Misplaced Pages

User talk:SSS108: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:04, 19 December 2006 editEkantik (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,418 editsm →No Personal Attacks: minor addition← Previous edit Latest revision as of 07:24, 3 April 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(82 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown)
Line 93: Line 93:
*''"He is not only a defamer and critic of me, but of all critics of '''his highly doubtful guru''', Sri Sathya Sai Baba..."'' (). *''"He is not only a defamer and critic of me, but of all critics of '''his highly doubtful guru''', Sri Sathya Sai Baba..."'' ().


==]==
==Please do not reveal real names==
Hello,
SSS108, please do not continue to violate ] by revealing the real name of user:Ekantik. As per arbcom decision in this respect, I will however keep on using your name because you yourself keep revealing it. ] 06:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: ]. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, ]. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ].
:I filed a complaint about your behavior. See . ] 17:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
::And you did it again on the noticeboard page. Look, if the guy wanted to keep his name a secret, then he has the right to. What you are doing is considered stalking and that is not a good thing. I ask you to stop now. If the person wanted to reveal their name, then they would (like I have). But, the editor chose not to do so and we should respect his right to not use his real name. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
What about his stalking of me on the internet and creating a blog specifically attacking me on Misplaced Pages? I said I would respect his wish as long as he doesn't attempt to portray himself as a netural editor who does not have a POV to push and that he is somehow not connected to the Sai Controversy. He is. He chose to engage in debates with me first, which led to my discovery of his sockpuppet. That isn't stalking. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 18:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
:Debates? If I add my comments to ] regarding problems with the article then that isn't a debate addressed specifically to you, but for all editors. You are not the owner of that article. And yes, according to Misplaced Pages policies your actions can be interpreted as stalking. After all, you had to dig into my edit history to find something wrong with it and according to ] I have shown that almost all your accusations have reasonable explanations. Your sockpuppetry allegation has effectively collapsed, yet you continue to discuss disruptive information that bears no relation to the original sockpuppetry complaint. All of your actions are in violation of several Misplaced Pages poolicies and guidelines and you can be blocked for them. Please desist from being disruptive and stop revealing people's identities in violation of their requests. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ]<sup>]</sup> 17:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
==Breach Of Privacy==
<div class="notice" style="background:#FFF; border:1px solid #AAA; padding:0.5em; margin:0.5em auto;"> ] '''''A serious message - PLEASE READ''''' <hr /> <p>Misplaced Pages operates on the principle that every contributor has a right if they wish to remain '''completely anonymous'''. Misplaced Pages policy on that issue is strictly enforced. Posting private information about a user with the intent to annoy, threaten or harass, specifically their (alleged) name and/or personal details, is strictly prohibited as ], and users who do that are often '''immediately blocked''' from editing Misplaced Pages.</p><!--


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. ] Co., ] 09:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
--> <p>Such posting can cause offense or embarrassment to the victim of the posting, not least because it means that their name, and any personal criticism or allegations made against them can then appear on web searches. If you have posted such information, please remove it '''immediately'''. Please then follow the link to ] page and inform people there that the information was posted (but crucially, do '''not''' repost it on that page). An admin or developer can then remove the information from the archives of Misplaced Pages.</p><!--


==Picture of temple==
--> <p>If you do not ensure that personal information you posted is removed from this site '''you may be ]''' from editing this site. ''REMEMBER: Misplaced Pages's privacy policy is there to protect the privacy of every user, including'' '''you'''.</p> <!-- Template:Pinfo4 --> </div> ] <sup>]</sup> 04:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to ask what is the meaning of ]? And why you 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 . ] <sup>]</sup> 02:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
<br>
: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. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 06:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
In accordance with the instructions on this template, please remove your offences at the following locations: , , , , and . You were asked to stop violating privacy by ] and ] has already attempted to refactor one of your privacy violations before you proceeded to continue (). ] <sup>]</sup> 04:37, 11 December 2006 (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. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
==Response To ] aka ]==
Ekantik/Gaurasundara, please stop using my talk page as a forum to push your venom and whine (just as you do on your blog specifically attacking me and my involvement on Misplaced Pages). You have shown '''nothing''' except your attempt to '''deceive''' others that you are a neutral editor who does not have a POV to push (despite the fact that you are '''the''' most vocal critic and opponent of Sathya Sai Baba on the internet). Your '''thousands''' of defamatory, vulgar, sexually-explicit and grotesque posts against Sathya Sai Baba stand in testament to this fact (as I have stated before ). Any Google search for ''"sathya sai baba+gaurasundara"'' () will bring up the relevant results.


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 :-) ] <sup>]-]</sup> 07:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Your edit history is public domain {{user|Ekantik}} / {{user|Gaurasundara}} and anyone can view it. By posting on Misplaced Pages, '''all''' of your edits are accessible to anyone at any time. Contrary to your assertions that I am ''"stalking"'' you (a mantra you have parroted '''numerous''' times on other forums), it is clear that you are stalking me. After attacking and '''defaming''' me all over the internet (and creating a blog specifically attacking me and my involvement on Misplaced Pages), you ''"innocently"'' appear on the ] article, engaged me in debate incognito and made edits '''all''' in '''exclusive''' association with the Sai Controversy. When Jossi asked you if you considered yourself a POV editor () you said ''"no"'' () even though you know '''full well''' that you are a Sai Critic/Ex-devotee. You continually and unremittingly accuse Sathya Sai Baba of being a ''"homosexual paedophile"'' and ''"faggot"'' despite the fact that he 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.


:I'm afraid you just don't understand: When you upload an image to Misplaced Pages, '''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 Misplaced Pages policies will result in legal jeopardy for Misplaced Pages. This is just for your edification about uploading images to Misplaced Pages and how you can properly contribute images. For more information, see ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
And my sockpuppetry claim against you has '''not''' ''"collapsed"''. To the contrary, you '''confirmed''' it by '''admitting''' that you '''are''' ] (). As long as you edit on the Sathya Sai Baba article, you will be held accountable for your extra-Misplaced Pages status as a critic, defamer and ex-devotee of Sathya Sai Baba. Get used to it.


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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 for ArbCom. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 19:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
If you want this discussion to stop, I suggest you bring it to an end. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 12:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


:In future, do not upload images to Misplaced Pages for "research purposes" by which you may ''possibly'' bring Misplaced Pages into legal jeopardy. ] 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'''. ] 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 want this discussion to stop, I suggest that you stop using my real name and behave in accordance with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
: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. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


I suggest you catch up: ] <sup>]-]</sup> 04:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC) LOL ] <sup>]-]</sup> 06:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


==No Personal Attacks (])==
==Inclusion Of Website Link==
* ]: In response to Ekantik's off-topic comments and personal attacks against Sai devotees: - , I made , which brought about the following warning:
SSS108, so should we or should we not include your website into the Sathya Sai Baba article? By the way, you are the webmaster of http://www.saisathyasai.com , aren't you? Please tell me if by writing this I am stalking. 15:05 (UTC+1) 10 Dec. 2006 ] Modified: 15:09
] {{{{{subst|}}}#if:Talk:Sathya Sai Baba|With regards to your comments on ]:&#32;}}Please see Misplaced Pages's ] policy. Comment on ''content'', not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to ] for disruption. Please ] and keep this in mind while editing. {{{2|Thank you.}}}<!-- {{uw-npa2}} --> ] <sup>]</sup> 02:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
:We should not, because it is defamatory of the critics of SSB. Much of the websites contains interpretations and viewpoints that contradict reputable sources. And as such it is worse than ]. ] 14:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:Your admin facade makes me laugh. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 06:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
::As you have modified this section to represent your view of why you received an initial ] warning, it should be observed that you are not here on Misplaced Pages to protect the interests of "Sai devotees" nor are you authorised to use Misplaced Pages 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 ] which basically involves making insulting or disparaging comments about other editors. Please refrain from such behaviour and comment on content, not on contributor. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


] Please ] other editors{{{{{subst|}}}#if:Talk:Sathya Sai Baba|, which you did here: ]}}. If you continue, you '''will''' be ] from editing Misplaced Pages.Second warning for further disparaging comments on editors' religious beliefs<!-- {{uw-npa3}} --> ] <sup>]</sup> 18:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the inclusion of , I already expressed my view that we should '''not''' include the link because it will cause another uproar by Andries & Co. As you already know, when it comes to highly defamatory content by Robert Priddy, Andries will argue the exact opposite of what he is arguing now. Andries is a POV pusher due his former webmaster status and current ''"Main Representative, Supervisor And Contact"'' for the '''largest''' website opposing Sathya Sai Baba on the internet . Best to drop the issue. Now there are two '''well known''' Anti-Sai Activists to deal with: ] and ] / ]. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 18:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:Yes, I am the webmaster for ] <sup>]-]</sup> 18:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
::No, you are not stalking me :-) ] <sup>]-]</sup> 18:12, 10 December 2006 (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! :-) ] <sup>]-]</sup> 07:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:That is a different issue. If ] is notable then it is because of his writings critical of SSB. Of course his article should link to his writings that make him notable on his own homepage. It is very similar with ] who became notable because of his criticism of ] and of coures his homepage should be linked to even it is defamatory reg. Bush. See ]. If you had your own article then of course that article could link to your homepage defaming me and Priddy. ] 18:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
For the umpteenth time, the link you want to include on Robert Priddy's page is not his ''"homepage"''. It is an Anti-Sai Site exclusively attacking ]. And I am not alone in my opinion. You were warned against including that link by admin . As I said before, you will argue hard and long to push your Anti-Sai Agenda because you are a POV pusher, self-admitted critic and ex-devotee of Sathya Sai Baba and former webmaster and current ''"Main Reresentative, Supervisor And Contact"'' for the '''largest''' Anti-Sai website on the internet . ] <sup>]-]</sup> 18:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks for your upteenth explanation that I still consider completely unconvincing. I will only revert, because discussion seems to be endless between us without any side coming a millimeter closer. ] 18:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
You will revert what? And by the way, I am not aware of any ArbCom ruling on the George W. Bush or Michael Moore wiki-pages that prevents linking to critical and negative sites, as outlined by the ArbCom ruling on the Sathya Sai Baba article. You can't use other pages to make your arguments. There is now an ArbCom ruling that must be taken into account. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 18:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


==Incivility, harrassment, and personal attacks==
:Yes you can use other pages to make arguments. Precedents are quoted all over Misplaced Pages in discussions. What is your rationale for arguing that Priddy's site is an "Anti-Sai site" and not a homepage? ] <sup>]</sup> 03:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
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. --] (]) 09:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Ekantik/Gaurasundara, Andries and ProEdits (Robert Priddy) are all collaborators and belong to the very same Anti-Sai Group that systematically attacks Sathya Sai Baba on the internet. I do not have to explain myself to you, of all people, Ekantik/Gaurasundara. Admin has already spoken about this issue and that is all I need to say. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 04:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


:I might have missed it somewhere. Please edify me about the rationale which you employ. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC) :Peculiar, oblique, and unfounded comments on my Talk page are not coing to distract me from your behaviour. --] (]) 09:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


==A question==
You see the link in my previous post. Place your cursor over it and left-click on it. Please direct your questions to the Admin who made that comment. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 05:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Joe, does the claim of Sathya Sai Baba's sex change come from anti-Sai or pro-Sai sources? ] 14:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


When are you going to disengage? ] 17:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
:Thank you, but I am not asking what Admin think of it in connection with the ArbCom ruling. I am asking what rationale you are employing in determining Priddy's site as an "Anti Sai site" and not a homepage. Thanks in advance. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding? Right? Keep babbling. You are going to be ignored. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 06:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for your comments. Best wishes to you too. Wikisunn 12th February 2007
:No I am not kidding. I am asking you to provide a rationale for one of your fundamental arguments. Thank you for violating ] and not pointing me to a Misplaced Pages policy or guideline that supports your theory. I'll also thank you to . ] <sup>]</sup> 06:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


==No Personal Attacks== == Warning ==

{{{{{subst|}}}#if:Sathya Sai Baba|With regards to your comments on ]:&#32;}}Please see Misplaced Pages's ] policy. Comment on ''content'', not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to ] for disruption. Please ] and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. <!-- Template:No personal attacks (npa2) --> ] <sup>]</sup> 04:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Speculating on, or attempting to discern the real-life name of contributors is a violation of ]. You should consider this your first and final warning. Do not engage in this sort of behavior again. ] - ] 12:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
:] aka ], there you go '''again''' acting like an Admin. Too funny. And if you are so committed to no personal attacks, explain why you created a public blog specifically attacking me and my involvement on Misplaced Pages? Explain why you have made numerous derogatory comments against me on Yahoo Groups and forums about my involvement on Misplaced Pages (])? I suggest you read ] while you are so busy acting like an Admin and citing Misplaced Pages policies. You viciously attack me off Misplaced Pages about my invovlement on Misplaced Pages and then you have the audacity to tell me not to attack you when I rightly point out your Anti-Sai Bais and vicious defamations against Sathya Sai Baba. I know you must '''always''' have the last word (as you do outside Misplaced Pages) and I will tell you once again to stop using my talk page as a forum for your venom and whine. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 04:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
:My response: ] ] <sup>]-]</sup> 14:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
::This is your second warning. Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people{{{{{subst|}}}#if:Sathya Sai Baba|&#32;as you did at ]}}, you will be ] for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. <!-- Template:Npa3 -->

::Re your above complaints, "Attack" seems to be your favourite word of late. If you use Misplaced Pages as a vehicle to push your bias in favour of Sathya Sai Baba, you can expect your edits to be reviewed by other editors just as you do to them. The blog you keep referring to was created prior to my joining Misplaced Pages. In addition I may draw attention to ''your'' numerous derogatory comments on Yahoo groups and other venues (which far exceed mine when you consider the number of websites and blogs you author that specifically slander me). You were recently by ] about off-wiki attacks that you continue to engage in. Misplaced Pages does not directly penalise editors for such attacks but such actions may be considered aggravating factors during dispute resolution and other procedural matters. I would very much love to stop using your talk page as a ''"vehicle to whine and spew venom"'' just as soon as you cut it with the personal attacks. Please comply. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
==Disengaging From Misplaced Pages==
{{User EX-WP}} ] <sup>]-]</sup> 03:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

==Request for Comment: Regarding subcategory title==
Please give your comment in the Sathya Sai talk page. This is for decision making on consensus.] 22nd February 2007

== ] ==

The above-named arbitration case has closed and the complete decision can be found at the link above. ], ], ], and ] are banned indefinitely from editing ] and related articles or their talk pages. ] is instructed to make all future Misplaced Pages contributions related in any way to Sathya Sai Baba under a single username. ] is reminded that all edits must be supported by reliable sources. Editors involved at ] are encouraged to use better sources and improved citation style. The remedies in the prior decision ] regarding poorly sourced information remain in force and apply to all editors working on ] 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 ] article, even if no additional case is brought forward. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. ] 00:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

== I Am Not Sbs108 ==

It has come to my attention that some administrators have ridiculously accused me of being ]. I am '''NOT''' Sbs108 and the arguments made by admin that I am are '''wholly absurd'''. I was banned for exposing . 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 Misplaced Pages to defend myself from stupid rumors started by conspiratorial admin who apparently have nothing better to do than play psychic instead of like they are supposed to do. '''Practice what you preach, Admin!''' ] <sup>]-]</sup> 05:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

— Comments made by me under the nic ] regarding this issue: - - ] <sup>]-]</sup> 15:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

== False Sockpuppetry Claim Against Me ==
{{tlp|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. --] <sup>]-]</sup> 01:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
:]. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva">]''']'''</font><sup>]</sup> {{CURRENTTIME}}, {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC)
::What do you mean? How am I supposed to vindicate myself of this ridiculous accusation? ] <sup>]-]</sup> 01:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

==Cleared Of Sbs108 Sockpuppet Claim==
To all interested readers: I have been CLEARED of the '''patently absurd''' and '''conspiratorial assumptions & speculations''' made by ], ], ] and ] who spuriously and unremittingly alleged I was using the sockpuppet of ].

:

:Relevant accusation by ]: -

:Relevant accusations by Misplaced Pages Admin ]: - - - -

:Relevant accusations by Misplaced Pages Admin ]: - - -

:Relevant accusations by Misplaced Pages Admin ]: - -

:Relevant '''retractions''' and '''apology''' by Misplaced Pages Admin ]: -

] <sup>]-]</sup> 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 ] to exonerate you; most administrators do not have access to that tool. Please bury the hatchet. -'']'' <span style="color:#4682B4;"><sup>(] ])</sup></span> 21:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


== confirmed sockpuppetry==
To avoid confusion, I'm linking to: ]. (October 14 2009,) ''']''' (]) 23:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

== Correct? ==

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

] (]) 08:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
==MfD nomination of ]==
] ], a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ] and please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). You are free to edit the content of ] during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.<!-- Template:MFDWarning --> ] (]) 03:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
==MfD nomination of ]==
] ], a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ] and please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). You are free to edit the content of ] during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.<!-- Template:MFDWarning --> ] (]) 03:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 07:24, 3 April 2023


TOP

Discussion

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sathya

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sathya. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sathya/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sathya/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 21:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba

This case is now closed and the result has been published at the link above.

  • Negative information in an article or on a talk page regarding Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him which is poorly sourced may be removed without discussion. The three revert rule shall not apply to such removal. This includes links to critical websites which contain original research or which consist of personal accounts of negative experiences with Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him. It is inappropriate for a user to insert a link to a website maintained by the user (or in which the user plays an important role).
  • Information in an article or on a talk page regarding Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him which is poorly sourced may be removed. This includes links to websites which contain original research or which consist of personal accounts of experiences with Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him. It is inappropriate for a user to insert a link to a website maintained by the user (or in which the user plays an important role)
  • Andries and SSB108 are forgiven any offenses they have committed by introducing unreliable information into the article and encouraged to edit in compliance with Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources and Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons.
For the Arbitration Committee. 03:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Harassment and stalking

Note SSS108. You have stalked me on Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages articles, or you can be charged with vandalism, you know!

I remind you of some rules on Misplaced Pages: 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages."

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages. You even called your material "original research" Ref. You are obviously oblivious to Misplaced Pages'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 20:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Blatant Untruths From ProEdits

False Claims Of Deleting Information

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 Misplaced Pages 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 01:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

False Claims Against Me About Comments I Did Not Make

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 01:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

False Accusation Against Freelanceresearch

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages Block Log For Freelanceresearch, she has never been "banned from Misplaced Pages". 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 01:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

False Claims Of Harrassment & Stalking

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 Misplaced Pages) 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 01:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Attacking Me On My User Page

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

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 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).

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cowman109 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

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 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 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 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 07:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you just don't understand: When you upload an image to Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages policies will result in legal jeopardy for Misplaced Pages. This is just for your edification about uploading images to Misplaced Pages and how you can properly contribute images. For more information, see WP:IUP. Ekantik 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 19:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

In future, do not upload images to Misplaced Pages for "research purposes" by which you may possibly bring Misplaced Pages 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 03:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

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

No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA)

  • 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:

With regards to your comments on Talk:Sathya Sai Baba: Please see Misplaced Pages'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 02:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Your admin facade makes me laugh. SSS108 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 Misplaced Pages to protect the interests of "Sai devotees" nor are you authorised to use Misplaced Pages 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 18:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Talk:Sathya Sai Baba. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages.Second warning for further disparaging comments on editors' religious beliefs Ekantik 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 07:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Incivility, harrassment, and personal attacks

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

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

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: Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Mel Etitis SSS108 14:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Disengaging From Misplaced Pages

This editor has decided to leave Misplaced Pages.

SSS108 03:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Regarding subcategory title

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

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 05:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

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

False Sockpuppetry Claim Against Me

{{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 01:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no cabal. Intelligentsium 07:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
What do you mean? How am I supposed to vindicate myself of this ridiculous accusation? SSS108 01:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Cleared Of Sbs108 Sockpuppet Claim

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 Misplaced Pages Admin Jéské Couriano: 01 - 02 - 03 - 04 - 05
Relevant accusations by Misplaced Pages Admin Hersfold: 01 - 02 - 03 - 04
Relevant accusations by Misplaced Pages Admin Jzg / Guy: 01 - 02 - 03
Relevant retractions and apology by Misplaced Pages Admin Jéské Couriano: 01 - 02

SSS108 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 21:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


confirmed sockpuppetry

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

Correct?

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

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

MfD nomination of User:SSS108/Sathya Sai Baba

User:SSS108/Sathya Sai Baba, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:SSS108/Sathya Sai Baba and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:SSS108/Sathya Sai Baba during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:SSS108/ArbCom Answers To Thatcher

User:SSS108/ArbCom Answers To Thatcher, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:SSS108/ArbCom Answers To Thatcher and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:SSS108/ArbCom Answers To Thatcher during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)