andries attempted to cite the original research of Alexandra Nagel (an article which was specifically addressed in mediation with BostonMA and shown to be an un-reliable source that also constituted original research: Ref) on the List of groups referred to as cults (Ref). View the partial discussion thread that ensued. Regarding this same issue, Andries also attempted to push the link to saiguru.net (another Anti-SSB Site) which is a mirror site to the hetnet.nl/~exbaba site (which happens to be Andries Anti-SSB website). Saiguru.net duplicates content (verbatim) taken almost exclusively from Andries website. In order to get around my complaints about Andries linking to and promoting his personal Anti-SSB website, he instead links to the saiguru.net site and says that is okay even though the content originated from his site to begin with! Therefore, all of Andries claims to complying with Wikipedia policies (past and present) are patently false and misleading.

Clarification Regarding Andries Comments 1 [41]: Andries stated: "Secondly, he reverted me (at least once and probably several times) when I wanted to remove all original research including "original research of Anti-Sai Activists." This is misleading and untrue. On January 14th 2006, Andries removed most of the original research text on the SSB main page but did not remove the original research references (Ref: Look At References Section). On the Allegations Against Sathya Sai Baba History Tab, one will notice that Andries was unwilling (and never attempted) to remove the original research from this page whatsoever, despite my asking him to do so several times (Refs: [42] [43] [44]). Apparently, Andries adherence to Wikipedia's "no original research" policy was conditional and only applied to the main SSB article and not the other SSB-related articles. Andries was unwilling to remove his original research references and content, so I was unwilling to remove the references to mine. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, Andries failed to mention that he objected to material taken from my personal website (Thread 1 - Thread 2), yet refused to remove the links that directly solicited his personal Anti-SSB website (which locked users into a framed page where a full menu of Anti-Sai links were provide; which I believe was observed by BostonMA as this was discussed in mediation). I refused to remove references to my site as long as Andries refused to remove the links that solicited his website. Just recently, however, since the time Arbitration became likely, the webmaster to the hetnet.nl/~exbaba site has been removing the script that reloads their pages back into their main framed page. This is just more proof that whomever is running the hetnet.nl/~exbaba site is attempting to distort the perception of my past arguments and is resorting to tactics that will make it easier for the inclusion of their links into Wikipedia. SSS108 ^talk-email 15:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: June 10th 2006: Proof that the webmaster to the hetnet.nl/~exbaba site is removing the Frameset Script that reloaded the pages into a framed site: → View The Frameset Links That Andries Submitted Himself, Going To His Website → The Link Andries Submitted Does Not Work Because The Frameset Script Was Removed → View The Working Link Without The Frameset Script. SSS108 ^talk-email 08:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification Regarding Andries Comments 2 [45]: SaiGuru.net is a mirror site to Andries Anti-SSB website: View The Proof For Yourself (use side menu to view other sections and how 98% of the articles were taken from Andries hetnet.nl/~exbaba site. SSS108 ^talk-email 15:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification Regarding Andries Comments 3 [46]: That Andries continues to deny that he broke Wikipedia's no original research policy by citing Alexandra Nagel's paper (at "List of groups referred to as cults") when it was shown that Nagel's paper was not reputable and constituted original research in mediation (Ref) is revealing. One will note that Andries has yet to divulge which reputable sources have published or mentioned the article he is attempting to cite by Nagel. Andries is essentially making the argument that one can cite non-reputable references as long as the sources used in those non-reputable references are reputable! SSS108 ^talk-email 15:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The refs that user:Will Beback cited [47] were made at a time when I was a newbie, was not familiar with Wikipedia and did not have a user name. As I was not entirely familiar with how user-name signatures worked, on some rare occasions, I apparently signed my comments along with my username. Nevertheless, at that time, things were not as contentious as they eventually became and I was not being personally attacked on Wikipedia. Now I am (as already discussed earlier: Ref). The fact remains that after I obtained a user name, I requested Andries to refer to me by my username and not my real name and he refuses to comply with my request.
• As a poignant example, Willmcw (a past editor on the SSB article) was personally attacked to the point that his user-page had to be closed down due to perceived unsavory information that an attacker apparently traced to his real name. Willmcw corrected comments that divulged his full name (although most of his full name was divulged in his user-name). I think it is entirely fair to ask that one be referred to by one's user-name, and not one's real name, whether or not one divulged his/her real name in the past. There are always those who will use this information to attack others on a personal level and I would think that Wikipedia's policy on not divulging personal information would apply to me (as it does to others to protect them from personal attacks). user:Will Beback seems to be implying that since I divulged my name when I was a newbie, it is okay to divulge my name now. I disagree. The entire face of the controversy has changed and Andries has made it very personal. SSS108 ^talk-email 05:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification: Regarding Andries comment: "I personally do not consider adding original research in the external link section a serious violation of policies and guidelines, but since I am accused of it by Jossi then I think it is important to make it clear that SSS108's behaviour is much worse than mine in that respect...by SSS108's criticism of Basava Premanand (a major critic of SSB) added by SSS108 in the external link section...SSS108 repeatedly adding his original research in the external link section of the article Robert Priddy (a major critic of Sathya Sai Baba) and having an edit war with user:M Alan Kazlev about this...SSS108 adding his original research in the external link section of the article Beliefs and practices in the Sathya Sai Organisation."
• Regarding the link I added to the Basava Premanand article, I added my link after Andries added an attack link against me there first. Andries added that attack link on Sept. 14th 2005 (Ref) and in response to this, I added my link on Sept. 28th 2005 (Ref). Isn't it odd that Andries is complaining about me adding my link when his attack link was the reason why I added my link in the first place? Apparently, Andries thinks he can solicit attack articles against me on Wikipedia, but I am not entitled to defend myself.
• Regarding Robert Priddy, most of Andries references are reverts [48]. They are not new posts. Priddy personally solicited his Anti-SSB site on his Wikipedia page (Ref) and Andries defended Priddy's Anti-SSB link, calling it Priddy's "homepage" (Ref). That link is not Priddy's homepage (the "rrpriddy" link is). The Anti-SSB link goes to Priddy's Anti-SSB Site, one of 3 (prior, one of 9 because six were deleted due to defamatory content) that he has created against SSB. After Priddy tried to remove the link to my site (Ref), M Alan Kazlev (a personal friend of Priddy with whom Kazlev emails often) stepped in and tried acting on Priddy's behalf, wholly uncritical toward Anti-SSB links.
• Regarding the addition of a link to my site on the Beliefs and Practices article, Andries failed to mention that he was the one who added all the Anti-SSB links, including the one that goes to his Anti-SSB site (View History Tab). Also, view the mediation thread about links in the Beliefs and Practices article (Ref). I attempted to remove all these non-relevant links (including my own: Ref) and Andries argued for their inclusion and reverted the article on Feb. 12th 2006 (Ref). Although Andries is complaining about me adding my site link, he failed to mention that I removed it and HE re-added it back into the article.
• Personally, I see no problem removing "original research" external links [49]. However, if the standard is applied to me, then it must be applied across the board, including the numerous sites Andries has added his "original research" links to (Ref). I will abide by and accept whatever decision is made regarding external links as long as Andries agrees to abide by the same standards on all SSB/Prem Rawat/Guru/Cult articles. SSS108 ^talk-email 04:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification: Regarding SSS108 Blocked Once For Edit Warring [50]: View: Thread 1 - Thread 2 about this questionable block. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification Regarding Andries Comments [51]: Regarding Andries comment about me "repeatedly removing relevant information supported by a reputable source", Andries is apparently misleading the ArbCom with inaccurate information. The media article that Andries referred to is still located on the SSB article (Ref: 3rd Media Article From Bottom). All I did was move this media article to the Media Section as confirmed by the very same link that Andries cited himself against me: Ref: Line 248. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update [52]: One will note that Andries just changed his argument against me from accusing me of "removing relevant information supported by a reputable source with these edits" (which was untrue) → to the argument that → "Wikipedia articles are not: Mere collections of external links or Internet directories". Again, what Andries failed to mention is that none of the linking was changed. I simply moved his media article (that he submitted) to the media section. Andries is now complaining about adding too many links due to Wikipedia policy. Obviously, Andries thinks he is exempt from this same policy when he added numerous links in the past to Anti-SSB sites (Ref: See "References" section and "Websites Of Critics And Critical Articles" section). Andries sensitivities to "external links" is newfound. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification Regarding Andries Comments [53]: user:Sam Spade also (kindly) admonished Andries about dominating the Guru article with an Anti-Guru POV (Ref). user:Sam Spade also pointed out Andries "extreme" POV on the Nazi Mysticism article (Ref). View the March 30th 2004 version of the SSB Article (that user:Sam Spade praised as being "Amazing NPOV" and with which user:Jay agreed). The page thoroughly lacks adequate references and one will notice how all the external links (except 3) go to Anti-SSB sites. Perhaps the reason user:Sam Spade was willing to agree with Andries was due to the following comments he made about SSB: " I havn't read it yet, and I will read it, but I wanted to tell you that I exploded with laughter as soon as I opened the page. I have seen this guy before, and always in negative contexts. Also, his hair is a great source of amusement for me. Anyhow I will read the page and give you more substantial feedback next time ;)" (Ref). I would also like to say Andries most definitely seemed, in his earlier times on Wikipedia, to be dedicated to a NPOV. It is my opinion, however, that Andries has failed the test of time regarding his ability to maintain a NPOV. This reality came with an admission from Andries twice (Ref). It is also my contention that Andries created many of the SSB-related articles so he could add links to Anti-SSB sites on them (an easily verifiable fact: Ref) SSS108 ^talk-email 16:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification Regarding Andries Comments" [54]: Andries contended that "Jossie cannot speak on behalf of SSS108" in reference to Jossi's comment: "Evidence related to Andrie's use of selective quoting and editorializing in related articles and subjects, that makes it difficult for SSS108 and others to assume Wikipedia:AGF". I would like to make it known that Jossi's comment is accurate and represents my views correctly. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of edit warring on related articles.

• On 21:59, June 2, 2006, User:AmiDaniel blocked Andries with an expiry time of 24 hours (WP:3RR violation on Talk:Sikhism -- second offense).
• On 17:10, April 22, 2006, User:Freakofnurture blocked Andries with an expiry time of 24 hours (WP:3RR violation on Sathya Sai Baba)

Evidence of edit warring on related articles.

• 17:11, April 22, 2006 User:Freakofnurture blocked SSS108 with an expiry time of 24 hours (disruptive edit warring on Sathya Sai Baba.)

• SSS108, by own admission, edits exclusively the SSB related articles (See Contribs), watching these articles so that these stay "right". This carries its own set of problems, and antagonizes Andries in all but most trivial edits.

Evidence related to Andries' stated disaffiliation from former Sai Baba religion, and its implications as it pertains to editing related Wikipedia articles

• 15:40, July 24, 2005 "I have to admit that I have been a POV pusher on the latter subject [New Religious movements, Apostasy] because I am an ex-cult member and I hate to be called a liar with regards to a very difficult experience of my life that I tried to tell in an accurate, factual way to others."

Evidence related to Andrie's self-promotion of original research related to the subject of this case

• 22:30, June 19, 2005 – Andries added: 'Calumny' Confirmed by Andries Krugers Dagneaux, 8 April 2002, ex-Sathya Sai Baba after 9 years
• 12:03, 25 Jun 2005 – Challenge by User:Tony Sidaway.

Evidence related to Andrie's use of selective quoting and editorializing in related articles and subjects, that makes it difficult for SSS108 and others to WP:AGF.

• 16:50, 13 May 2005 Example of two summaries by Andries of a citation about Sathya Sai Baba in the article Guru, compared against the original source, in which Andries adds allegedly misleading interpretations with the purpose of asserting a viewpoint. Andries made these interpretations without having access to the source, a fact that was discovered only after Andries was challenged to provide a reference. This incident made it difficult for other editors to accept his edits in good faith.

Example of Andries using selective quoting to assert his viewpoint that leaders exhibiting "charismatic authority", as per Webber's definition, are "unpredictable" (He adds Sai Baba and others to the List of charismatic leaders.)

• 19:41, January 21, 2006 Diff showing Andries editorializing by selectively citing from a book and not providing the necessary context for NPOV. :
• Edit by Andries: "[Eileen Barker asserts that] most new religious movements are founded by charismatic leaders, and considers these leaders unpredictable."
• 17:30, January 22, 2006 This was resolved by accessing the source and citing correcttly and in context: "Eileen Barker asserts that by definition, charismatic leaders are unpredictable, for they are not bound tradition or rules."

This may be a subtle difference but it illustrates this specific behavior, which again, makes it difficult for editors to accept his edits in good faith.

Evidence related to possible advocacy in related articles

Andries exhibits a high degree of animosity against his ex-guru (Sai Baba), and by extension to gurus that he believes are "unreliable", given his personal experience which he describes as traumatic. His edits in WP on related articles reflects this personal conflict, and seem to be driven by a need to "tell the world" about his experience and a need to warn people about possible negative consequences of involvement with "gurus". This is perceived by editors as advocacy and in violation of WP:NOT.

Andries' recent statement in the talk page of this evidence page (see diff), best describes Andries' dilemma: He feels compelled, as per the citation he provides, to Having given their hearts and lives to groups that were supposedly dedicated to the truth, leavetakers find it intolerable that those groups should continue to operate and attract new members under what now appear to be false pretenses. Non-withstading the sympathy one may feel for Andries' traumatic disappointment, Wikipedia articles are neither designed to advocate for or against anything, as per WP:NOT, nor to assist its editors with the resolution of their personal conflicts.

• 07:51, 23 Apr 2005 Andries states: "If people continue to trust the wrong gurus based on ignorance then the reputation of the word will only suffer more." See discussion Talk:Guru/archive3#WP_is_not_a_place_for_advocacy

• 17:28, April 29, 2005 Andries writes: "Even if these gurus did not commit crimes, they are controversial because they disappoint their followers because they often turn out to be very human and incompetent to bring the disciple to their promised moksha in spite of their claims to be saints etc."

• 20:23, 2 June 2006 by Sfacets: "The page has an oversized criticism section which is being held to apply to Gurus of any teaching, wether it be Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist or NRM. The perpetrator of this criticism, Andries, who, according to his user page is counter-cults, and is using his POV to criticise religious teachers of all religious movements."

• Request for mediation 20:09, 29 Apr 2005 Zappaz and Goethean vs. User:Andries re: Guru. Zappaz and Goethean complaint is that Andries, is attempting to use WP as a place for advocating against gurus.

User:SSS108 began editing as an anon, during which time he signed his real name.[55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68] Upon registering, he used both his real name and his username together on at least one occasion. [69]

• [70] my response, Andries' counter-response. Andries then sent me an email which I have copied to User:Goethean/email — goethean ॐ 17:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andries has now blanked the userpage to which I copied the email. Andries says that copying the email to my userspce was "completely inappropriate", even though it did not mention any names and Andries has never specified that the email was confidential. — goethean ॐ 18:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Andries' response, of course, completely misses the point that he habitually and deliberately uses WP as a soapbox. — goethean ॐ 16:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.