User talk:SSS108

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


TOP [1]

Discussion[edit]

^ Harassment and stalking ^[edit]

Note SSS108. You have stalked me on Wikipedia, trying to disrupt my editing of the Arne Næss page. on which subject you have no knowledge, not least since he is Norwegian. To disrupt my editing by blanking my entry from mere spite is stalking. I do not wish you to send me messages to my user pages, so please desist. And desist from blanking material I put on other Wikipedia articles, or you can be charged with vandalism, you know!

I remind you of some rules on Wikipedia: Harassment is defined as a pattern of disruptive behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of intimidating the primary target. The purpose could be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to encourage them to stop editing entirely.

"Harassment is sometimes described as a violation of don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point or no personal attacks, but is properly both a subset and special case of both, while at the same time being separate from both for definition reasons. The policy of "no personal attacks" is primarily about content, not behavior (for example, calling certain editors "assholes" is a violation of NPA, but is not in itself harassment), while the policy of "don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point" covers many less malicious behaviors that, while unacceptable, are not as bad as harassment (for example, disruption intended to support a cause). And yet, it is a subset of both, in that it is disruption to prove a point, and it is an attempt to personally attack another editor of Wikipedia."

Stalking is a legal term for repeated harassment or other forms of invasion of a person's privacy in a manner that causes fear to its target. Statutes vary between jurisdiction but may include such acts as: repeated following; unwanted contact (by letter or other means of communication); observing a person's actions closely for an extended period of time; or contacting family members, friends, or associates of a target inappropriately cyberstalking

You are also guilty of this on a large scale, and you know it. More precisely, you engage in what Wikipedia defines as:

"Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk someone. This term is used interchangeably with online harassment and online abuse.

A cyberstalker follows the victim's online activity to gather information, initiate contact, make threats, or engage in other forms of verbal intimidation. Cyberstalkers target victims using online forums, bulletin boards, chat rooms, spyware, and spam. They may engage in live chat harassment or flaming (online verbal abuse and/or character defamation); leaving improper messages on message boards or in guest books; sending electronic viruses; sending unsolicited e-mail; tracing another person's computer and Internet activity, and electronic identity theft." Before you try to mirror this back at me, you chief tactic, I point out that I am NOT guilty of anything like this, hence - though would in character doubtless like to claim it of me, it is untrue! --ProEdits 20:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If you are so sure I have been stalking you on Wikipedia, file a complaint. It's not difficult to do. All of your activity is easily traceable and no one needs to "stalk" you to get it. How I keep track of your activity is no different than how Andries keep track of my activity (and vice-versa). You are all word and no action. The page about Arne Næss contained original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. You even called your material "original research" Ref. You are obviously oblivious to Wikipedia's policies on original research and citing reliable sources.
If you continue to post your long, rambling diatribes on my Talk Page, I will delete your posts. Take you whine, babble and venom elsewhere. I think if anyone has a case for "harrassment", it is I against you. SSS108 talk-email 20:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

^ Blatant Untruths From ProEdits ^[edit]

False Claims Of Deleting Information[edit]

Robert Priddy — aka ProEdits (talk · contribs) aka 84.208.99.96 (talk · contribs) aka 80.111.21.76 (talk · contribs) — made a defamatory complaint against me on Angela's Wikipedia Talk Page: Reference.

Since Priddy made his comment on the top of Angela's talk page (instead of the bottom where it should have been made) Angela moved Priddy's comment to the bottom of the page where it belonged: Reference.

Because Angela moved the comment, Priddy (unable to find his previous comment) reposted it again: Reference.

Without any proof, Priddy jumped to the worst case conspiratorial view and erroneously claimed that I removed his post. Priddy said, "You will see the determination of Moreno to stop you knowing what I wrote by the fact that he has deleted my request to you in your user paeg (see below on the discussion page). Just goes to emphasizse my point. Moreno is a full-time stalker and defamer. Robert Priddy (Refs: 01 - 02)

That's right! Robert Priddy claimed I removed the text and insulted me as a "stalker" and "defamer" although Angela moved Priddy's comment herself. I never touched or edited that page!

This the guy who is trying to portray himself as honest, sober and fair-minded. He defames me for his paranoid errors and is wholly unapologetic! SSS108 talk-email 01:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

False Claims Against Me About Comments I Did Not Make[edit]

On June 11th 2006, a person with the IP 210.210.37.103 submitted a comment on the Sathya Sai Baba talk page that stated the following:

  • Hii Mr Kazlev, This is the anonymous poster. Hope you are doing well. By the way, due to your suggestion, i've selected a pseudonym which will be "Mad". I also agree with your comment on the inefficiency of the whole process of the endless argument and fights to get over a point. Many a times i've thought about the amount of time people spend on this page about editing, reverting and what not...And used to think that if the people over here click on the link www.thehungersite.com during that time or send that link to other people they know, more hungry people will get food. At the same time, till now, i haven't seen anything that would not lead me to a conclusion of not supporting what SSS108 has been doing. If everybody left this page thinking that its difficult to face the bickerings, onslaught of edits (covert and overt), then this page would certainly wouldn't have improved. This is more important when there has been "co-incidence" edits at many a point of time whenever there comes a report which is pro Sathya Sai. So while i would prefer to spend my time clicking on www.thehungersite.com, i would like to extend my support to SSS108 with the work he is doing. Mr Kazlev, so we can join up together to increase the number of clickings on www.thehungersite.com Hope you accept my invitation. "Mad" Reference

Robert Priddy — aka ProEdits (talk · contribs) aka 84.208.99.96 (talk · contribs) aka 80.111.21.76 (talk · contribs) — wrote the following about this comment:

  • Editors, please note how Moreno replies to a question with a derogatory diatribe and an assertion of "madness! Who is most obsessed with propaganda, Andries or Moreno, is as clear as day to those who read even a fraction of the endless Morenos' web pages and postings and the comparatively very few by Andries.--ProEdits 14:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC) Reference

This is yet another blatant lie by ProEdits against me. I did not make that post and ProEdits is jumping to conclusions a prirori and is defaming me with his unsupported, erroneous and spiteful accusations. This from someone who claims he knows how to research his facts and claims he is honest and truthful. I think the facts show otherwise. SSS108 talk-email 01:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

False Accusation Against Freelanceresearch[edit]

Robert Priddy — aka ProEdits (talk · contribs) aka 84.208.99.96 (talk · contribs) aka 80.111.21.76 (talk · contribs) — made the following comment about Freelanceresearch on the Sathya Sai Baba Wikipedia talk page:

  • We are not the ones who need to be careful as we do not break the laws on slander as Freelanceresearch has done on Yahoo groups sathyasaibaba2 endlessly... the same Lisa de Witt having even been banned from Wikipedia for that previously too! As usual, she makes big claims without anything that can be called supporting evidence - circumstantial or otherwise, as is seen above. I am stating fact, not slander without using derogatory terms like 'sleazy' (Refs: 01 - 02)

According to the Wikipedia Block Log For Freelanceresearch, she has never been "banned from Wikipedia". After having pressure put on ProEdits by both Freelanceresearch and myself, he admitted that he made a mistake and retracted his comment. He said:

  • I wish to correct my former statement that Lisa de Witt was banned from Wikipedia. I find I was misinformed by someone who commented thus, but - having checked thoroughly - I find no evidence of it. I am removing my unfortunate mistake. Interesting that Lisa de Witt admits that she and Moreno are co-responsible for the mean-spirited atmosphere here - this was also obvious long, long before I entered this page with some fairly restrained comments about them (Reference).

As if this can't be embarrassing enough, Freelanceresearch never "admitted" that we were "co-responsible for the mean-spirited atmosphere". As a matter of fact, Freelanceresearch said:

  • Joe and I are not the ones responsible for the mean-spirited atmosphere here. Wherever the anti-Sais travel their toxic behavior and agenda of hate and lies goes with them (Reference).

The untruths keep multiplying. SSS108 talk-email 01:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

False Claims Of Harrassment & Stalking[edit]

Robert Priddy — aka ProEdits (talk · contribs) aka 84.208.99.96 (talk · contribs) aka 80.111.21.76 (talk · contribs) — wrote a rambling diatribe on my talk page (Reference) falsly accusing me of "harrassment and stalking". The only "evidence" he cited against me (pertaining to Wikipedia) was one edit on the Arne Næss article (without even referencing his complaint). I simply removed the original research that ProEdits (Robert Priddy) added to the Arne Næss article. As a matter of fact, ProEdits (Robert Priddy) wrote, "This synopsis is based on original research by a former teacher of Arne Næss' work for many years at the University of Oslo, Robert Priddy" (Reference). To further strengthen my point, View The History Tab for the Arne Næss article. I only made one edit there. That's it. SSS108 talk-email 01:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Attacking Me On My User Page[edit]

Robert Priddy — aka ProEdits (talk · contribs) aka 84.208.99.96 (talk · contribs) aka 80.111.21.76 (talk · contribs) — attacked me on my user page, although my user page specifically requests others not to edit it Reference. He was given a warning about his vandalism by 1568 Reference.

Lies About Me Having A Guru[edit]

Robert Priddy — aka ProEdits (talk · contribs) aka 84.208.99.96 (talk · contribs) aka 80.111.21.76 (talk · contribs) — said (emphasis added by me):

  • "I have not stated that SSS108 [Gerald Moreno] is a devotee of Sathya Sai Baba, nor that he is Moreno's guru since he surprisingly declared this himself after some time about 2 years ago" (Reference).

Priddy made this comment after I stated that I am not a follower of Sathya Sai Baba (Reference). I never "declared" Sathya Sai Baba as my guru "2 years ago". This is a bold-faced and unsourced untruth. Regarding Priddy's comments that he never stated that Sathya Sai Baba was my guru, look at the following quotes where he stated exactly that:

  • "In my haste I thought the user page was specifically related to the attempt by Gerald Moreno, a person who defames and stalks me throughout the web because I am a critic of his guru, Sathya Sai Baba" (Reference).
  • "I feel I do at least have a moral right to refute arguments directed against me...and will be further injured by a subjective account by a Sai follower, if it is not truly an independent public document" (Reference).
  • "He is not only a defamer and critic of me, but of all critics of his highly doubtful guru, Sri Sathya Sai Baba..." (Reference).

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2[edit]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cowman109Talk 17:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the material you posted to the evidence page because it exceeds the size limit. Please summarize your statement in 1000 words or less and repost it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 09:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Picture of temple[edit]

I'd like to ask what is the meaning of this? And why you attempted to upload it on your user page? The image in question belongs to me and is sourced online on my spiritual blog, and the copyrights were not released in any way into the public domain, so I'd like to ask why you are uploading images belonging to someone else (possible copyvio)? I also noticed that you haven't responded to the OrphanBot request. Ekantik talk 02:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The image will be automatically deleted in a few days time. You also published the image on a public forum on GaudiyaDiscussions.com, without giving any form of copyright restrictions. I uploaded it to compare the image stats with another user whom I was informed may be you under another sockpuppet. The picture upload was for research purposes and I will have to research the new sockpuppet suspicion via other means. SSS108 talk-email 06:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
This doesn't answer the question of why you are uploading pictures that do not belong to you which are a potential copyvio, regardless of its future deleted status. You could have uploaded any image in your "investigation", why a picture of a temple that is sourced online on my spiritual blog? Please refrain from uploading images that belong to me unless I have released them under a suitable license. Ekantik talk 18:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

That's for me to know :-) And since you released that image on a public forum without issuing any sort of copyright with the images, your current claim of "potential copyvio" is suspicious. I suggest if you want to protect your images, you stop releasing them without "suitable licenses" on public forums :-) SSS108 talk-email 07:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you just don't understand: When you upload an image to Wikipedia, you are responsible for providing the copyright information. You cannot claim "I found it somewhere" especially since you are not the owner of the image. As it stands, the image in question is due to be deleted precisely because you have not provided the copyright information, so there is no danger "as such" that your violations of Wikipedia policies will result in legal jeopardy for Wikipedia. This is just for your edification about uploading images to Wikipedia and how you can properly contribute images. For more information, see WP:IUP. Ekantik talk 18:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you don't understand. Since the image did not come with any copyright license restrictions, I uploaded the image for research purposes and it was never intended to be used on Wikipedia. If you do want anyone to use your images, you should specify so and stop posting them on public forums where anyone can link to them, take them and use them without your permission. Any more Wikipedia policies you want to flaunt around? Go right ahead. I find it very amusing. Of course, your ceaseless bickering on my userpage is probably due to the embarrassing full exposure I made against you on the Evidence Page for ArbCom. SSS108 talk-email 19:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

In future, do not upload images to Wikipedia for "research purposes" by which you may possibly bring Wikipedia into legal jeopardy. WP:NOT#WEBSPACE should help to inform you. You obviously are incapable of understanding the simple point that whether I placed them on a forum without copyright restrictions or not is irrelevant. WP:IUP requires uploaders to provide copyright information for any image they upload; if you cannot provide copyright information, you should not upload images or other media. It's as simple as that.
If you managed to hold your breath and think about what other editors are telling you instead of launching personal attacks galore, you might actually realise how much of a better Wikipedian you will become. Ekantik talk 03:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL SSS108 talk-email 06:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA)[edit]

  • SSS108: In response to Ekantik's off-topic comments and personal attacks against Sai devotees: 01 - 02, I made this comment, which brought about the following warning:

Information.svg With regards to your comments on Talk:Sathya Sai Baba: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Ekantik talk 02:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Your admin facade makes me laugh. SSS108 talk-email 06:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
As you have modified this section to represent your view of why you received an initial WP:NPA warning, it should be observed that you are not here on Wikipedia to protect the interests of "Sai devotees" nor are you authorised to use Wikipedia as a soapbox on their behalf. Following your logic, you have made personal attacks on many editors for their supposed beliefs in genital-switching but you have not been warned on that count. You have been warned for violation of WP:NPA which basically involves making insulting or disparaging comments about other editors. Please refrain from such behaviour and comment on content, not on contributor. Ekantik talk 18:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important.svg Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Talk:Sathya Sai Baba. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.Second warning for further disparaging comments on editors' religious beliefs Ekantik talk 18:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

One more time Ekantik. This time, get a nice large icon of a stop-sign or Popeye or (your favorite) Batman and then warn me again! :-) SSS108 talk-email 07:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Incivility, harrassment, and personal attacks[edit]

This has to end. I'm blocking you for 12 hours as a shot across your bows, in the hope that you'll use the time to calm down. If you continue as you have been, the next block will be considerably longer. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Peculiar, oblique, and unfounded comments on my Talk page are not coing to distract me from your behaviour. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

A question[edit]

Joe, does the claim of Sathya Sai Baba's sex change come from anti-Sai or pro-Sai sources? Krystian 14:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

When are you going to disengage? Krystian 17:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Best wishes to you too. Wikisunn 12th February 2007

Warning[edit]

Speculating on, or attempting to discern the real-life name of contributors is a violation of WP:HARASS. You should consider this your first and final warning. Do not engage in this sort of behavior again. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

My response: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mel Etitis SSS108 talk-email 14:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Disengaging From Wikipedia[edit]

Wikipedia-logo BW-hires.svg This editor has decided to leave Wikipedia.

SSS108 talk-email 03:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Regarding subcategory title[edit]

Please give your comment in the Sathya Sai talk page. This is for decision making on consensus.Wikisunn 22nd February 2007

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2[edit]

The above-named arbitration case has closed and the complete decision can be found at the link above. Andries, Wikisunn, SSS108, and Freelanceresearch are banned indefinitely from editing Sathya Sai Baba and related articles or their talk pages. Ekantik is instructed to make all future Wikipedia contributions related in any way to Sathya Sai Baba under a single username. Kkrystian is reminded that all edits must be supported by reliable sources. Editors involved at Sathya Sai Baba are encouraged to use better sources and improved citation style. The remedies in the prior decision 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. The Arbitration 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. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 00:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I Am Not Sbs108[edit]

It has come to my attention that some administrators have ridiculously accused me of being Sbs108. I am NOT Sbs108 and the arguments made by admin that I am are wholly absurd. I was banned for exposing Mel Etitis and his Wikipedia Sockpuppet. If you look at that page, I provided a screencap that shows my IP. If you compare that IP with my IP here, you will find they are the same and they not anonymous or proxy IPs. I think it is really quite pathetic that I have to be pulled back on to Wikipedia to defend myself from stupid rumors started by conspiratorial admin who apparently have nothing better to do than play psychic instead of assuming good faith like they are supposed to do. Practice what you preach, Admin! SSS108 talk-email 05:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

— Comments made by me under the nic PSSS108 regarding this issue: 01 - 02 - 03 SSS108 talk-email 15:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

False Sockpuppetry Claim Against Me[edit]

{{helpme}} I have been falsely accused of being a sockpuppet for Sbs108. Since several admin have erroneously joined this conspiracy bandwagon with no proof, I am requesting an independent verification to defend myself from these patently absurd allegations. --SSS108 talk-email 01:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no cabal. Intelligentsiumreview 02:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean? How am I supposed to vindicate myself of this ridiculous accusation? SSS108 talk-email 01:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Cleared Of Sbs108 Sockpuppet Claim[edit]

To all interested readers: I have been CLEARED of the patently absurd and conspiratorial assumptions & speculations made by Hersfold, Crotalus horridus, Jéské Couriano and Jzg / Guy who spuriously and unremittingly alleged I was using the sockpuppet of Sbs108.

Sockpuppet Investigations For SSS108
Relevant accusation by Crotalus horridus: 01 - 02
Relevant accusations by Wikipedia Admin Jéské Couriano: 01 - 02 - 03 - 04 - 05
Relevant accusations by Wikipedia Admin Hersfold: 01 - 02 - 03 - 04
Relevant accusations by Wikipedia Admin Jzg / Guy: 01 - 02 - 03
Relevant retractions and apology by Wikipedia Admin Jéské Couriano: 01 - 02

SSS108 talk-email 06:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Chummer, at first blush we had to assume, even with good faith and given your behavior, that you were a sock. It took CU evidence to exonerate you; most administrators do not have access to that tool. Please bury the hatchet. -Jeremy (v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!) 21:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


confirmed sockpuppetry[edit]

To avoid confusion, I'm linking to: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SSS108/Archive. (October 14 2009,) DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Correct?[edit]

http://wikiwatcher.virgil.gr/pmcu/user_view.php?user_name=SSS108#

Lenerd (talk) 08:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)