Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Andries

First assertion

First of all, I admit that I have engaged in edit warring with user:SSS108 on the article Sathya Sai Baba, but mitigating factors for this are 1. that I have seriously engaged in various forms of dispute resolution such as fruitless repetitive discussions on the talk page, requests for comments (which yielded no comments) 2. User:SSS108 aka Gerald Joe Moreno initially did not follow the very basic principles of the Wikipedia policies such as no original research and did understand or believe me when I tried again and again and again to explain this to him. 3. I believe that my behavior on the article Sathya Sai Baba has been significantly better in accordance with policies and certainly more constructive that of user:SSS108. After all I wrote most of the contents in the article. Andries 22:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Jossi's statement

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)

that I was blocked for talk:Sikhism is unrelated to the article in question. It was related to the article guru and talk:sikhism, not to the article Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 06:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Jossi's statement

• 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."

was related to the article apostasy. It was not related to the article Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 06:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The following comments by Jossi are unrelated to the article Sathya Sai Baba, but are related to the article post cult trauma. In addition I think that adding original research in the external link section is at worst a very mild violation of policies. Also, 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. [2]. Scroll down to "Over Sai Baba in Tabloid (SBS 6)" Andries 06:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• 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 presented by SSS108

First assertion

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. It appears that either Andries (or an Anti-Sai affiliate of his) forwarded my name and misleading information about me that ended up appearing on Wikipedia. I discussed this on June 11th 2006 under this section and Andries has yet to deny his questionable involvement in the matters discussed therein.

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. 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" from the SSB Wikipedia articles (01 & 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.

• 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

• I have also compiled a wiki-page that lists numerous articles in which Andries unremittingly pushes his POV. View Page On Andries Anti-SSB/Guru/Cult POV Pushing

• On March 16th 2006, BostonMA asked Andries to reconsider his answers regarding Premanand's credibility (which called into question Andries ability to distinguish between partisonship 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.

• 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.

My disagreements with Andries edits are numerous and I foresee that this section will be edited with more proof when I find the time to research the controversial edits more in depth. Thank you. SSS108 ^talk-email 04:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Second assertion

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.

Evidence presented by Jossi

work in progress ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Andries was blocked twice in the last four months for 3RR 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).

In response to Andries rebuttal about this block, note that the revert war was related to the Guru article.

• On 17:10, April 22, 2006, User:Freakofnurture blocked Andries with an expiry time of 24 hours (WP:3RR violation on Sathya Sai Baba)

SSS108 was blocked once for edit warring

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

Andries admits to being a POV pusher on related subjects

• 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 adds his own original research about Sathya Sai Baba to external links section of related article

• 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 presented by {your user name}

First assertion

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

Second assertion

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.