User talk:SSS108/archive1

Letter From Robert Priddy

To Wikipedia

Your page on copyright states "To expedite this process you will need to provide some type of proof that you are the copyright holder. We certainly will not immediately remove anything without being reasonably sure that it is in fact a copyright violation."

However, you have removed my own posting about myself, Robert Priddy, from the link on the Sathya Sai Baba page. Please reinstate the page, since the copyright is unproblematical.

My e-mail is robrei at start.no, or, alternatively, rero@chello.no. Please mail me stating what one must do to convince you that there is no copyright violation.

Sincerely, Robert Priddy

I have received an email from Robert Priddy to confirm that he does release this text under the GFDL, so I've replaced his original text on the article. Angela . 16:56, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Priddy removing critical link about him

Robert Priddy, using the IP 80.111.123.220 [1] is removing a critical link about him. If Priddy feels that critical views about him should be removed, then links to his critical sites should also be removed. SSS108 ^talk-email 15:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intention

It is my intention to remove Robert Priddy's link to his Anti-Sai Baba site if he continues to remove the link to my site that addresses his deception and misrepresentations about Sathya Sai Baba: Robert Priddy Deception SSS108 ^talk-email 18:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a forum for feuds! M Alan Kazlev 21:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, you have lots of work to do if your intent is to remove "ad hominem" links. I don't see you removing the "ad hominem" links to Anti-Sai sites. Why not? I removed Priddy's link to his Anti-Sai Site that is full of "ad hominem" attacks against Sathya Sai Baba. Fair is fair. SSS108 ^talk-email 04:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SSS108, you are incorrect. According to Wikipedia conventions the homepage of the subject should be listed. Andries 21:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andries, you are incorrect. That page is not Robert Priddy's personal "homepage". It is an Anti-Sai Site (one out of five) created by Robert Priddy. My critical views about Robert Priddy are entirely relevant to this page as long as his critical site on SSB is listed here. Otherwise, you have a whole lot of deleting to do on other pages associated with SSB in which you provide critical links. If my link goes, not only will Priddy's Anti-Site link go, I will begin deleting Anti-Sai critical links on other pages. Think carefully before you and Alan begin to set a precedent. SSS108 ^talk-email 03:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SSS108 said: If my link goes, not only will Priddy's Anti-Site link go, I will begin deleting Anti-Sai critical links on other pages.

I wonder how Wikipedia administrators feel about that sort of attitude? Perhaps we should bring in an independent senior wikipedian to see what he or she says about this.

btw Joe you make a false analogy. SSB is a public figure, and hence should be able to be criticised like any other well-known public figure. But Robert Priddy is in comparison a little-known writer, hence a great big long personal page dedicated to slandering him constitutes an ad homimen attack. But I am interested to learn what other independent wikipedians feel about this. M Alan Kazlev 09:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, I would encourage you to contact a Wikipedia Administrator about this. You may be very surprised to the results. It is actually your "attitude" that is questionable here. Not mine. Andries has published critical links from Anti-Sai Activists on many pages and you find nothing wrong with this. Once it comes to my links, now you are whining. You may accuse me of "slander", etc., but you cannot substantiate your claims. Care to substantiate your claims of "slander"? Your erroneous accusations against me are nothing more than personal attacks. As long as Robert Priddy's Anti-Sai views are expressed on this page, a critical link is allowed to refute his Anti-Sai views. As a matter of fact, Priddy's entire motive in publishing this Wikipedia entry was to push his Anti-Sai Campaign (Ref). Ask Andries help in having administrators comment on your complaints. Hopefully, it will set a precedent that will be used across the board (which would be refreshing). SSS108 ^talk-email 15:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Andries hasn't replied to my query, I'll make some inquiries myself on this when I have a bit more time. I myself would just delete your link anyway, which was my initial desire, and I'll probably do it anyway, but I am also interested in the way that the Wikipedia administration handles standover tactics and threats of vandalism of this sort. This really has nothing to do with SSB, and is more simply my interest in how Wikiedia works, and whether its strengths can overcome its weaknesses. Certainly your threat of vandalism shows that your principles do not seem to have approved of late, since you seem to want to use wikipedia as your soapbox.

As for your claims Joe, Robert Priddy's websites are not, "full of ad hominem attacks against Sai Baba" as far as I understand the term. Which statements are you referring by Priddy which are genuine ad hominem arguments, if we define argumentum ad hominem as trying to discredit a statement by referring to an unrelated fault in the character of the person who made the statement, as you have repeatedly done against SSB critics (not just Robert Priddy but others as well). That is why I refer to your actions as slander (even if you don't think that term applies to you). To prove someone is a liar for example one must be able to show that the person has intentionally stated an untruth knowing it to be untrue. Therefore you are defaming Priddy, while I cannot see that he has defaming you in this (or any other) way.

I would also be interested if you could provide direct references with a link to anywhere that Priddy has posted anything where he actually calls you, personally, a liar or has defamed you.

As to his allegedly defaming Sai Baba, I have seen this sort of attitude on wikipedia and elsewhere before by supporters of controversial gurus who cannot accept any criticism of their guru. It really pertains more to the attitude of the devotee (okay i know you are not technically a "devotee", but supporter then in your case), and more about human psychology. However, you are the first person i have seen in this situation to actually try to use standover tactics and threats of vandalism to enforce your case.

Further, you claim Priddy has five websites as if these were all attacking Sai Baba. Could you provide the URLs for these?

I therefore see no reason why the link to your pages should not be removed. If you respond to this by removing links critical of Sai Baba, this is an example of vandalism, and I will inquire into reporting you for this. The use of threats to vandalise links in Wikipedia may be the way you go about business, but that isn't how I would like to see Wikipedia work. Anyway, as I said, this also goes beyond SSB because it concerns how wikipedia handles these matters. M Alan Kazlev 22:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, leave it to you to blow things out of proportion. I did not threaten to "vandalize" anything. I simply stated that I will follow in your footsteps and do the very same thing you said you were doing, i.e., deleting "ad hominem" links. "Ad hominem" is in the eye of the beholder. There are numerous "ad hominem" links from Anti-Sai Sites and you care less about removing them. Instead, you are focusing on my link. The solution is quite simple: Delete Robert Priddy's "ad hominem" link against SSB and my link at the same time. Your actions can be construed as pushing your POV. You have yet to provide any proof that I "slandered" Robert Priddy. Therefore, if anyone has engaged in "ad hominem" attacks, it is you. I simply stated I will enforce the standard you initiate. So stop distorting my words with your vindictive and biased viewpoints. If you believe that Robert Priddy is entitled to criticize SSB, then my link that criticizes Robert Priddy's views on SSB is applicable and entirely justified. Andries has been doing this for years with impunity. Same standards across the board. You want to set the standard, I will follow through with it. That is not "vandalism". Your removal of my link without citing policy and having it backed up by ~~Admin~~ (other editors) is vandalism. SSS108 ^talk-email 05:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This will be a long reply...

Joe you still in my opinion have presented no convincing evidence and have not shown that Robert defames you nor that he calls you a liar anywhere, which you do of him on innumerable occasions and without credible evidence. It seems to me that for you, a liar is virtually anyone who questions Sathya Sai Baba, and makes any statement that you find fault with, often because they will not entrust you with sensitive information. The link to the comments about you on Priddy's webpages do not show any defamation of your character there, Certainly nothing more serious than you have written about me, for example (regarding which (from what i have seen) I have no complaints).

As for the anonymity claim (Robert says you are, you say you aren't), well, honestly, it makes no difference to me personally whether you are or want to be anonymous, or whether you are who you say you are (as long as you don't slander others). On your page you make Robert out to be a liar for saying all this. But regarding this, Robert informed me that:

"In a mail to Conny Larsson, he shows how Moreno used the IP 192.168.9.27 (PRIVATE no source available). This proves outright that he uses proxy IPs. This makes it impossible to prove definitively that he really is the author (as someone else could fake the mail content etc.)... not without a costly subpoena process. So what IS his real IP and why doesn't he give his details? "

Robert claims that your identity cannot be checked "by any means" and it is true that seem to be no details of this nature available about you on the Internet ("no CV, no known qualification or abode").

You like to advertise Robert Priddy's IP on your own website and also on Wikipedia, but it is not hidden, neither is his address, phone number or publications. Similarily I am open about my dealings, i use my real name on wikipedia, not a username, so people know it is me. If you want to private and secretive, that is fine, I have no problems with that, but don't then claim that those who report this are liars, or use your anonymity as a cloak to attack others. It does you no credit and undercuts what credibility you may otherwise have.

What is worse are the double standards. While guarding your own privacy so carefully, you make all sorts of allegations about ex-devotees, including slurs and inuendos regarding their private lives, as well as outright and blatant lies; e.g. they are paedophiles, pornographers, associate with white supremacists, etc etc.

You said:

You have yet to provide any proof that I "slandered" Robert Priddy.

Fair enough. Ok, let's see...

You claim "Robert Priddy is relating more scurrilous fabrications and gutter untruths against me under the guise of anonymity." But where is the proof of these assertions? You wrote "Priddy's dirty and filthy websites". You use of such language is imho just more examples of slander (and more shadow projection) on your part.

To cite another example, you posted the slander of Dr. Leo Rebello against Priddy on your website. That is an implicit endorsement of Rebello's statements and is I understand slanderous by law.

Your allegations about Priddy on porn sites are unverified, and hence defamatory and slanderous. How do we know that someone (I wonder who?) has used his website title in signing up for those sites?

You also say things like "Heil Priddy" and other similar slanderous language. Here's a good example of your ad hominem style of writing, from the link you gave me.

"Priddy also sees nothing wrong with the "pornographic kind" of image that Reinier posted of Sathya Sai Baba holding a barbell with his penis. Apparently, these images meet Priddy's low standard of morality! Priddy thinks that those images are perfectly justified, but when the tables are turned, it is so unfair. Tough luck, Priddles! Robert Priddy has become a babbling, acidic and dark personality..."

But where is the reference that Robert Priddy thinks this is justified? You try to smear him simply by his association with others whose statements and acts he is not responsible for. And what i find really emotionally immature is the way you try to ridicule him by using a ridiculous nickname, which to me shows only a spiteful attitude on your part. I have already mentioned on my website your use of this name to mock and ridicule. So haw can you claim respectability when you act like that? In my mind no-one who resorts to ad homimem attacks can in any way be taken as a respectable scholar or authority.

You also make many unsupported assumptions and statements, for example, "I fully know the depth of corruption and decay prevalent among Anti-Sai Activists (Robert Priddy included)." This emotionalistic statement is again slanderous.

Ok, hopefully that clarifies that issue.

Your understanding of Vandalism is also rather strange, when you say

"Your removal of my link without citing policy and having it backed up by other editors is vandalism."

In other words (if I read you right), if I as a wikipedia editor remove a link to a personal webpage page that I consider to be slanderous and an ad homimem attack on the person who the wikipage is about, that is vandalism, but if you delete every critical link regarding Sai Baba on wikipedia, that is not vandalism? Do you honestly think that, Joe?

So, as I have shown that your Robert Priddy page is full of slander, defamation, and unsupported allegations against Priddy's person, I am removing it. M Alan Kazlev 06:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can similarly list numerous lies told by Priddy. However, this is not the place for it. You are pushing your POV and failing to cite Wikipedai policy that supports your edits. Also, I have failed to see any editors back you up. Resort to policy, not personal vendettas. SSS108 ^talk-email 07:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the Wikipedia:external links guideline. Andries 10:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

To involved editors: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia.

Some suggestions:

Discuss the article, not the subject;
Discuss the edit, not the editor;
Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is;
If you feel attacked, do not attack back.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 12:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jossie for your comments. I will attempt to resolve this off-site issue with Alan via email first. If that does not work, then I will file a request for comment from other editors. SSS108 ^talk-email 15:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jossie as you can see all this came about because I removed a link to a page I feel in good faith contains false and slanderous content and so should not be linked to from Wikipedia. SSS108 objected because it's one of his webpages and he feels that it is relevant, so I answered his objections. I also replied to him offlist as I have no desire either to continue cluttering up this talk page. I still am not convinced that his page attacking Priddy contains anything other than slanderous material. M Alan Kazlev 06:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And it is my contention that Priddy's page constitutes nothing less than slanderous material against SSB. SSS108 ^talk-email 06:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem that needs to be addressed Jossi, is that the anti-Sais are using any and every article they can on wikipedia to push their anti-Sai Baba propaganda. I informed SSS108 about this POV pushing not too long ago. I noticed their clearly biased anti-Sai Baba material in articles about Premanand, James Randi, etc. In addition to this, they attack anyone who confronts their abuses. Freelanceresearch 20:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a request for comments Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Religion_and_philosophy about the disputes what to link to in the external link section i.e.

www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/A-Priddy/robert-priddy-deception.html authored and maintained by user:SSS108/Joe Moreno considered defamatory of the subject/Robert Priddy by user:M Alan Kazlev and/or
//home.no.net/anir/Sai/ Sathya Sai Baba authored and maintained by the subject, considered defamatory of Sathya Sai Baba by user:SSS108

Andries 09:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I received no response from Wikipedia:request for comments. I will resort to Wikipedia:mediation as per Wikipedia:dispute resolution. Andries 09:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This time post the link so other's can comment and view your request. And you must also add the ruling from ArbCom about the removal of original research and critical website links against Sathya Sai Baba: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba. SSS108 ^talk-email 01:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Andries just reinserted Priddy's defamatory page about Sathya Sai Baba despite the link not being Priddy's homepage and in violation of ArbCom's ruling: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba. Priddy's homepage is already listed. Andries also claimed, feigning neutrality, that he was going to request mediation to resolve this issue. Instead of filing a mediation request, he reverted the article. This proves that Andries is pushing his Anti-Sai Agenda once again. 14:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you start removing in the article Michael More the websites critical of George W. Bush? Clearly Moore, like Priddy can defame in his own article anybody he likes. Andries 16:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike Michael More, Priddy is not a notable public figure. Michael More has been published in numerous sources, interviewed on tv, magazines and newspapers. There is no comparision between Priddy and Moore. Also, More's personal sites are about him. They are not exclusively about Bush (as Priddy's site is exclusively about Sathya Sai Baba). Useless to make your case here. Make it in mediation. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that Robert Priddy is not a notable person then this should be resolved by Wikipedia:Afd not by removing one of his homepages from the article. Andries 17:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andries, what exactly is your problem? In order to resolve this dispute, YOU filed a request for mediation. Before the mediation request can even be accepted, you are reverting the article. It has already been agreed that this issue is contentious. You agreed to it. I agreed to it. If neither ProEdits or Kazlev agree to mediation, then my edits stand. Stop trying to circumvent the process with your bias and POV pushing. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a millimeter closer

[..] If Robert Priddy 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 Michael Moore who became notable because of his criticism of George W. Bush and of coures his homepage should be linked to even it is defamatory reg. Bush. See Talk:Michael_Moore#Violation_of_WP:BLP. If you had your own article then of course that article could link to your homepage defaming me and Priddy. Andries 18:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Sathya Sai Baba. And I am not alone in my opinion. You were warned against including that link by admin [2]. 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 [3]. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Andries 18:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andries moved this discussion from my talk page here. Therefore, he is arguing his case on comments placed elsewhere. The Michael Moore and George W. Bush pages do not have ArbCom rulings like Sathya Sai Baba does. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what? They are governed by the same policies and there are a lot more eyeballs watching those articles, so they are most probably closer to the spirit of Wikipedia policies than this article. Andries 18:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested a Wikipedia:third opinion. Andries 18:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a non-issue. Admin has already warned Andries about not including the link and said it violates the ArbCom ruling: See For Yourself. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you refuse dispute resolution. Andries 19:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to resolve. Admin has already spoken. You are simply pushing forward with your Anti-Sai smear campaign because you are the former webmaster and current "Main Representative, Supervisor and Contact" for the largest website attacking Sathya Sai Baba on the internet [4]. Stop using Wikipedia as a soapbox and a battleground for your Anti-Cult/Guru/SSB beliefs. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked SSS108 to explain one his fundamental arguments and he refused to answer (evidence). ekantiK ^talk 14:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to explain "fundamental arguments". An Admin spoke in regards to the link. That is all I need to say. SSS108 ^talk-email 06:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]