| Revision as of 21:40, 10 July 2006 editAndries (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers27,090 edits →Regarding The [] Article, reply to SSS108: deporsonalizing← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:09, 10 July 2006 edit undoAndries (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers27,090 edits ===Use of non-reputable sources on allegations against Sathya Sai Baba===Next edit → | ||
| Line 148: | Line 148: | ||
| I disagree that this is relevant for this arbitration on ]. 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 Misplaced Pages. I have probably criticized the edits of some active Misplaced Pages editors on that off-wiki forum (which I think is perfectly permissible) but do not remember when where and how. ] 18:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC) 21:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | I disagree that this is relevant for this arbitration on ]. 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 Misplaced Pages. I have probably criticized the edits of some active Misplaced Pages editors on that off-wiki forum (which I think is perfectly permissible) but do not remember when where and how. ] 18:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC) 21:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ===Use of non-reputable sources on ]=== | |||
| : on this page | |||
| ::''It is important to point out that the article (that ] created) was listed on Misplaced Pages for 22 months although its content was also present (almost verbatim) on the main SSB article (also done by ]). ] 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 ) 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 ] (that now re-directs to ]) 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 ] which he or nobody else for that matter ever did. SSS108 first voiced his complaint about inappropriate sources in the article ] on ] I replied then that I would correct it. ] 22:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Second assertion=== | ===Second assertion=== | ||
Revision as of 22:09, 10 July 2006
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: .
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 initially did not follow the very basic principles of the Misplaced Pages 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)
Andries was blocked twice in the last four months for 3RR on related articles
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
- 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)
Andries admits to being a POV pusher on related subjects
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.
- 15:40, July 24, 2005 "I have to admit that I have been a POV pusher on the latter subject 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)
In addition, I also want to state very clearly that if I really 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. Andries 17:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Andries adds his own original research about Sathya Sai Baba to external links section of related article, reply to Jossi
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. 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 Misplaced Pages to verify my statement in this regard. . 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.
Complaint by SSS108 about Andries divulging personal information about SSS108
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 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages."
Andries 09:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
SSS108 re-adding original research and opposing its removal on Sathya Sai Baba
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. Secondly, he reverted me repeatedly when I wanted to remove all original research including "original research of Anti-Sai Activists". 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:No Original Research Andries 13:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
Linking to anti-SSB websites by Andries
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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages policy by linking to the website http://www.saiguru.net. Andries 07:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Use of a source by Andries agreed upon as non-reputable on list of cults
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 Misplaced Pages:No Original Research or Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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. . 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 Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines with my edit.Andries 08:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Controversial recent edits made by Andries and SSS108 on [[Sathya Sai Baba
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 Misplaced Pages 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 . I explained on the talk page why I removed the clean up tag that I considered exaggerated
,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 Andries editorializes citation on related articles, reply to Jossi
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
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)
Jossi further writes on this
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 on the English language Misplaced Pages 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)
SSS108 repeatedly removed relevant information supported by a reputable source with these edits The information that SSS108 inappropriately removed without giving a reason and in spite of my protest was as as follows
Andries 15:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages policy What_wikipedia_is_not that states “Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages policies. It is user:SSS108’s duty as a Misplaced Pages editor to read the policies and guidelines and to obtain more experience by editing a variety of articles, not just heavily controversial articles.
Andries 18:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The following statement by SSS108 on this page regarding this edit is untrue.
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 Misplaced Pages article and adding instead an external link that describes the contents is unjustified and reveals his ignorance of Misplaced Pages policies and good Misplaced Pages practices. Andries 19:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
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 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 Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons Andries 01:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
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 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
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)
user:Andries has been praised by user:Sam Spade and user:Jay for his neutrality and adherence to NPOV on Sathya Sai Baba He 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 Misplaced Pages as follows
I deny this. Here is what user:Andries wrote earlier on talk:guru
Andries 21:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC) amended on 18:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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
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 Misplaced Pages. I have probably criticized the edits of some active Misplaced Pages 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)
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. Andries 22:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
1 More Assertion Under Construction
≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Andries exhibits a high degree of animosity against his ex-guru (Sai Baba), and by extension to gurus in general, 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 , 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, Misplaced Pages 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.
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.
Removal by SSS108 of referenced relevants contents on Sathya Sai Baba
Complaints by editors about alleged advocacy, reply to Jossi
Praise of Andries for his neutrality on articles directly related to SSB
Andries alleged anti-guru advocacy, reply to Jossi
Regarding The Prem Rawat Article, reply to SSS108
Use of non-reputable sources on allegations against Sathya Sai Baba
Second assertion
Evidence presented by SSS108
Divulging Personal Information
Original Research Refutation
Andries Questionable Webmaster Status
Andries POV Pushing
Points Made In Mediation
Andries Recent Controversial Edit
Regarding The Prem Rawat Article
Andries Ever-Multiplying Edits
Coming
Other Clarifications
Evidence presented by Jossi
Andries was blocked twice in the last four months for 3RR on related articles
SSS108 was blocked once for edit warring
SSS108 is a "sigle-purpose" editor
Andries admits to being a POV pusher on related subjects
Andries adds his own original research about Sathya Sai Baba to external links section of related article
Andries editorializes citation on related articles
Andries alleged anti-guru advocacy
Andries statements
Complaints by editors about alleged advocacy
Evidence presented by {your user name}
First assertion
Second assertion