Case Opened on 21:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 03:35, 5 September 2006 (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.

Involved parties

SSS108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Andries (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) also known as Omniscient (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) also known as Andrieskd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Statement By SSS108

("Sathya Sai Baba" will be referred to as "SSB"): Andries is the webmaster to the largest site opposing SSB on the internet: hetnet.nl/~exbaba. Andries now claims, after a three year period, he is not the webmaster for the site but is the "Main Representative, Supervisor and Contact" for the site (Ref). Therefore, Andries direct involvement with the largest site opposing Sathya Sai Baba is indisputable. I can provide more proof about Andries webmaster status on request. Andries personally compiled the Recovery Section on his website: (View Andries claim: Still online as of June 25th 2006). Andries is associated with (and openly promotes) the Christian Anti-Cult Activist Dr. Johannes Aagaard, founder of the Dialog Center and other Christian organizations. This recovery section not only has a very strong Pro-Christian tone, it also proves that Andries actively promotes an Anti-SSB/Guru/Cult POV. Because of Andries disenfranchisment with SSB, he unremittently attempts to undermine and bias the SSB Wikipedia articles by pushing his Anti-SSB/Guru/Cult POV. Even BostonMA (the former mediator) was confounded on how to approach the ever-multiplying disagreements on the SSB article: Ref. On Wikipedia, Andries has publicly made comments about his involvement in a "cult" (with SSB) and his emotional trauma because of that involvement (Example 1 - Example 2). Outside Wikipedia, on a public forum, Andries claimed he felt "raped" by SSB. These comments suggest that Andries interest in SSB is negative and (in my opinion) he is using Wikipedia as a venting, "therapy" (Andries word) and retaliation forum. I would also like to add that I am not the only person who has problems with Andries. He is a contoversial editor with whom others have many problems as well. See: Guru Talk Page, Post Cult Trauma Talk Page and the Prem Rawat Talk Page. Because of Andries bias, status on the largest Anti-SSB site on the internet, recent controversial edits, reinterpretation of Wikipedia policy, attempts to change Wikipedia policy to push his POV and behavior towards (and in) mediation (as stated in "other steps" listed above), I believe that mediation is no longer a viable option. Therefore, I seek the intervention of the Arbitration Committee to resolve these ongoing disputes, POV pushing and controversial edits that have no end in sight. On A Personal Note: I am not a Wikipedian in the literal sense (nor currently wish to be one) however, since I realize the significance of Wikipedia on the world wide web, my only purpose on Wikipedia is to balance out the SSB articles that have been dominated by Andries for years. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement By Andries

~~First of all, I oppose this request for arbitration, because mediation has not been fully tried as I explained above.~~ SSS108 refuses further mediation [1], so I think that based on this, though I think that mediation is not exhausted and creating thus what I see as unnecessary work for the arbitration committee, abritration can no longer be avoided. Second, almost all comments that SSS108 makes here are unrelated to the case in question, the article Sathya Sai Baba. The complaints are related to my behavior in general and my off-wiki affilations but then the title of this request for arbitration should be called user:Andries, not Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 09:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I request SSS108 either remove all the complaints about me unrelated to the Sathya Sai Baba article or re-name this request for arbitration into user:Andries. But please understand that if SSS108 re-names this request for arbitration into user:Andries then the request for abritration will probably not be accepted because this is the first time that formal complaints about my general behavior would be made and other dispute resolutions regarding me, normally preceding a request for arbitration, such as wikipedia:request for comment have not been tried. Andries 20:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that I am one of the main author for the article, but it is untrue that it was a bad article before SSS108 intervened. Proof is that the German ZDF Television station with its often thoroughly researched documentaries referred to the Sathya Sai Baba article, as mentioned in the Wikipedia:Wikipedia_as_a_press_source_2004

"Botschaften aus dem Jenseits Göttliche Gaben oder Betrug?" (Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen, Germany August 4, 2004) Recommends the Wikipedia article on Sathya Sai Baba." (version of 4 Aug. 2004).

Also, if you can read German then you will see that the statement there by the ZDF is heavily critical, just like almost all other recently published reputable sources, such as the BBC (documentary Secret Swami), The Times (Suicide Sex and the guru), salon.com (Sai Baba untouchable). It is my opinion that the article should reflect what these reputable sources say and yes, then the article will turn out to be heavily critical about Sathya Sai Baba which SSS108 does not like and opposes. Andries 20:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also the comment by user User:M_Alan_Kazlev on his off-wikipedia website about my involvement in Sathya Sai Baba related articles in Wikipedia

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

Andries 21:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I do not agree with M. Alan Kazlev classification of me as an anti-cult activist (i.e. a member of a group that believes in the brainwashing theory) Andries 08:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to respond to the stated reason by proposed mediator user:Wisden17 of refusing mediation. He stated that he considered it strange that I took a wikibreak when mediation was about to get started and saw this as an unwillingness to engage in mediation. However the wikibreak was due to private reasons and in addition lasted less than one day.[2] [3]I consider it out of proportion that a wikibreak that lasted less than one day is seen as an unwillingness to participate in mediation. Andries 18:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC) amended[reply]

I also disagree with SSS108's statement that I rejected a reasonable time table. I wrote that I would answer each question by the mediator within a week which sounded and still sounds reasonable to me. Unlike SSS108 I have never been a single purpose editor and I do not intend to become one. Andries 23:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that I affiliated with the very large website of the concerned Dutch former of Sathya Sai Baba, but I have never been its de facto webmaster and it has never been my homepage where I can de facto or de jure voice my personal opinions. I have only limited influence over its contents and much is going on behind the screens that is quite complicated and chaotic to explain. SS108's statement that I am affiliated with the Dialog Center is untrue. Andries 23:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that I have always behaved perfectly on the article, but I have never stooped as low as Gerald Joe Moreno aka user:SSS108 who quotes his own opinions in the article only published on his personal homepage. With these edits he blatantly violated the Wikipedia: No Original Research policy [4] [5] [6] I had argued and argued and argued that this was against the rules, but only afer a long time during the mediation he agreed to have his personal opinions removed from the article. A mitigating factor could be that he then was new to Wikipedia but then he should have studied the policies and asked other editors (he did not trust me of course) about this issue e.g. on the village pump, but no, he did not do so.Andries 00:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC) (amended)[reply]

Here SSS108/Gerald Joe Moreno repeatedly removed an attributed statement referenced to a reputable source i.e. an article in salon.com [7] [8] [9]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. Andries 01:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

Accept. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept for both editors. Dmcdevit·t 03:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Fred Bauder 14:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

No original research

1) From Wikipedia:No original research, Policy in a nutshell

Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.