Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2

Case Opened on 17:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Amended by motion on 02:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Amended by motion on 20:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

You may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification.

Involved parties

• Andries (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SSS108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ekantik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also edits as Gaurasundara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ProEdits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• M Alan Kazlev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Freelanceresearch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kkrystian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Savidan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pjacobi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikisunn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Joined and notified Fred Bauder 20:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher131

This is a request to reopen/reconsider the previous ruling in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba decided in September, 2006. Since that time, User:Andries has edit warred at Robert Priddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over the insertion of a link which apparently violates the ruling. He was warned by Tony Sidaway in September [1]. Andries requested clarification here in October but the discussion was moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba after 10 days without comment from the committee. He has continued the edit war [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] and was warned by me today in response to a complaint filed at Arbitration enforcement, [7] and challenges my warning.[8]

User:SSS108 has continued to edit war at Sathya Sai Baba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), exhibiting signs of article ownership (reverting across multiple intermediate versions to "his" version), and removal of apparently well-sourced negative criticism. While SSS108 has edit warred, and very little progress has been made in part due to his frequent reversions and personal comments on the talk page, the situation is complicated by the fact that the other regular editors appear to be partisans, making it difficult to take action. See my comment on the talk page [9].

I believe that further action from the committee is required, in the form of enforceable remedies, as the parties have apparently not benefitted from the previous advice and amnesty.

My role

I am one of the few admins who acts on requests made for arbitration enforcement. Today I warned Andries not to replace the link, and I protected Sathya Sai Baba pending a chance to investigate the recent edit war there. I have not edited the articles and have had no interaction with these editors other than regarding arbitration enforcement matters.

Update

After my warning [10], instead of linking to Robert Priddy's personal anti-Sai web site, he described its contents in the article without linking [11]. I have blocked him for 24 hours and banned him from the article for a month [12]. Thatcher131 19:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have placed all editors of Sathya Sai Baba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on one revert per day parole. It seemed like the best way to stop the edit warring while allowing much needed editing to continue. I issued a 48 hour block for SSS108 for edit warring and personal attacks but suspended application of the block to see if he can work with the other editors on what seem to be rather minor issues without further edit warring or personal comments. [13] In response, a new single-purpose account Freelanceresearch (talk · contribs) noted that "there is more going on in the background with attacks on pro-Sai editors and anti-Sai Baba POV pushing in other wikipedia articles than you are aware." [14] Thatcher131 13:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Need for clarification

It appears the original decision was not clear enough. For example, at Robert Priddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an uninvolved editor has restablished the link to Robert Priddy's web page, even though he concedes it is an attack site based on original research and personal experience [15]. It seems the directive here in the prior case is not clear enough.

Activists' off-site actvities

After some investigation I have learned that Ekantik (talk · contribs) is well known on the internet as an anti-SSB activist and maintains several attack blogs, including some directed at SSS108 (talk · contribs) which specifically reference and criticize his wikipedia editing. See Gerald 'Joe' Moreno Deception; Gerald 'Joe' Moreno Deception On Wikipedia; Sai Baba EXPOSED!.

User:SSS108 is also well-known on the internet as a pro-SSB activist and maintains web sites which attack SSB critics. See http://www.saisathyasai.com. He also runs several attack blogs, some of which specifically reference the wikipedia editing behavior of SSB's critics, see http://robert-priddy-exposed.blogspot.com; http://sanjaydadlaniexposed.blogspot.com; http://sanjay-dadlani-references.blogspot.com; http://martinalankazlev-exposed.blogspot.com.

User:Andries is a well known activist critic of SSB and runs a critical web site www.exbaba.com [16].

User:M Alan Kazlev is Martin Kazlev, an SSB critic and target of an attack blog. However, his wikipedia edits seem to avoid the subject.

User:Freelanceresearch, a new acount since the first arbitration case, is an SSB follower and is also apparently a known internet activist per comments here, although I don't any other details at this point.

Now, it may generally be true that only on-wiki behavior is subject to examination. However, the proliferation and interlinking of these web sites, and the constant and reciprocal criticism of one side by the other, shows that these individuals are mainly here to perpetuate a long-running conflict. Plus, the specific referencing of wikipedia editing on these blogs, I believe, does bring this external behavior within the scope of arbitration. And further, these editors frequently refer to these off-wiki blogs and web sites. Here, SSS108 asks me "How am I supposed to work in good faith with such a person?", which is a very good question, but which cuts both ways, of course.

Statement by Andries

Request for clarification, originally submitted in September 2006

(See here for the ignored and filed request for clarifiction with comments from SSS108 and Tony Sidaway [17])

1. Does not linking to purportedly unreliable websites also include the homepages of critics with their own articles of Sathya Sai Baba e.g. Robert Priddy (see [18]), Basava Premanand, Sanal Edamaruku, Babu Gogineni, the late Abraham Kovoor, and the late H._Narasimhaiah? If the answer is yes, how can this be reconciled with a seemingly contradictory guideline WP:EL that states "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if there is one"? See Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Rejected/13#Robert_Priddy and talk:Robert Priddy for a description of this dispute. (amended 09:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)) (amended 20:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC))
2. Does not linking to unreliable website also include wikipedia user pages such as user:Andries See [19] #Do unreliable websites also include the websites created and maintained by user:SSS108 especially for Wikipedia. In certain cases such as this one [20] the webpages on this website are simply copies that SSS108 took from the webpages of exbaba.com [21]
3. Is it okay to use webpages with copies of reputable sources on purportedly unreliable websites as convenenience links in the references. See e.g. here [22]If the answer is no, how can this be reconciled with a seemingly contradictory guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources regarding intermediate sources that states "A common error is to copy citation information from an intermediate source without acknowledging the original source." (amended 11:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC))
4. This may not be the place for it, but I also want to express my concern about the number of disputes between SSS108 and me on the Sathya Sai Baba article and related articles that seem to increase in the course of time. If it continues like this, then I will file two requests for comments per week without any end in sight. Regarding Pjacobi's request to step aside, I would like to point out that I am by far the greatest content creator on all articles related to Sathya Sai Baba during the past years. In the weeks that I was away from the article no new content or hardly new content was added to any of these articles. Andries 16:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC) amended 18:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Andries 13:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC) added question about contradictory guidelines. 11:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC) added new point expressing concern about the number of disputes. 16:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC) 18:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Additional request for clarification in Feb. 2007

1. Is a link to this leaflet in the external link section okay in the articles Sathya Sai Baba and Sathya Sai Baba movement? www.staffs.ac.uk/images/Leaflet%20Sai%20Baba%202004_tcm68-21069.pdf The leaflet was authored by the INFORM group that was founded by Eileen Barker and that is affiliated with the London School of Economics. I was not involved in drafting the leaflet and my (minor) complaints about the leaflet that I e-mailed to Barker were ingnored by INFORM. The leaflet links to exbaba.com

Andries 19:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

2. Is a link to a website maintained and authored by SSS108 containing original research and critical material regarding critics (incl. me, Sanjay Dadlani, and Robert Priddy/user:ProEdits okay in the article Sathya Sai Baba)? See [23] Andries 19:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Other statements by Andries

• I noticed that two arbitrators accepted this case by referring to the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline, but I deny that have a conflict of interest. I sincerely wanted and still want to present an encyclopedic article about SSB. Of course, I have my bias and what I see as an NPOV encyclopedic article will be completely different from what user:SSS108 has in mind. Andries 20:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment on statement by user:Jossi. [24] I do not believe that Jossi has provided in the previous arbitration on this subject a list of sources that will have much added value for the article Sathya Sai Baba. Here is the thread from the previous arbitration. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya/Workshop#Lack_of_reliable_sources. I believe that the list that Jossi provided is fine material for the article Beliefs and practices in the Sathya Sai Baba movement. I also find Jossi's complaint that editors are not looking for good sources exaggerated when considering the fact that the article has 96 references which is far more than the average article on Wikipedia. I tend to trust the annotated bibliography of ex-devotee Brian Steel for sources. Part 1 Items of a scholarly or academic nature or provenance Part 2 Work Critical of SSB and his Mission by non-devotees (including ex-devotees) PART 3 A Basic Bibliography of Works about Sathya Sai Baba by the Sathya Sai Organization and his Devotees Andries 21:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• My edit warring on Robert Priddy was due to an interpretation of the previous arbcom decision that clearly contradicted the Wikipedia generally accepted practices of including links to homepages of the subject in the article about the subject. I tried to resolve this dispute in all possible manners including an ignored request for clarification here, mediation, and third opinion. I finally submitted user:Andries for violating the arbcom decision at arbcom enforcement. Andries 22:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment on statement by Freelanceresearch (talk · contribs) [25]. I admit that I called her inappriopriately "sincere but brainwashed" in 2004 when she first started editing the SSB article based on her prolific abusive off-Wikipedia postings on yahoo group sathyasaibaba2 and I admit that it was inappropriate that I then requested user:Bcorr to block her, merely based on a few edits of self-addmitted original research mudslinging against the critics of SSB in the article Sathya Sai Baba [26] and her off-Wikipedia behavior. Nevertheless that was years ago and in contrast what she writes here I was not well-versed in Wikipedia habits, and procedures. She also revealed her own name (or pen name) on Wikipedia [27] so I think that her complaint that Proedits (talk · contribs)/Robert Priddy revealed her real name (or pen name) is unfounded. I also think that my behavior was then very moderate when compared to her behavior. [28] [29]

Andries 18:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• I admit that the entry is not concise and well written. I agree that this is partially due to the constant POV warring and the fact that there seems to be no native English speaking skilled writer involved. Nevertheless the current Wikipedia entry is a miracle of accuracy, balance, and completeness when compared to some reputable sources. For example, the entry by David Burnett on Sathya Sai Baba in the book ‘’New Religions: A Guide New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities’’ (2004) by Dr. Christopher Partridge is riddled with mistakes and serious omissions. Examples of mistakes available on request. Andries

Statement by SSS108

The statement about me by Thatcher131 if not entirely correct. I have not removed well-sourced negative criticisms from the Sathya Sai Baba article. Just recently, the most vocal critic and defamer of Sathya Sai Baba (Ekantik aka Gaurasundara) began editing the article and has been reverting secondary-sourced content to primary-sourced content [30][31][32] (despite even Andries pointing out that this content was a primary souce [33]). I did not remove this content, but referenced it to secondary sources [34]. Ekantik insists on including the primary source (which is no longer on Unesco's website). Hence the edit-warring.

I did remove the stand-alone reference by salon.com on the basis that the article was published in an online-webzine that is admittedly liberal, opinionated and a tabloid. The salon.com article has not been published or referenced by any other secondary sources. Therefore, I removed it as per my understanding of WP:RS. I was not alone in this opinion [35][36]. This issue was raised on ArbCom and they did not respond to it. The full dicussion regarding this contentious issue can be Found Here. Since Fred Bauder was the sole Admin voice stating that the salon.com article could be included [37][38], I have not removed it.

Since known critics of Sathya Sai Baba (Andries and Ekantik) are currently editing the article, I have been forced to defend what I perceive as POV pushing and the watering down of information that compromises the basic facts that Sathya Sai Baba has never been convicted of any crime, has never been charged with any crime and has never had even one single complaint lodged against him, first-hand, by any alleged victim in India. Andries recent ban because of his behavior on the Robert Priddy article supports my claim that he is a relentless POV pusher who will defy ArbCom and Admin to push his Anti-Sai agenda on Wikipedia. Even after being blocked, Andries still claims that he is right [39].

Robert Priddy's home-page is already listed on his Wiki-page (home.no.net/rrpriddy/). Priddy's life history, life events, schooling, personal writings, personal beliefs, poems, jokes, essay's, etc., are all located on the home-page link that is currently on his Wiki-page, which Priddy entitled himself, "Welcome To Robert Priddy's Home Page". See For Yourself or View Cache. Andries is attempting to argue that Robert Priddy's Anti-Sai websites are also his "homepages". The link that Andries wants to incude is one of 3 Anti-Sai sites run by Priddy that specifically and exclusively attack Sathya Sai Baba. These Anti-Sai Sites do not contain relevant information about Robert Priddy. They exclusively contain defamatory, speculative and unsubstantiated allegations against Sathya Sai Baba.

It is important to point out that these Anti-Sai websites are not just "critical" websites, they contain defamatory and potentially libelous information. Andries even conceded that his Anti-Sai Site was threatened with legal action [40]. After being threatened with legal action, both Andries and Priddy's Anti-Sai Sites now contain a disclaimer that states that the information on their Anti-Sai websites may not necessarily be true or valid.

I believe that all of the current controversial material (except the salon.com article) are well-sourced and will not seek their removal. I have been hoping that other editors would step in and re-word the critical content in a neutral, understated and encyclopedic way, as outlined in WP:BLP. Since the controversy section is so contentious, I do not seek to edit it by myself and have kept my distance from it as much as possible.

I hope this clarifies my position in relation to the Sathya Sai Baba article and my dedication to improving the article, as outlined in WP:BLP and WP:RS, and keeping a watch over it due to the critical elements attempting to edit it. Thank you. SSS108 ^talk-email 20:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Activists' off-site actvities

The list by Thatcher is not a complete list. In my response to him, I provided a full list of relevant links to critics and my websites: View Full Response With List Of Websites SSS108 ^talk-email 18:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Savidan

I don't know anything about Sathya Sai Baba; I do know a lot about the poor quality content that tend to result when single-purpose accounts from different points of view converge on the same article. I came across this article because it is ceaselessly listed on the Religion RFC page. I came there, tried to clean up the text in a few places, and very quickly found out why the page is always up for a RFC.

Before I go any further, I should probably state that my personal experience with this article has perhaps unfairly resulted in a negative perception of SSS108. Had I gotten around to the other changes I wanted to make, it's quite possible that I would have been doggedly reverted and harangued by the anti-SSB crowd. However, that is not what happened.

Basically, my experience has been that (as much as he claims that the current version is hopelessly biased against SSB) SSS108 has taken up "ownership" of the article and doggedly resists any changes. He often refuses to take responsibility for his reverts, saying that I should "take it up with Andries" etc. If non-controversial changes have taken place following the edit he wants to revert, he reverts those too. He invites you to "discuss" the changes with him on the talk page, but invariably the result was that he shaddow responded to a few of my comments and then declared that I should seek RFC because he wasn't persuaded (hence why the page is always on ther Religion RFC page).

I am extremely concerned with the quality of almost all of the sources given in the current article, both those given by pro- and anti-SSB editors. Few of them seem to go to extremely reliable or neutral sources. I'll give one example, one that has already been fixed:

Several pro-SSB sites, and one article in the Island Lanka Newspaper, make the claim that Frank Baranowksi, a kirlian photographer, photographed the Baba's "aura," thus demonstrating his divinity. I'm not even an expert on the subject—I did take a history of science class last year—and even I know that any reputable scientist thinks that kirlian photography is just crap. Anyway, the Island Lanka article and the pro-SSB sites describe Baranowski as a "scientist" and a "Professor" (they differ on whether he was a professor at Arizona State University or the University of Arizona"). So I do a google search for this guy, don't find anything about him being a professor, but do find an article about someone who was an undergraduate at ASU and went on to become a radio host who specializes in pseudoscience. SSS108 produces an obituary about a Frank Baranowski who was a radio host and apparently taught some classes at a community college. Freelanceresearch produces a link to an archived version of his website that also doesn't make any claim to him being a professor. However, SSS108 continued to insist upon describing him as "Professor Frank Baranowski, a scientist specializing in kirlian photography," making me file a RFC, etc.

To comment on two recent disputes: I think it's laughable that salon.com and UNESCO are not considered WP:RS, especially given the quality of some of the third-world newspapers and other websites deemed acceptable. There is no reason not to cite both the archived version of the UNESCO site as well as a few secondary sources quoting it.

Anyway, I'd be interested in trying to clean up the rest of the article, but I don't want to have to file a RFC every time I find false information in the article, or every time I try to clean up the extremely bad writing style (which often appears to be the result of pov-warring by people are not fluent in English). I'd suggest that the arbcom take action this time, and not rely on amnesty. That said, I do agree with Thatcher131's concern that merely blocking SSS108 (the most exgregious violator), might result in an article slanted in the other direction. I should also state that I don't care about the external links, or any of these editors off-wiki activities.savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Freelanceresearch

Since coming to this Sathya Sai Baba article I think over a year ago, I have felt that Andries was trying to control the article like he owned it. I was immediately attacked by him when I first came here and his comments are on on my talk page. I was a beginner who did not know about the POV rules and Andries did, yet he has continued for years to push his anti-Sai Baba agenda on not only the Sai Baba article but other wikipedia articles as well and changes the rules to suit his arguments.

SS108 stepped in because there were many complaints against Andries and SS108 is the only person who has been able to deal with him as I do not have the patience for his games. Until Jossi came along and provided more stability toward fighting POV pushing, SS108 was pretty much alone in trying to keep the article balanced as I had decided not to edit the article until the POV pushing was brought into line and I did not want to play edit wars with people pushing an agenda.

Robert Priddy came in at one point and started attacking both joe and Me, even mentioning my REAL name on wikipedia and lying about me being banned. No one called him on it or andries on his POV pushing (using atheists as "credible sources" against SSB) and when I confronted I was the one ganged up on by Pjacobi, Guy and Ekantik who secretively tried to have me banned JUST so they could say I had been banned. These are the kinds of toxic games being played by those with an agenda which does not match the "real world" facts and it must not be played on wikipedia.

BTW, I have made minor edits to a few other articles but I do not edit much because I do not know much html or wikipedia editing procedures, my browser is not very compatible with wikipedia altough it is better since I upgraded it in June and I do not have that much time. Plus, I have four years worth of research backgound into the Sathya Sai Baba issues.

Regarding Savidan's comments on Baranowski above, he forgets to mention Baranowskis' web page (as well as obituary which was posted by SS108 and was in the Phoenix newspaper) does say he is a PhD, addresses him as Dr. Baranowski, and that he was teaching at the community collge before his death. The last time I looked up the definition of professor it said a person who teaches college.

And regarding Andries comment that i mentioned my name. I did NOT use my signature because I was a beginner did NOT know how to do it. This stil does not negate Rpbert Priddy's lies and atrocious behavior on the talk page. Part of the problem is that Andries was using original research material from anti-Sai Baba sites for TWO years knowing it was not allowed and when we would try to provide some balance by rebutting, Andries would revert without discussion. All of the things that Andries accuses SS108 of are things he himself has done for much longer period of time. Unfortunately, since SS108 and I did not know how to file grievances, Andries used our ignorance of the system to his advantage. One can see how he still tries to manipulate the rules to push his agenda. Freelanceresearch 01:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by M Alan Kazlev

Like all of you here, I find this situation on Wikipedia, where there are strongly polarised opinions regarding a particular subject, whether it be some guru, political ideology, or anything else, which lead to a sort of trench warfare, with both sides clawing for every inch of ground, to be counterproductive and tedious.

My background in this matter is as follows.

I was a devotee of Sai Baba for more than two decades, and therefore was originally sympathetic to the arguments of SS108, who contacted me when I had inadvertently been caught in the crossfire of the flamewar between certain followers and certain critics of SSB. Having assessed and corresponded at length with representatives of both sides (SS108 on the SSB side, and several ex-devotees regarding the side that is concerned about the allegations), as well as looking at what both sides had written, I came to the conclusion that the allegations made concerning Sai Baba are factual, but that Sai Baba is not simply a fake or con-artist. Rather he belongs to an ambiguous category in which both truth and falsehood are inextricably mixed (as explained on my website etc)

I have observed that SS108 uses tactics of slander, libel, and smear against ex-devotees in order to discredit their reports of sexual abuse by SSB. Again, this is explained on my website, with especial reference to Robert Priddy.

Once I was considered to be no longer a naive devotee of SSB, SS108 decided to try to attack me, and has a rather amusing blog dedicated to me.

My only interest re the SSB page is that both sides of the argument should be presented, without bias, and there should not be censorship or bullying of any kind. This would allow the reader who is unfamiliar with this subject to come to their own conclusions. M Alan Kazlev 04:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Ekantik

I feel that I have not been treated fairly in this issue by SSS108 in particular. I recently joined Wikipedia (as of August 2006) but have very quickly become familiar with WP policies and guidelines. I have contributed to many articles and much of my editing have been in connection with articles on Hindu religion and Indian cinema, although I later created a legitimate sockpuppet to concentrate on Hindu religion articles. I admire the scope and the goals of the Wikipedia project in its entirety and am committed to making enormous contributions to help improve the project. My editing on the SSB article have been consistent with my editing on many other articles that mainly consist of removing POV, dealing with vandalism, uncontroversial page moves, and the like. I am a regular editor of other controversial pages (cases in point: Shah Rukh Khan and Rani Mukherjee) but no other editor on any page I have worked on has a serious problem with my edits.

Although I am a critical apostate of Sathya Sai Baba, I am also committed to improving the article from its current messy state and this has been my intention from the very beginning, and the few edits I've made on that article reflect this. These are the events as I see them: Unfortunately SSS108 insists that he is unwilling to work with me because he believes that I cannot adhere to NPOV due to my status as a critic and apostate. Using the same standard, SSS108 (and Freelanceresearch, come to that) is unqualified to work on the SSB article because he has declared himself as an advocate and proponent of SSB although this is ambiguous and full clarification is required. I have several times declared my intention to improve the article by providing both "positive" and "critical" information for inclusion in order to bring some balance, but SSS108 cannot bring himself to accept this. Following from this, SSS108 has been notably hostile to me on Wikipedia; refusing to answer my questions, making several personal attacks, creating a section on his talk page to make personal attacks, being stubborn in reference to personal attacks, unable to assume good faith, posting my real name against my express wishes, referencing off-wiki disputation, and endless edit-warring that is a notable characteristic of his edit history. Even after receiving a serious warning and having been served with a 48-hour block (suspended) as a result, he has continued to complain about me on Admin talk pages with more personal attacks. I firmly believe that he has no basis for his claims because he has tried and failed to find fault with my edits on Wikipedia. Consequently, he is attempting to portray me as a biased and POV editor by referncing my off-wiki activites as "proof" that I cannot make neutral contributions.

Even though I have expressly declared (despite his long-running on and off-wiki attacks on me) that I am willing to assume good faith and work with him in editing the SSB article, he is insistent and refuses to work with me. Based on my little experience with him here on Wikipedia, I have noticed his propensity to accuse anyone who disagrees with him of having an agenda and POV to push. He has insinuated that Savidan has a propensity to side with critics (diff) and very recently accused an Admin (Pjacobi) of having an agenda (diff) after speaking rather rudely to him (diff). We must remind ourselves that SSS108 is a single-purpose account who has a problem with anyone and everyone who disagrees with him, even going as far to construct attack-blogs against them. I am under no illusions here; I firmly believe that this ArbCom case will give SSS108 an opportunity to defame me on Wikipedia even further. The only problem is that with all of his general uncivility, resistance to good advice, and disruptive editing, several editors have despaired of him despite numerous attempts to help him correct his ways.

I must also confess that I feel rather unnerved about being dragged into an ArbCom hearing so soon after my joining Wikipedia through no real fault of my own. However I hope that this case will get to the heart of the matter and we can all get on with our business. - Ekantik ^talk 06:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Pjacobi

I better add myself as participant, as it seems any clarifications to past decision will be reached here, not at [41].

I've some days ago stumbled over some tripwire with my edit [42] at Robert Priddy. To me, it has looked like a clear cut case: Priddy's conversion from devotee to angry enemy and the anti-SSB website http://home.chello.no/~reirob/ he has started is essential to his notability. But a rather hysterical reaction by User:SSS108 quickly escalated this into an unpleasant edit war. IMHO both his arguments against including the weblink are rather weak:

1. Insistings, it's forbidded by the prior ArbCom ruling.
2. Pointing out that http://home.chello.no/~reirob/ is an unreliable source.

• Ad 1: see my arguments on the article talk page, e.g. [43]
• Ad 2: Yes, hell, of course it is an unreliable and shouldn't be used to source information about Sathya Sai Baba. But it's existence and connection with Priddy seems rather uncontroversial. And enwiki has as usual practice to link to websites of persons and organisations, even if they are rather bad and unreliable (shock sites maybe the only exception). We have links to http://www.stormfront.org, http://www.chick.com and http://www.xenu.de without major discussions about it, despite the fact that they are obviously unreliable sources. (Unfortunately we even have a rather large number of chick.com links, and IMHO equally unfortunately, we do use xenu.de as a reliable source.

Pjacobi 19:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Mel Etitis

Like PJacobi, I've stumbled into the crossfire too, and – again like him – at Robert Priddy. The undelying problem is clearly that a partisan struggle has spilt over into Wikipedia. I should say, though, that while User:Smeelgova and User:Andries were committed to what seemed to me to be some unnecessary and dubious admissions, they discussed it, and a compromise was reached (one with which I wasn't entirely happy, but that's the nature of compromise). User:SSS108, however, has now entered the fray, and is simply removing large sections of the article on pretty thin grounds. I agree with PJacobi on all of this.

SSS108 continues to be aggressive, abusive[44], and confrontational. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've now had to block him for harrassment and incivility; his response was to make obscure and unfounded accusations against my being involved in a conflict of interest on an article that I've hardly touched. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by ProEdits

SSS108 has consistently used Wikipedia pages to attempt to defame me and attack me, my statements and biography in apparently any way he can devise (such as on the Robert Priddy talk page), constantly calling me 'a liar' see User_talk:84.208.99.96 and a blatant one also [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SSS108#.E2.86.91.C2.A0_Blatant_Untruths_From_ProEdits_.E2.86.91.C2.AO] without any reliable independent evidence on Wikipedia or elsewhere. This is obvious to me, of course, because I have never lied in any of my writings, which means consciously to tell something one knows or firmly believes to be untrue. Neither SSS108 nor FreeLanceResearch can show that I have 'lied' or that I am 'a liar'. I have recently reaffirmed the opinion that Sai Baba is SSS108s guru, which he repeatedly writes is 'a lie'. It is not a lie but a matter of definition, and the facts speak loud to favour my interpretation, that SSS108s apparent full-time defence throughout Wikipedia and the Internet of Sathya Sai, his organisation and almost anyone who is a devotee (for several years even while he admitted on his own website he believed him to be a sexual abuser!)

One example; on my talk page SSS108 has concocted a proposition that there was a "million dollar legal suit against Robert Priddy" [45] . No lawsuit has ever been filed against me, nor even have I received any such claim from anyone, neither from Rebello, let alone any lawyer. May I say in this connection that the same Rebello, who wears the title 'Dr.' has been reported by FreeLanceResearch as saying some years ago that I am dying of AIDS [46], though I have never had AIDS and nor has Rebello ever even seen me! His claim of a million dollar lawsuit falls into the same category of statement! This is the kind of tactic SSS108 uses against me on a major scale.

Further, SSS108 refers to matters external to Wikipedia in that he asserts on my talk page and elsewhere that I have had 6 websites deleted for defamation, but the webmasters or ISPs involved in my discontinued free website space have never informed that there was any defamation by me, or I would certainly have reacted. Moreover, there is no material I have posted against Sai Baba which is not still found on other of my websites, where I have gradually collected all other 'stray materials' from former web pages. SSS108 falsely claims (i.e without any public evidence) that a website 'robert-priddy.fulldisclosure.dyndns.org/ 'was mine, but it must have been made by someone else as I never made it (see Google). I can only think it was an attempt at further defamation of me by one of my most active critics, as also was the porn site entry of one of my URLs (as if I would pay to enter my own URL there! (See on Google), which SSS108 has publicised widely on the web with screen captures as part of his dirty tricks campaign.Because I truthfully and most successfully criticise Sathya Sai Baba on grounds that no one has been able to prove untrue in any detail and not therefore either defamatory or libellous.

SSS108 is wiki-stalking [47] various critics of Sathya Sai Baba. For example, SSS108 followed me to the 'Arne Næss' Wiki page [48], where - having taught some of Næss' philosophy for many years - I made an entry which was admittedly original research. I was not then aware of the policy of Wikipedia on original research. SSS108 Wiki-stalked me to that page and deleted my contribution (but it was reinstated by another editor). SSS108 also stalked me by adding links to his [highly slanderous] web pages about me onto my personal Wiki page (which he was virtually forced to remove when he learned from the active Wiki editor Alan Kazlev of Wiki policy on biographies of living persons). He continues to cause maximum disruption by arbitration requests etc.

SSS108 and FreeLanceResearch also therefore Wiki-stalked the prominent Wikipedia editor M. Alan Kazlev by adding their votes to help close down his personal Wiki page, which incidentally had nothing to do with Sathya Sai Baba, and SSS108 also posted a vituperative blog against him after he realised that SSS108 is a slanderer - see Statement by [49].

As further evidence [external but relevant as background, I assume, since Wiki arbitrators here also refer to external events on occasion] that SSS108s Wiki writings are an extension of his stalking agenda, SSS108 repeatedly attacked and stalked the Sai critic Barry Pittard, reporting contacts with Pittard's former partner to dig for information against Pittard, and the results he posted as outright slander on his website and on Yahoo sathyasaibaba2 group [see http://www.saiguru.net/english/articles/130serious_defamation_attempt.htm]

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)

• Accept, to look at conduct of all editors involved in this article, POV and COI. Charles Matthews 22:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Agree with Charles's proposed scope. James F. (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Accept Fred Bauder 14:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Accept, based on evidence of unacceptable conduct. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Voting. Kirill Lokshin 06:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Final decision

Principles

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.

Passed 6 to 0, 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and sources

2) 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.

Passed 6 to 0, 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Activist editing

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

Passed 6 to 0, 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Findings of fact

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.

Passed 3 to 1, with 1 abstention, 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

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.

Passed 6 to 0, 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Editing by Andries

3) With respect to Robert Priddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Andries has editwarred extensively and repeatedly inserted links to an attack site maintained by Robert Priddy [50]. His edits to Sathya Sai Baba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) are generally responsible, requesting verification rather than aggressively deleting or reverting [51]. They include this edit adding sources, this edit suggesting a merger with The Sathya Sai Baba movement, [52], 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" [53].

Passed 5 to 0, 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Andries runs an attack web site

4) 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.

Passed 5 to 0, 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikisunn

5) 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."

Passed 6 to 0, 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Editing by Wikisunn

5.1) 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 [54].

Passed 5 to 0, 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Robert Priddy

6.1.1) Robert Priddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a former Sai Baba 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 is not available for sale on Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk. Priddy maintains several 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 http://home.no.net/anir/Sai/ and http://home.no.net/abacusa/ are attack sites containing large amounts of opinion and what appears to be personal experience and unverifiable original research.

Passed 5 to 0, 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Robert Priddy edit war

6.2) There was an edit war at Robert Priddy (edit | 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 [55], Andries edited the article to describe the contents of the website (unsourced criticism of Sai Baba) in lieu of linking to the web site [56] [57]. Thatcher131 blocked him for 24 hours and banned him from the article for one month [58]. See Talk:Robert_Priddy#Weblink_restored for discussion of the link.

Passed 5 to 0, 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

SSS108 runs several attack web sites

7) 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 [59] [60] [61] 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.

Passed 5 to 0, 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Counter-attack

8.2) 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

Passed 3 to 1, with 1 abstention, 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

SSS108

9) 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 [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71]; sometimes inserting information from unreliable sources "scientist" who observed SSB's aura [72] (See this comment) hagiography [73] statement by Indian government officials [74] [75] [76]; sometimes removing reliable sources [77] and relevant external links [78]. 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.

Passed 6 to 0, 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Kkrystian

10) Kkrystian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits Sathya Sai Baba with a positive bias [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84]; sometimes adding unsourced information [85] [86] [87] and sometimes removing relevant external links [88].

Passed 6 to 0, 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ekantik

11) Ekantik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits Sathya Sai Baba in a constructive way [89] [90] [91]. However he admits ownership of critical blogs Gerald 'Joe' Moreno Deception, Gerald 'Joe' Moreno Deception On Wikipedia and Sai Baba EXPOSED!

Passed 5 to 0, 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Freelanceresearch

12) 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 [92].

Passed 5 to 0, 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Remedies

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 banned

Suspended until 20:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
1.1) Andries is banned indefinitely from editing Sathya Sai Baba and related articles or their talk pages. Passed 5 to 1, 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Remedy 1.1, which provides that "Andries is banned indefinitely from editing Sathya Sai Baba and related articles or their talk pages," is amended by striking out the words "or their talk pages." Thus, Andries is now permitted to edit the talkpages of these articles, but not the articles themselves. In doing so, he is cautioned to be mindful of all applicable Wikipedia policies including those concerning conflicts of interest and biographies of living persons. Passed by motion 7 to 0, 02:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Remedy 1.1 of the Sathya Sai Baba 2 arbitration case is suspended for three months. During this period, Andries may edit within this topic area, provided that he carefully abides by all applicable policies. After three months, Andries may request that the topic-ban remedy be vacated permanently.

Passed by motion 9 to 0, 20:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Sources

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

Passed 6 to 0, 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

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.

Passed 6 to 0, 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Prior remedies clarified

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

Passed 6 to 0, 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Open remedy

5) 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.

Passed 6 to 0, 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikisunn banned

6) Wikisunn is banned indefinitely from editing Sathya Sai Baba and related articles or their talk pages.

Passed 6 to 0, 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

SSS108

7) SSS108 is banned indefinitely from editing Sathya Sai Baba and related articles or their talk pages.

Passed 6 to 0, 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Kkrystian reminded

8.1) Kkrystian is reminded that all edits must be supported by reliable sources.

Passed 4 to 1, 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Freelanceresearch banned

9) Freelanceresearch is banned indefinitely from editing Sathya Sai Baba and related articles or their talk pages.

Passed 5 to 1, 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Users banned by this decision may be blocked for an appropriate period of time if they violate the ban. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2#Log of blocks and bans.

Passed 6 to 0, 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Log of blocks and bans

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

• User:Radiantenergy now covered by the same topic ban as User:Wikisunn, per the findings at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikisunn. Jehochman ^Talk 22:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)