Wikipedia Evidence Section For 'Ekantik' aka 'Gaurasundara'
Deception By User:Ekantik / User:Gaurasundara on Wikipedia::
Regarding Ekantik aka Gaurasundara → Reference
As this pertains to Ekantik's (sockpuppet Gaurasundara: [2]) presence on the Sathya Sai Baba article, his claims to not being a POV editor [3][4][5] and the reason he began participating on the Sathya Sai Baba article was based soley because of various RFCs [6], I submit the following evidence that positively refutes these claims:
- Ekantik uses numerous online names and to get a glimpse of how active and verbose he is in his attacks against Sathya Sai Baba, here are stats from a single Yahoo Group (specific to the Sai Controversy): Ekantik made 4,495 posts under the name "saiexposed420" (Ref); 1,132 posts under the name "dark_knight_9" (Ref); 571 posts under the name "innitball" (Ref); 170 posts under the name "sai-charan.geo" (Ref); 29 posts under the name "donmakaveli22" (Ref). This totals 6,397 posts made in 4 and half years. These are Ekantik's postings made exclusively on this single Yahoo Group, which does not account for Ekantik's thousands of posts on other groups, forums, blogs, boards, etc.
- Ekantik's blogs specifically against me and my involvement on Wikipedia: [7][8][9]. He also attacks Freelanceresearch and me on a Yahoo Group for our involvement on Wikipedia: [10].
- Ekantik's blogs against Sathya Sai Baba and Sai Devotees and Freelanceresearch: [11][12] [13][14][15][16][17][18][19].
- Ekantik currently attacks Sathya Sai Baba on the QuickTopic forum (under the name "Sai Baba EXPOSED") [20]. He has also taken over a Yahoo Group critical of Sathya Sai Baba: [21]. Ekantik advocates for his blog against Sathya Sai Baba on Gaudiya-Repercussions.com (sample page, one of many), his Gaurasundara's Musings blog (Ref) and on numerous other blogs in the "comment sections".
- Ekantik began his attacks against me first, as evidence on my first response to him: [22]. Since that time, I have created the following webpages and blogs to defend myself against his vicious defamations against me and his illogic against Sathya Sai Baba: On My Site, Sanjay Dadlani Exposed Blog, Sanjay Dadlani References Blog.
- Ekantik unremittingly refers to Sathya Sai Baba, even to this day, as a "homosexual paedophile" [23], "faggot guru child rapist" [24] and "murderer" [25] (among numerous other defamatory slurs and libels).
- Besides spelling and grammar corrections, Ekantik's edits have revolved solely around controversial material on the Sathya Sai Baba article. On the talk page, he immediately began accusing me of using Wikipedia as a battlefield, soapbox, etc., [26][27][28][29][30][31] and engaged me in debate incognito before I discovered his sockpuppet. His presence on the article and his pugnacity toward me are now fully understood in light of his true identity. He also felt the critics section needed to be expanded to reflect at least half of the entire article [32].
- On Thatcher's talk-page, Ekantik's bias slipped through his usually very carefully worded and guarded replies and he said, "The 'number' of abuse testimonies on critical sites does not at all reflect the true nature of the situation...The 'true number' of people in any way mistreated by SSB is impossible to count" [33]
- Ekantik is published and promoted on Andries, M Alan Kazlev, Reinier van der Sandt and Robert Priddy's Anti-Sai websites/webpages. Just a few examples (respectively): Bottom of page and menu bar, see "Dadlani" [34] → Update, bottom of page [35], whole page [36]. Unlike Ekantik, I have not waged extra-Wikipedia attacks against him about his presence and edits on Wikipedia. This issue is about his attempt to pass himself off a neutral editor who was not involved in the Sai Controversy (when he is), that he does not have a POV regarding SSB (when he does), attempting to pass himself off as two separate editors (he even greeted his sockpuppet with his Ekantik account [37]) and his clear antagonism against proponents/devotees (even recently complaining that Kkrystian, a follower of SSB, should be cited for a "COI" -conflict of interest [38]- although he does not think he has a "COI" himself).