→Evidence presented by Momento: evidence |
|||
Line 168: | Line 168: | ||
==Evidence presented by Momento== |
==Evidence presented by Momento== |
||
[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]], [[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]], [[User:Msalt|Msalt]] and [[User:Nik Wright2|Nik Wright2]] have frequently rejected consensus, edit warred, made personal attacks and done whatever they can to try and drive me away from Wikipedia. |
|||
⚫ | |||
On Feb 8, 2008 without discussion [[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] reverted over 1000 edits and 12 months of co-operation and consensus to a version of the Prem Rawat article that suited his POV.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=189984883&oldid=189956902] Despite being reverted by two involved editors [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=190020245&oldid=190017914][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=190026247&oldid=190024891] FS once again replaced the consensus version with his own before being reverted once again. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=190029962&oldid=190029740][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=190035047&oldid=190034767]. Then [[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]], in his first ever PR edit, reverted the consensus version claiming "no explanation for massive deletion" despite clear opposition on the talk page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=190038864&oldid=190037954][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat&diff=190034844&oldid=190032537#Thousands_of_edits_lost] The FS version was reverted to a compromise version and the article remained stable for several days [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=190040542&oldid=190040070] until once again FS made a massive 26,000 bytes edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=190923935&oldid=190922295] before being reverted by [[User:Sarcasticidealist|Sarcasticidealist]].[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=190927690&oldid=190923935] So began WB's involvement in the PRa, with unqualified support of FS's obliteration of consensus, tendentious edit and edit warring. |
|||
===WillBeBack=== |
|||
In the mean time, the now retired, [[User:Onefinalstep|Onefinalstep]] also added the house image and the EPO link without discussion. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=190014459&oldid=190009890][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=190014459] And [[User:Msalt|Msalt]] arrived and began removing sourced material that didn't suit his POV.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=192016565&oldid=192016081][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=192122348&oldid=192094465][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=192123010&oldid=192122348][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=192392678&oldid=192391970][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=192748238&oldid=192695442] His second ever PRa edit was to revert my removal of unsourced material.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=191972903&oldid=191965440]. |
|||
The house image was objected to by several editors and was removed by Admin Jeepday pending outside input. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat&diff=190550685&oldid=190539673] Despite the objections and an IfD, the image was inserted 3 times by FS [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=190149223&oldid=190138850][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=192841710&oldid=192841364][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=193023342&oldid=193002409][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=190170650&oldid=190159176] And once by Msalt.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=prev&oldid=193075407] The image was rejected by IfD on Feb 13.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=193076000&oldid=193075407] The undiscussed EPO link was also vigorously opposed and deleted 12 times by 6 editors before WB proposed a "one link" compromise on Feb 13 and removed EPO. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat&diff=191086947&oldid=191084787][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=191086740&oldid=191085700] It was promptly added by FS and he and OFS added it a further 7 times. |
|||
⚫ | Example |
||
⚫ | FS also inserted "Balyogeshwar" into the lead without discussion or consensus.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=prev&oldid=192094465] And despite objections on the talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat&diff=192095725&oldid=192093474][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat&diff=prev&oldid=194098219] FS inserted "Balyogeshwar" 5 times without consensus. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=prev&oldid=192094465][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=prev&oldid=192128659][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=192328991][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=192344100][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=192396219][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=192407466][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=192514791][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=192521764][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=192839997] |
||
[[User:Nik Wright2|Nik Wright2]] then started an edit war with his first PRa edit in months by adding 12,000 bytes of undiscussed, contested material.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=194167300&oldid=194156823] [[User:Janice Rowe|Janice Rowe ]] reverted.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=194169595&oldid=194167300] NW reverted back.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=194169595][[User:Nandesuka|Nandesuka]] protected until March 4.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=194174152] |
|||
So there we have it. The first two weeks of torrent of tendentious editing, edit wars, POV pushing and unqualified support by [[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]], [[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]], [[User:Msalt|Msalt]] and [[User:Nik Wright2|Nik Wright2]]. |
|||
Two other page protections followed, the first preceded by edit warring by FS and JR [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=198674711&oldid=198649756] and the second by a revert by [[User:Mael-Num|Mael-Num]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=2151809860]. I was not involved but WB and Ms continue to claim that I was responsible. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=270179379][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat_2/Evidence#Momento_was_heavily_involved_in_the_3_Prem_Rawat_page_protections] The next months included similar behavior by [[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]], [[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]], [[User:Msalt|Msalt]] and [[User:Nik Wright2|Nik Wright2]] with the addition of numerous complaints against me filed by FS and the beginning of WB's misinformation campaign against me - |
|||
WillBeBack asks me three times if "Collier is the most reliable source available",[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Divine_Light_Mission&diff=prev&oldid=211915347][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Divine_Light_Mission&diff=next&oldid=211943956][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Divine_Light_Mission&diff=next&oldid=211963319] I say "No" three times.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Divine_Light_Mission&diff=next&oldid=211942649][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Divine_Light_Mission&diff=next&oldid=211959969][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Divine_Light_Mission&diff=next&oldid=211969104] He then misleads another editor by falsely claiming "Momento asserts that Collier is the most reliable source available".[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jossi&diff=prev&oldid=212472430] |
|||
Fast forward to Jan 2009. [[User:Nik Wright2|Nik Wright2]] is topic banned after filing a fraulent AE complaint, vigorously supported by FS.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&diff=265574767&oldid=265561494] FS files a fraudulent AE complaint vigorously supported by WB. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=267065863#Momento_at_Prem_Rawat_.28continued.29] And files another one vigorously supported by WB and Ms.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=270086094#Momento_at_Prem_Rawat_.28continued.2C_again.29] |
|||
===Will Beback=== |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | Example 1: WillBeBack tells two lies in two sentences in the AE. WillBeBack writes "Momento bears blame in this matter in that he instigated changes to material that had already been discussed, was sourced, and was stable. And then he proceeded to edit war over it".[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&diff=266684564&oldid=266678111] A check of the history shows that Cla68 is the editor who "instigated changes to material that had already been discussed, was sourced, and was stable" and shows that WillBeBack and Cla68 were "edit warring" before I make my second edit. |
||
Cla68 inserts undiscussed material [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=266484532&oldid=266308818] |
Cla68 inserts undiscussed material [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=266484532&oldid=266308818] |
||
Line 197: | Line 215: | ||
I remove it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=266590134] |
I remove it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=266590134] |
||
WillBeBack then claims "Momento bears blame etc." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&diff=266684564&oldid=266678111] WillBeBack refuses to retract his claim when I presented this evidence, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=266833692] and repeats it again.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&diff=269208265&oldid=269199541] |
WillBeBack then claims "Momento bears blame etc." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&diff=266684564&oldid=266678111] WillBeBack refuses to retract his claim when I presented this evidence, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=266833692] and repeats it again.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&diff=269208265&oldid=269199541]. |
||
Example 2: WB continues his campaign on this RfA's talk page. He claims "Momento has added other links, so his claim of enforcing the "one-link" consensus seems divorced from reality. I will include these issues in my evidence". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat_2/Evidence&diff=273327029&oldid=273308631] I didn't, and so WB ignored my request for evidence.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat_2/Evidence&diff=next&oldid=273388471] |
|||
⚫ | |||
Example 4: In the third AE WillBeBack claims that the three protections in 2008 were "due to edit conflicts of which Momento was a part".[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=270179379] I pointed out I was only a minor participant in one and that I had made only 3 edits immediately preceding these protections whereas FrancisSchonken made 21.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&diff=next&oldid=270179379] WillBeback dismisses my argument because he claims "reverting is the main problem". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&diff=next&oldid=270211221] Edit history shows in the week before each protection period FrancisSchonken made 12 reverts, I made 2. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&diff=next&oldid=270311254] Either way WBB protects FrancisSchonken who is edit warring prior to the three 2008 protections, not me as WillBeBack claims. |
|||
===Reply to WillBeBack=== |
|||
It isn't necessary that other editor's tell WillBeBack that he has "stepped over the line", it is enough that I have asked him on numerous occasions to stop misrepresenting me and he has continued to do so. |
|||
In his reply above WBB writes "Momento seems to forget what he's written, then accuses me of misrepresenting him" and refers to an exchange about The Fifth Estate magazine. As you can see from my complaint, he did. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=253681289] |
|||
WBB claims "Momento insisted that my error was the main topic of article talk page". I did not. Referring to WBB's continual misrepresenting I wrote "This is the topic at hand and will continue to be so every time you do it". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=253703040] |
|||
Likewise it is irrelevant that there was a dispute over Collier, what is important is that WBB deliberately misrepresented me. |
|||
Read these three diffs regarding user:Maelefique, user:Revera, user:Francis Schonken and the comments of mine they refer to and it is clear they are "deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors". |
|||
===Msalt=== |
===Msalt=== |
||
⚫ | Msalt claims "Momento has argued that no press should be used as sources at all, only scholarly journals, because they are better sources. He was refuted in RfCs and Noticeboard discussions".[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat_2/Workshop&diff=274081757&oldid=274080281]. Where's the diff? |
||
Like WillBeBack, Msalt doesn't hesitate to "Lie, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors". |
|||
⚫ | |||
Examples 2 - 13, his evidence on this page which is refuted below. |
|||
===Reply to Msalt=== |
|||
'''Re "Rejects consensus" -''' These three complaints are completely false. |
|||
⚫ | |||
2) Msalt claims''' I repeatedly deleted an image during its IfD [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&curid=663540&diff=192926449&oldid=192924018] against consensus [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat&diff=190812144&oldid=190811820] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat&diff=190919434&oldid=190915801] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat&diff=191221670&oldid=191220817] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat&diff=192928745&oldid=192928434] even after a neutral editor's warning [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat&diff=191117248&oldid=191107831].''' Msalt confuses what WillBB and FS want as "consensus" and it wasn't a "warning". This image was added without discussion or consensus by Onefinalstep on Feb 8. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=190072935&oldid=190068136] So I removed it. Other editors objected to the image. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat&oldid=193517900#The_Photo] On Feb 11, Admin [[User:Jeepday|Jeepday]] removes it pending outside input and noted "As [[User:Momento|Momento]] pointed out above, per [[WP:BLP]] questionable content is removed immediately". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat&diff=190550685&oldid=190539673] The image was rejected by IfD. Any fault lies with the editors who kept on inserting it.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=190149223&oldid=190138850][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=192841710&oldid=192841364][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=193023342&oldid=193002409][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=190170650&oldid=190159176] Including Msalt.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=193075407] |
|||
3) "Balyogeshwar" was added without discussion or consensus by Francis Schonken in Feb 2008 (see Example 3 above), And the RfC was definitely dishonestly framed. Contrary to WBB "It (Balyogeshwar) was '''NOT''' primarily used at a time when he achieved great fame in the West as a child-guru". In the west he was known exclusively as "Guru Maharaj Ji". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat&diff=268796441&oldid=268790775] So it was FS who rejected consensus, not me. |
|||
⚫ | Claims I "reject consensus" - One is private discussion on an editor's talk page has nothing to do with "rejecting consensus".[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mael-Num&diff=104050867&oldid=104047880] The other concerns the IfD (see above) and the third "Balyogeshwar" (see above). So it was FS who rejected consensus, not me. |
||
Contrary to Msalt I was upholding the version that was stable against undiscussed additions made without consensus. |
|||
Msalt claims that in the last year, "Momento has -- without support -- removed |
Msalt claims that in the last year, "Momento has -- without support -- removed |
||
Balyogeshwar at least 6 times (with misleading edit summaries on the first 5)" |
Balyogeshwar at least 6 times (with misleading edit summaries on the first 5)" (see above) The first three diffs relate to Jan 2009. In this case Cla68 has, according to Wiki guidelines, changed the tense of the opening sentence from the "past" to the "present". Therefore it is no longer correct to say Rawat '''is known as''' Balyogeshwar, Guru Maharaj Ji or the Lord of the Universe. This diff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=269040103&oldid=268814102] is part one of a two part move, here is the next edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=269040103]. These two edits and the summaries are correct.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=266593391&oldid=266591552] |
||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=266500258&oldid=266484532] Attempts to note Rawat was known as "Balyogeshwar" in India are rebuffed. |
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=266500258&oldid=266484532] Attempts to note Rawat was known as "Balyogeshwar" in India are rebuffed. |
||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=268116201&oldid=268115320] |
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=268116201&oldid=268115320] |
||
Line 244: | Line 233: | ||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=192924018&oldid=192915741]. |
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=192924018&oldid=192915741]. |
||
⚫ | |||
===Conclusion=== |
|||
'''Re My "disrespectful and sarcastic replies to warnings, blocks and refused unblocks from admins".''' |
|||
This doesn't need answering other than to say I don't consider any of my comments as disrespectful as "Momento's quibbling is not worth discussion".[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat&diff=270148402&oldid=270144865] |
|||
'''Re "Editing while blocked"''' |
|||
As the diff shows I wrote "independent editors who understand Wiki policy are doing it for me". There is no suggestion I'm doing the editing. As for the "sock puppet" claim, a simple user check would have proven that false. And it wasn't just Jossi who objected, Andries wrote "I have been involved in the set of Prem Rawat articles from the start and I do not think that VictorO and Momento are sockpuppets of anybody". As for the "evidence", read this tripe if you can be bothered. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Momento] |
|||
⚫ | |||
First page protection - |
|||
'''Msalt claims that "in the days leading up to this first page protection, Momento edit warred, over".''' |
|||
'''The POV tag'''. It was added three times by three anon editors on Feb 19, 20 & 21 and removed three times by me on Feb 20, 21 & 23. When it was attached by involved editor FrancisSchonken, I stopped removing it. One revert a day that stopped 5 days before protection.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=192928195&oldid=192927935] |
|||
'''Claimed I edit warred over image'''. It was an undiscussed insertion and there was no consensus to keep (see above) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=193076000&oldid=193075407] |
|||
'''Claimed I edit warred over EPO link.''' The EPO link was added without discussion by an anon editor on Jan 20 2008 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=185641951&oldid=185525904] and deleted 14 times by 6 editors before WillBeBack proposed a one link compromise on Feb 13 and removed it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat&diff=191086947&oldid=191084787][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=191086740&oldid=191085700] It was promptly added by FrancisSchonken and removed 17 times by 8 editors before page protection.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=191104959] I last removed it on Feb 15, eleven days before protection. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=191750851&oldid=191747269] |
|||
'''Claimed it edited warred over "Balyogeshwar".''' FrancisSchonken's undiscussed insertion of "Balyogeshwar" is well documented in Example 3 above. My last removal of it was Feb 17, over a week before protection. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=192521764] |
|||
Conclusion, in every case cited by Msalt I was removing material that was inserted without discussion or consensus and, having been inserted did not have consensus to stay. In every case I stopped editing on these points well before protection. Five days in two cases and over a week in the other two. I was not the reason for this protection. |
|||
Second page protection- |
|||
In the week before protection there were 144 edits of which I made 18, even Msalt made 10, so I hardly played a "major role" as Msalt states. Msalt's characterization of my 9 edits on the 15th as POV pushing is offensive. One was to remove unsourced material, seven added sourced material, almost all of which remains in the article, and one was a minor edit. Adding sourced material that isn't negative isn't POV pushing. I was not the reason for this protection. |
|||
This RfA is one of dozens of attacks by [[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]], [[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]], [[User:Msalt|Msalt]] and [[User:Nik Wright2|Nik Wright2]]. If I had more words I could refute every single complaint against me. |
|||
I'll deal with the rest tomorrow. |
|||
==Evidence presented by Nik Wright2== |
==Evidence presented by Nik Wright2== |
Revision as of 01:47, 7 March 2009
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.
It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.
This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.
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, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.
Evidence presented by Will Beback
Personal note: I am not a current or former follower of Prem Rawat, nor of any similar spiritual teacher. Neither do I adhere to any belief system opposed to Prem Rawat. Nor do I know anyone personally who is current or former member, or who has a strong opinion about the topic. Though I recall reading about him in the newspaper a long time ago, I had no other knowledge of him before editing Wikipedia.
Noticeboards, mediation, and RfCs since 2008
Evidence regarding Momento
Tendentious editing and edit warring
Momento has been blocked repeatedly for edit warring, including twice in May. See also 1RR_on_Prem_Rawat
Deleting sourced information without cause: [1]
Keeps removing material that has been discussed at length, and for which sources are well-known.[2]
He adds text and then complains about it as an example of my "POV editing".
In one edit he adds more material, strongly insisting it's necessary for NPOV. Another edit, he removes the same material as incompatible with NPOV.
Sourcing issues
- The source is reality.[3]
Makes repeated claims that mainstream newspapers and news sources aren't reliable sources, despite input from WP:RSN
- Claims that NY Times is not a reliable source. [4][5][6][7][8]
- Claims that LA Times is not a reliable source. Calls material taken straight from it "extremely poorly sourced"[9]
- Claims that Rolling Stone is not a reliable source.[10]
- Says that Saturday Review and Current Biography are "two pathetic sources".
Claims that scholars are wrong, or that multiple sources are simply copying each other.[11][12]
Removes sourced material, claiming WP:REDFLAG: [13] Changes sourced material to say the opposite: [14]
Says, "Please do not remove sourced material without discussion." Removes sourced material, saying, "removed unsourced material".
Keeps adding quotes from a single source ("...more Levine...", "added more Levine", "added more", "added more ...", "added more...", "added more Levine") and then complains about overuse of the source.("...most encyclopedias would use sources such as Levine's ...sparingly but it is the major source for this article with more than 50 quotes.")
Insists Cagan is "no problem" despite ongoing questions.[15] Insists that Cagan is the most reliable source no matter how many other sources, scholarly or journalistic, contradict her.[16] After a thorough investigation which showed how unreliable Cagan is as a source, Momento continues to suggest using the book as a source for self-serving material.[17]
Complains about splitting material from a single source,[18][19] does the same himself.[20]
Refusing to acknowledge a consensus
The 14,000 word discussion about Balyogeshwar is an example of how Momento refuses to acknowledge a consensus of involved editors, or even input from uninvolved editors.
He keeps removing the material:
- 20:17, February 17, 2008 (Inappropriate for lede, not mentioned in article)
- 22:08, February 18, 2008
- 10:19, February 19, 2008 (Don't not post uncited material)
- 10:44, January 26, 2009 (focusing on the present as per Cla88)
- 01:27, February 7, 2009 (Balyogeshwar removed to childhood section as per talk)
Insists that material didn't have consensus even though it had been in the article for a year and had been thoroughly discussed at the time of addition.[21]
Comes up with excuses for ignoring results of an RfC, saying it was "dishonestly framed",[22] and for why a consensus of editors isn't valid.[23]
Makes essentially the same proposal year after year:
- "Prem Rawat (b. Prem Pal Singh Rawat, 10 December 1957 in Haridwar, India), also known as Maharaji (formerly Guru Maharaj Ji) and called Balyogeshwar in India,.... 2008
- "Prem Pal Singh Rawat ... (born December 10, 1957), also known as Maharaji (formerly Guru Maharaj Ji) and Balyogeshwar in India, ...." 2009
Assuming bad faith and making uncivil comments
- "Will, I've assumed, maybe incorrectly, that English is your first language. But since you think "maybe" and "probably" are almost synonymous, it probably isn't. If so, you'll have to accept that people with a greater grasp of English words, grammar and usage and an extensive knowledge of Rawat will see that this article is very biased both in structure and source selection...."[24]
- "It's just another case of trawling through newspaper articles until you can find "fortress" "marble" "chandeliers" and sticking them in to promote a POV. ..." [25]
- "..Cagan did a lot of research. For example, she reveals that the three leaders of the Australian anti-Rawat group have all been found guilty of illegal behavior by Australian courts... This is why some people will make a huge effort to try and discredit her.[26]
- "..And that of course is the major problem with this article and your POV. What Rawat says or does is not nearly as important to you as what some crazy follower does." [27]
- "...This article was written by and according to WillBeback's anti-Rawat POV and everyone else has been playing catchup ever since...." [28]
- ".. Intelligent and NPOV mediating with Prem Rawat articles which still annoys the anti Rawat crew."[29]
Over-reaching BLP claims
Deleting text from other editors' talk page comments: "removed according to BLP" But the comments weren't such a violation that he can't quote them a half hour later in a complaint.[30]
Though he portrays himself as a defender of BLP, he has repeatedly inserted poorly sourced negative material about living persons such as ex-followers and estranged family members.[31][32][33][34][35][36][37] The latter includes a source, Cagan, that editors had previously agreed to use only for non-contentious assertion and which was later found to be outright questionable.[38]
Other spurious deletions on BLP grounds: [39][40]
Other problematic behaviors
- Forum shopping: When no one would block me at WP:AE, he posts to another page trying to get me blocked.[41]
- Interferes with Millennium '73 FAC
- In addition to objecting strenuously to the existence and contents of the article, Momento made edits contrary to the suggestions of FA reviewers. They suggested having fewer quotations, and yet he kept adding more, more, and more quotes, even redundant ones.
Deletes sourced, neutral information: [42][43]
Obstructionist: [44]
Unhelpful editing practices
Momento repeatedly transcribes blocks of text from sources into articles without marking them as quotations, sometimes making a few small changes in the text, which is a form of plagiarism.[45][46][47][48]
He delete text while leaving sources, effectively moving the citations to other sentences and thereby scrambling the referencing.[49][50] Even claiming that it's unsourced.[51] And changed the source for a quotation while leaving the old citation.[52] Splits assertions from their citations.[53] Adds unsourced quotation.[54]
Ex-Premie-Org dispute
One of the long running disputes has been over linking to, or even mentioning, Ex-Premie.Org (EPO). The dispute also involved other websites, both pro and con, some of which contained derogatory materials about ex-followers. To avoid this dispute I suggested, and several editors agreed, to limit the article to a single external link to the subject's personal website.[55][56][57] I have personally removed many links, including those to EPO, to maintain that compromise. Because EPO hosts a large number of "convenience copies" of copyrighted materials, it probably should not be linked according to WP:EL. However I do not believe that linking to it would violate WP:BLP, and therefore deleting the link should not be exempt from 3RR.
Momento deletes even properly sourced references to it on BLP grounds.[58][59][60]
January EPO deletions [61] [62] [63] [64] [65]
Earlier EPO deletions: [66][67]
Single purpose editor with a conflict of interest and a strong POV
Since he started editing in 2005, Momento has made 1996 main space edits, at least 1855 of them to Rawat-related articles.[68] Since the close of the ArbCom case in May 2008, Momento has made about 1500 edits, less than a dozen have been to pages unrelated to Prem Rawat-related. [69]
Momento reacts to the insertion of any negative material about Prem Rawat as POV pushing.[70] He is quick to call even the most minor edits as a "POV edit". He has repeatedly deleted sourced, neutrally-presented information that is in any way negative.[71][72][73][74](long discussion of the material before Momento deleted it.[75]) [76][77][78]
There is also evidence that Momento has an undisclosed conflict of interest. He has added material that he wrote without identifying himself to other editors as the author. He has added material written by a close associate that he knew was self-published. When another user called him by his real first name, he spread complaints and demands that the editors be punished, but didn't seek to have the information oversighted. I have sent evidence about these matters to the ArbCom privately.
Summary
Momento is a tendentious, single purpose editor who pushes a POV on a topic with which he has a very strong connection. He picks fights rather than seeking consensus, ignores consensus when one forms, and assumes bad faith on the part of other editors. He deletes properly sourced and neutrally presented material, and even edit wars, using BLP as an excuse. He engages in poor editing practices, including making biased appraisals of the reliability of sources, mixing up citations, and plagiarising quotations. I do not believe that this editor can function in a neutral or objective manner on this topic.
Reply to Rumiton
Rumiton claims that I have "tried to lower the tone of this article, to make it parrot the views and tone of the tabloid press." As evidence of me parroting the views of the "tabloid press" he cites edits in which I added factual material from the Associated Press, Harper's, and The New Republic. It is incorrect, to say the least, to label those sources "tabloid press". Rumiton even complimented one of the sources, saying "it's an elegantly worded portrait of the Maharaji I knew and still know."[79] This is a spurious complaint.
Rumiton also complains that I didn't promptly remove a (non) link to Ex-Premie.Org on January 20 even though I was in the middle of an announced vacation.[80] Claiming that I am at fault for failing to revert an edit while on vacation seems like another spurious complaint. For the record, I've repeatedly removed links from the article to enforce the one-link compromise agreed upon in early 2008.[81][82][83] Whether the link is a "radical violation of BLP" is a matter in dispute and may need to be decided by the ArbCom.
Reply to Momento
Momento calls me a "fiercely anti-Rawat editor", but provides no evidence whatsoever. I've never made any disparaging comments about Prem Rawat, his teachings, organizations, or followers, IIRC.
Momento has made at least a dozen accusations of harassment since October 2008.
I've never seen another editor agreeing with him that my behavior has been harassing or otherwise inappropriate. No one has warned me publicly or privately that I've stepped over the line. I have always stayed civil, I've tried to keep personal issues off of article talk pages, and have remained focused on improving the project.
Momento seems to forget what he's written, then accuses me of misrepresenting him. (highlight in original, underlining added)
- The Fifth Estate and every magazine/newspaper that repeats its material should be considered suspect since it was its reporter that attacked Rawat. Is there any doubt that the Fifth Estate knew of Halley's attack before hand? Momento (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[84]
- Will,I have warned you several times about misrepresenting me. "Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editor" is unacceptable. I did not assert "that the Fifth Estate , and anyone influenced by their writing, may be an unsuitable source because of his unproven suspicion that the editors there many have known about the pie throwing incident beforehand". I said "The Fifth Estate and every magazine/newspaper that repeats its material should be considered suspect since it was its reporter that attacked Rawat". This is not an isolated incident, he does it constantly. ... 23:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[85]
Even though I apologized for the "error",[86] Momento insisted that my error was the main topic of article talk page.[87]
Momento's "Example 1" repeats an exchange from May 2008. There had been a dispute over whether a memoir by a former member, Sophia Collier, was a reliable source, and how it should be used. Momento had argued that some assertions in it could not be used. Later, in an unrelated matter, he deleted an assertion from a signed AP article with a conflicting assertion cited to Collier, writing "Eye witness trumps all".[88] I questioned him on this. By the end of the discussion, Jossi, Jayen and I all agreed that Collier was not a suitable source for that material, so my point was valid and Momento was making an incorrect policy call.[89] The fact that I questioned his editing choice he now calls harassment. Momento has used this exchange over and over again to attack me or to change the subject.[90][91][92][93]
Momento has made similar accusations of harassment against user:Maelefique,[94] user:Revera[95], user:Francis Schonken[96]
Reply to Jayen466
Jayen may have forgotten, but the initial draft at User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal7 was the outcome of a lengthy discussion at User_talk:Steve_Crossin/Mediation/Prem_Rawat/Archive1#Issue/Discussion topic C: 'Opulent/Sumptuous lifestyle. Before we did that work, the issue was almost entirely omitted from the article despite being part of the subject's notability and, in the words of one scholar, a topic of "considerable controversy"; see Talk:Prem Rawat/Lifestyle. Jayen calls the discussions of this material "mostly amicable and productive", but he perhaps forgets the charges of bias and bad faith,[97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105] and the repeated objections by Momento to even considering the matter.[106][107][108][109][110] Jayen forgets Momento's insistence on using a poor quality source,[111] even when that source contradicted a scholar and mainstream newspapers,[112] or his insistence that his personal knowledge proved scholars and news sources were incorrect.[113] Jayen also forgets Rumiton's disruptive and undiscussed deletion of material that had been stable in the article for months, and which had been the product of another legnthy discussion,[114] in order to prove a point.[115] Jayne calls it productive, but we never achieved final consensus during the mediation on any version, despite writing 64,000 words over two months discussing it. This another example of stonewalling by some editors to keep negative material out of the article, no matter how well-sourced and or how much a part of the mainstream view of the subject it may be. Will Beback talk 01:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Momento
Francis Schonken, Will Beback, Msalt and Nik Wright2 have frequently rejected consensus, edit warred, made personal attacks and done whatever they can to try and drive me away from Wikipedia.
On Feb 8, 2008 without discussion Francis Schonken reverted over 1000 edits and 12 months of co-operation and consensus to a version of the Prem Rawat article that suited his POV.[116] Despite being reverted by two involved editors [117][118] FS once again replaced the consensus version with his own before being reverted once again. [119][120]. Then Will Beback, in his first ever PR edit, reverted the consensus version claiming "no explanation for massive deletion" despite clear opposition on the talk page.[121][122] The FS version was reverted to a compromise version and the article remained stable for several days [123] until once again FS made a massive 26,000 bytes edit [124] before being reverted by Sarcasticidealist.[125] So began WB's involvement in the PRa, with unqualified support of FS's obliteration of consensus, tendentious edit and edit warring.
In the mean time, the now retired, Onefinalstep also added the house image and the EPO link without discussion. [126][127] And Msalt arrived and began removing sourced material that didn't suit his POV.[128][129][130][131][132] His second ever PRa edit was to revert my removal of unsourced material.[133].
The house image was objected to by several editors and was removed by Admin Jeepday pending outside input. [134] Despite the objections and an IfD, the image was inserted 3 times by FS [135][136][137][138] And once by Msalt.[139] The image was rejected by IfD on Feb 13.[140] The undiscussed EPO link was also vigorously opposed and deleted 12 times by 6 editors before WB proposed a "one link" compromise on Feb 13 and removed EPO. [141][142] It was promptly added by FS and he and OFS added it a further 7 times.
FS also inserted "Balyogeshwar" into the lead without discussion or consensus.[143] And despite objections on the talk page [144][145] FS inserted "Balyogeshwar" 5 times without consensus. [146][147][148][149][150][151][152][153][154]
Nik Wright2 then started an edit war with his first PRa edit in months by adding 12,000 bytes of undiscussed, contested material.[155] Janice Rowe reverted.[156] NW reverted back.[157]Nandesuka protected until March 4.[158]
So there we have it. The first two weeks of torrent of tendentious editing, edit wars, POV pushing and unqualified support by Francis Schonken, Will Beback, Msalt and Nik Wright2.
Two other page protections followed, the first preceded by edit warring by FS and JR [159] and the second by a revert by Mael-Num [160]. I was not involved but WB and Ms continue to claim that I was responsible. [161][162] The next months included similar behavior by Francis Schonken, Will Beback, Msalt and Nik Wright2 with the addition of numerous complaints against me filed by FS and the beginning of WB's misinformation campaign against me -
WillBeBack asks me three times if "Collier is the most reliable source available",[163][164][165] I say "No" three times.[166][167][168] He then misleads another editor by falsely claiming "Momento asserts that Collier is the most reliable source available".[169]
Fast forward to Jan 2009. Nik Wright2 is topic banned after filing a fraulent AE complaint, vigorously supported by FS.[170] FS files a fraudulent AE complaint vigorously supported by WB. [171] And files another one vigorously supported by WB and Ms.[172]
Will Beback
WB's continual harassment, particularly his campaign of ""lies, including deliberately asserting false information on discussion pages, in order to mislead one or more editors" -
Example 1: WillBeBack tells two lies in two sentences in the AE. WillBeBack writes "Momento bears blame in this matter in that he instigated changes to material that had already been discussed, was sourced, and was stable. And then he proceeded to edit war over it".[173] A check of the history shows that Cla68 is the editor who "instigated changes to material that had already been discussed, was sourced, and was stable" and shows that WillBeBack and Cla68 were "edit warring" before I make my second edit.
Cla68 inserts undiscussed material [174]
Rumiton reverts [175]
Cla68 inserts a new and undiscussed title "Lord of the Universe" into the lead [176]
I remove it [177]
WillBeBack reinserts the undiscussed addition [178]
Rumiton removes it [179]
WillBeBack reinserts it [180]
Pongostick removes it [181]
Surdas reinserts it [182]
I remove it [183]
WillBeBack then claims "Momento bears blame etc." [184] WillBeBack refuses to retract his claim when I presented this evidence, [185] and repeats it again.[186].
Example 2: WB continues his campaign on this RfA's talk page. He claims "Momento has added other links, so his claim of enforcing the "one-link" consensus seems divorced from reality. I will include these issues in my evidence". [187] I didn't, and so WB ignored my request for evidence.[188]
Msalt
Msalt claims "Momento has argued that no press should be used as sources at all, only scholarly journals, because they are better sources. He was refuted in RfCs and Noticeboard discussions".[189]. Where's the diff?
Claims I "reject consensus" - One is private discussion on an editor's talk page has nothing to do with "rejecting consensus".[190] The other concerns the IfD (see above) and the third "Balyogeshwar" (see above). So it was FS who rejected consensus, not me.
Msalt claims that in the last year, "Momento has -- without support -- removed Balyogeshwar at least 6 times (with misleading edit summaries on the first 5)" (see above) The first three diffs relate to Jan 2009. In this case Cla68 has, according to Wiki guidelines, changed the tense of the opening sentence from the "past" to the "present". Therefore it is no longer correct to say Rawat is known as Balyogeshwar, Guru Maharaj Ji or the Lord of the Universe. This diff [191] is part one of a two part move, here is the next edit [192]. These two edits and the summaries are correct.[193] [194] Attempts to note Rawat was known as "Balyogeshwar" in India are rebuffed. [195] [196] [197] [198].
Claims "Momento was heavily involved in the 3 Prem Rawat page protections (see above).
Conclusion
This RfA is one of dozens of attacks by Francis Schonken, Will Beback, Msalt and Nik Wright2. If I had more words I could refute every single complaint against me.
Evidence presented by Nik Wright2
Personal Statement
Firstly it is relevant to state how my involvement with Wikipedia came about: it commenced with a web link being created from the Prem Rawat BLP, to a webpage which contained defamations about myself, and other named former followers of Prem Rawat. I have documented this at archive; my attitude is that it was Wikipedia that came to me, not the other way around, and that therefore my exercise of an SPA is warranted, so long as I abide by the rules.
Abiding conflicts over Policy
In respect of this case, while recognising that WP:AP requires that “The Committee will primarily investigate interpersonal disputes”, in the light of the failure of the previous Arbcom intervention, to provide lasting resolution I would ask the Committee to consider the following: There are five related articles, only one of which is a BLP,
yet the abiding disputes all in one form or another devolve to issues related to interpretations of BLP policy and to the applicability of content between the respective articles. While the behaviour of editors must be of concern, arbitrators might find some long term resolution through consideration of the problems of applying policy in the context of ‘all’ the Rawat articles, not just the BLP. Prem Rawat may indeed be a ‘living person’ but he is also an individual who derives personal benefit from being ‘marketed’ by those organisations which promote him as a ‘teacher’, there is thus an inherent conflict between Wikipedia being used as a promotional tool for a ‘consumable service’ (Prem Rawat’s Knowledge meditation and Rawat’s role as a teacher/speaker) and the need to treat Prem Rawat as a BLP subject within WP policy. At the very least arbitrators would assist understanding of their judgement by stating the salient applicable policies and guidelines and the interpretation and application of those, as the Committee collectively understands them. As an example of the guideline/policy uncertanties I would quote the circumstance in which I was topic banned, Enforcement, an assessment of which I have added to the talk page: example
Tendentious Editing by Rumiton
[[199]] [[200]] [[201]] [[202]] [[203]] [[204]] [[205]] [[206]] [[207]] [[208]] [[209]] [[210]] [[211]] [[212]] [[213]] [[214]] [[215]] [[216]] [[217]] [[218]] [[219]] [[220]] [[221]] [[222]] [[223]] [[224]] [[225]] [[226]] [[227]] [[228]] [[229]] [[230]] [[231]] [[232]] [[233]] [[234]] [[235]] [[236]] [[237]] [[238]] [[239]] [[240]] [[241]] [[242]] [[243]] [[244]] [[245]] [[246]] [[247]] [[248]] [[249]] [[250]] [[251]] [[252]] [[253]] [[254]] [[255]]
- Rumiton has consistently pushed POV
[[256]] [[257]] [[258]] [[259]] [[260]] [[261]] [[262]] [[263]] [[264]] [[265]] [[266]] [[267]] [[268]] [[269]] [[270]] [[271]] [[272]] [[273]]
- Rumiton has engaged in BATTLE in an attempt to stop the use of sources not compliant with his POV
[[274]] [[275]] [[276]] [[277]] [[278]] [[279]] [[280]] [[281]] [[282]] [[283]] [[284]] [[285]] [[286]] [[287]] [[288]] [[289]] [[290]] [[291]] [[292]] [[293]] [[294]] [[295]] [[296]]
Responses to points made by other editors on the RfA page
- The claim that “This dispute predates Wikipedia”. – is a gross overstatement, even if “predates appearance of Wikipedia article” article creation is taken to be the meaning, the nature of any disputation between current and former followers of Prem Rawat has only a marginal relevance to the arguments over WP content.
- The claim that “There are two opposing camps: the current members and the former members. They have profound and irreconcilable differences in their views of the topic.” is a false presentation and opens up an ‘accusation by class’. Of those editors who have openly declared themselves, or who have been identified by others (three former followers were identified as such on a webpage linked to from the Prem Rawat article, prior to any of us contributing to WP ! ) few have have contributed significant amounts of copy or offered material otherwise rejected for inclusion. In large measure the contributions of current followers and former followers have been on the talk pages where the pervading problem has been the inability to achieve consensus, something which all editors, aligned and unaligned have to take responsibility for.
- The claim that: “The "anti-" editors have problems of a different kind. They mostly seem to have little understanding or patience for Wikipedia and their involvement has been often marked poor behaviors. They've insulted both the subject and the "pro-" editors, have engaged in edit wars, have inserted inappropriate links, have been blocked repeatedly, and have shaken their fists at the system in frustration. As a whole, they haven't been productive or NPOV editors.” is a further charactisation that advances the process of ‘accusation by class’, implying that there is a collective approach by those who see Prem Rawat in a negative light. Only two editors who have been identified as former followers have been given multiple blocks and the claims seem more to do with an attempt at ‘guilt by association’ than any real assessment of behaviour.
- The claim that: “ Jayen466 and I are essentially in the middle. I believe we're both trying to bring the topic towards a more neutral middle ground but it's mostly been an unproductive activity.” is a false assertion of ‘exceptional’ neutrality, both Will Beback and “ Jayen466 have taken ‘positions’ over content which appear to reflect POVs and their respective behaviours should be as much subject to examination as any other involved editor.
- Sandstein’s characterisation of the problem as merely that of warring sides is facile. The difficulties are numerous and relate in part to the inconclusive nature of the previous Arbcom judgement. Of course Sandstein’s prescrition of identifying editors as lacking social skills and banning them would certainly have the effect of removing the present participants – although it will do nothing to inhibit opposing groups (if such exist) from encouraging new players to enter the fray.
@ Cla68
- Cla68 joins in with the mythology of the ‘two groups of editors’ who are POV pushing. This picture is illustrated with statements about Jossi which can not now be tested because he is an absent editor. Cla68 also claims that “I'm aware that the anti-Rawat editors have been trying to introduce unreliably-sourced information into the articles”. This claim requires firstly a definition of how an editor is to be judged “anti Rawat” without suspending WP:GF, and then secondly that an indentification of unreliably-sourced information be given – none was provided by Cla68 although I think he may refer to the WP:EL issue which has nothing to do with reliability.
- The assertion (on the impoverished basis of a Google search) that “there really isn't anything out there that wasn't already presented in the Rawat articles” – fundamentally fails to understand the current inadequacies, not merely in the Prem Rawat article but the intimately linked articles on *Hans Rawat , *Divine Light Mission *Elan Vital *Teachings on which there have been long standing and still unadressed proposals to merge one or more of these articles, while the balance used in the WP articles of material published by scholars listed at [297] is a matter still requiring considerable work.
- Cla68 singles out three editors, Francis Schonken, Momento, and Rumiton, yet he neglects to identify that one of those editors, Francis Schonken, has provided a considerable volume of text in the existing articles, which is specifically relevant to the sociological nature of the bulk of the available sources multiple constructive edits. Difficult behaviour may not be tolerable – but difficult behaviour from an editor who writes intelligent copy is hardly the same thing as the obstructive behaviour of an editor who merely uses the talk page as an arena to hold back intelligent consensus without providing any compentent text.
--Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Rumiton
I think Will Beback’s assessment of the editorial terrain is flawed. There are no “groups” here, there are highly individual editors with their own stance on the subject. Indeed, to me, one of the biggest problems we have faced is a relentless attempt by Will Beback himself to make the article reflect his own views, while claiming neutrality.
It is almost impossible to make this discussion behaviour-based without explaining some of the editorial background. As the article explains, Prem Rawat was a child guru in India, who came to the west without parental approval when he was still an adolescent. He represented the Guru-shishya tradition which was revered in his own culture, and knowing (perhaps not caring) that Westerners knew nothing of the background, the British and American tabloid press mostly greeted the situation with delight, heaping scorn and derision on the subject. Ignoring this, Prem Rawat has continued into his adult life as a speaker on the subject of inner peace, and still spends most of the year travelling and propagating the techniques he teaches. Will Beback has, from his first involvement, tried to lower the tone of this article, to make it parrot the views and tone of the tabloid press, while more intelligent sources were readily available. A few examples:
This would be acceptable if it concerned an ordinary editor, we all have our points of view, but Will Beback is an admin who consciously speaks as the Voice of Wikipedia. He has a habit of raining down judgements on the rest of us like Moses while still claiming neutrality.
On 20 Jan 09, an editor inserted a link to a highly derogatory website, [[301]] for which he was later given a one month suspension. Did Will Beback as an administrator protest at this radical violation of BLP principles? No, didn’t seem to. Rumiton (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
MSalt's assertions below are typical of a kind of behaviour that has plagued this article: an editor pretending neutrality and claiming a superior connection to, or understanding of, Wikipedia. He alleges that I am, "in particular" guilty of edit warring, and apparently assumes he won't be challenged. Well, I am challenging. Prove your allegation true or withdraw it and apologise. Rumiton (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Likewise, if MSalt has evidence that Momento has engaged in sockpuppetry [[302]] he should present it. Otherwise he should withdraw his allegation. Rumiton (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Msalt
While factions clearly exist, the real problem is a small number of edit warriors, in particular [Rumiton] and [Momento] (devotees of Prem Rawat), and [Francis Schonken] (ex-devotee of a different religious leader). I'll focus on the worst, Momento.
Momento rejects consensus
1) "There aren't two sides to the truth. It's either true or it isn't. So a compromise isn't a compromise, it's a failure." [303]
2) Repeatedly deleted an image during its IfD [304] against consensus [305] [306] [307] [308] even after a neutral editor's warning [309].
3) Momento still fights having Prem Rawat’s alternate name Balyogeshwar (a redirect to [Prem Rawat]) in the lede even after RfC [310] and after WillBeBack worked out a compromise ok with every other editor, including Momento’s allies Jayen466 [311] and Rumiton [312]. Momento: “consensus doesn't eliminate the need for truth”, [313] RfC was "dishonestly framed." [314] [315].
Outside reviewer [Abcedare]: "I really don't see why this issue is at all controversial. ... "Balyogeshwar" is a term of respect, and not an insult of any form." [316] Momento admits "I know Rawat was called Balyogeshwar and Mangalwadi provides a reliable and verifiable source." [317]
It's pure POV; supporting the strategy of Rawat's DLM church (and its successor, Elan Vital) to minimize Indian and religious trappings. [318] Momento's reply to Abcedare: "Rawat dropped the title "Guru" and all Hindu aspects of his teachings in the early 80s in order to remove any cultural barriers to his message. ... The lead should reflect the article and Rawat moving away from Indian traditions is a major part of his story."[319].
In the last year, Momento has -- without support -- removed Balyogeshwar at least 6 times (with misleading edit summaries on the first 5), [320] [321] [322] [323] [324] [325] and added softening language another four: [326] [327] [328] [329].
Momento's disrespectful and sarcastic replies to warnings, blocks and refused unblocks from admins
To Sandstein [330]
to Shell_Kinney [331]
to PhilKnight & Shell_Kinney ("What a disgrace!") [332]
to Durova (edit summary: "do your job") [333]
to Vassyana [334]
to Vassyana [335]
to Lawrence [336]
to B [337]
to Will Beback [338]
On Noticeboards, he's described WillBeback's statements as lying [339], "relentless ... harassment" [340][341], and "falsifying the editing" [342].
Momento's "editing while blocked"
Momento openly bragged about how “hilarious” it was that he's "editing while blocked” (his section heading) [343] soon after 12 article edits by “Janice Rowe” in 45 minutes. Janice Rowe hadn’t edited in over 2 years, and hasn’t again since March 2008. [344] [345]
Earlier, Momento was blocked for sockpuppetry by BetaCommand, who lifted the block despite strong evidence solely because Momento’s ally Jossi (a respected admin who has since resigned from Wikipedia under a cloud) vouched for him. [346]
Momento was heavily involved in the 3 Prem Rawat page protections
Momento charges WillBeBack with harassment by false accusation: [347] (Also: [348] [349] [350])
“WillBeBack writes ‘It was protected at least three times in 2008, in each case due to edit conflicts of which Momento was a part’. And note that I was not involved in two of them and had a very minor part in one. So that's a lie isn't it.”
WillBeBack assumed good faith and apologized if he had gotten his facts wrong [351] [352], but he needn’t have. Momento's aggressive defense is inaccurate and misleading. He chose precise time periods that excluded his edits, to make his point, but was deeply involved in the edit warring. Specifically:
First Protection: 15:33, 26 February 2008 [353]
Momento: “Before the first protection from 26 Feb to 4 March there were 34 edits in the previous two days - 12 by FrancisSchonken, 4 by Jayen, 3 each by Momento, Janice Rowe, NikWright2, Andries and 2 by WillBeBack and Cirt.” [354]
Momento was blocked on 2/9/2008 (for disruption on Prem Rawat) and 2/14/2008 (for edit warring on the page). [355] He made 3 edits the day of the first protection: reverting new, reliably sourced information about Rawat’s house [356] and making two unilateral, highly POV edits in the four hours before protection.[357] [358]
In the days leading up to this first page protection, Momento edit warred over the page’s POV tag [359] [360], over a picture of Rawat’s house (despite ongoing IfD) [361], over an external link to a critical website [362] [363] [364], and over “Balyogeshwar.”[365] [366] [367] [368]
Second Protection: 18:28, March 16, 2008 [369]
Momento: "Before the second protection there were 21 edits the previous day... I took no part." [370]
Momento edited 9 times on the previous day (March 15th) between 21:50 and 23:20, all POV pushing except the last one here: [371] [372] [373] [374] [375] [376] [377] [378] [379]. He may have meant to say that he didn’t edit the same day as the protection – which is technically true since he stopped at 23:20 the night before, but very misleading.
Third protection: 14:58, 27 May 2008 [380]
Momento: “Before the third protection 27 May to 10 June there were 12 edits in the two previous days - 3 by WillBeBack, 3 by Mukadderat, 2 by Rumiton and Anons and 1 each for MaelNum and Jossi, I took no part.” [381]
Momento was blocked for edit warring on May 18th and again on May 26th, the day before the third protection. [382] It’s technically true that he didn’t edit in the 48 hours before protection – but he was blocked for edit warring half of that time. Momento still made 7 of the last 32 edits before the block. [383] The first, [384] removing the subheading "criticism," started the biggest edit war before protection. [385] [386] [387] [388] [389] [390] [391]
5 of Momento’s 7 edits were contentious. EG, to the article's text "Critical former followers became known as 'ex-premies'," Momento added "and some have undertaken illegal activities against Rawat and his followers" with a highly disputed source. [392]
Note: These protections were last year, but Momento was warned for edit-warring and modifying others' comments as recently as January 24, 2009. [393]
Summary
It's interesting that none of these 3 editors appear to have any perception that there is a problem on these pages, aside from the charge that WillBeBack and I are harassing them for no good reason. There are numerous warnings and blocks for edit warring and disruptive editing (mostly to these 3 editors), 3 page protections, 2 ArbCom cases, and 40 archives of heated discussion on a subject that doesn't change much or have a broad scope. And the cause of it all is WillBeBack harassing Momento? Msalt (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Response to Durova
(moved to the Talk page per MBisanz)
Response to Rumiton
1. "Pretending neutrality and claiming a superior connection to or understanding of Wikipedia"
He charges me with "pretending neutrality," a clear violation of WP:AGF since he knows nothing about me. For the record, I'm not a current or former devotee of Prem Rawat or any other religious figure, nor do I know anyone who is. I have no strong feelings about Rawat, and I don't think I'd even heard of him before February 2008 when I started editing this page. Nor do I claim "a superior connection to, or understanding of, Wikipedia" -- I know I'm probably the greenest editor here. But I assume that all editors, old and new, are entitled to join in the frequent policy debates here. Msalt (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Demand for evidence of edit warring
Rumiton also demands evidence that he edit-warred. I'm working on it, but in the meantime, 2 quick examples:
1) Example from first arbitration case [394]
2) Momento's evidence on this page lists an edit war that starts with 2 Rumiton reverts and 1 by Momento, and is continued by others (Pongostick and Anon). [395]
The edit warring on this page is rarely one-on-one; several acknowledged devotees of Rawat often take turns reverting the controversial edit. Momento and Rumiton are usually among them, along with more occasional editors such as Pedrero and Pongostick (lately), Janice Rowe, Louise Po, Rainer P., Balius, Armeisen and some IP addresses. This does not change the fact of edit warring. Worth noting is that the ex-devotees of Rawat, while fierce in talk page opposition, rarely edit the article. (Nik Wright2 is the only exception that comes to mind, though there are several IP editors that might well be ex-devotees.)
Usually a more neutral editor makes the edit, and faces repeated reversion by Momento, Rumiton etc. even during dispute resolution. This is part of what makes editing these pages so frustrating. Msalt (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Response to Momento
1. Scope
Momento seems to be trying to bring content disagreements into this Arbitration by arguing that those he disagrees with are lying, which is both incivil and missing the point of Arbitration.
2. Personal attacks
Momento has frequently made personal attacks in Talk page discussions and even in edit summaries[396]. Now he is making very charged attacks in this proceeding (sometimes later toning them down, sometimes not.) For example, he charged WillBeBack and I with lying in a deliberate attempt to mislead editors and deceive the Arbcom [397], though he later trimmed it to just an accusation of deliberately lying to mislead editors and harass him [398] which of course is still outrageous.
This is a perfect illustration of Momento's continued inability to edit this page civilly. He seems unable to understand that people may disagree with his editing choices without being deceitful, or bad people, or hating Prem Rawat.
3. Scholarly vs. press sources
Note that Momento doesn't deny saying we should use scholarly sources in this article instead of the press, he just demands proof.[399] The discussion was a year ago amidst 40 archives to talk, and I can't find all the references, but here are a few. Momento justified his repeated deletion of a statement about Rawat's purchase of a house -- cited to the LA Times -- by calling it "extremely poorly sourced" (even claiming exemption from 3RR under BLP):
Extremely poorly sourced compared to an article by a sociologist or religious scholar. And certainly contentious. And irrelevant. This is why there is a BLP policy, to stop editors writing Biographies of Living Persons using the property and social pages of a newspaper. [400] See also [401].
Many of his comments on the subject are in the long thread about using the LA Times and New York Times as sources [402], in which Momento typically continues fighting these sources AFTER a Reliable Sources Noticeboard proceeding [403] yielded a strong and specific consensus against him. Examples:
1) "I'm becoming concerned that the push for using newspapers as sources is going to end in a "dumbing down" of the article. ... This article used to rely on peer reviewed articles from religious scholars and sociologists..."
[404]
2) He also argues that newspaper articles are prone to conjectural interpretation and so must be removed (as he did) under BLP. [405] and [406]
4. "1) This private discussion on an editor's talk page has nothing to do with "rejecting consensus".
As far as I understand, editor's talk pages are public spaces. The discussion is instructive; Momento is talking with an independent (opposing) editor, Mael-Num, who is trying to reach a compromise on the Prem Rawat page. Mael-Num says "Be that as it may, there's got to be some sort of middle ground, because I don't think this issue is going to just go away. You asked me to be more moderate, so here I am asking how I can do that. As I see it, Andries is on one side, and Momento and yourself are on the other. The best possible article is somewhere in between. Compromise seems sound, and that starts with communication." [407]
In response to that, Momento says: ""There aren't two sides to the truth. It's either true or it isn't. So a compromise isn't a compromise, it's a failure."[408] So he is precisely rejecting consensus and compromise in editing the Prem Rawat pages. Msalt (talk) 05:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Response to Jayen466
"Much of the evidence presented by Msalt on Momento is quite old, predating last year's arbitration case" [409]
Momento's editing behavior is part of a long and continuing pattern of disruption. Since the conclusion of the previous Arbcom case, he has been blocked 3 times for actions on Prem Rawat pages for disruption and edit-wwarring, as recently as January 25th, 2009. [410] [411] [412] Since the first Arbcom case ended, he has also received 5 warnings (as recently as January 23, 2009) [413] [414] [415] [416] [417] and 6 more gentle cautions about his behavior. [418] [419] [420] [421] [422] including one from his ally Jossi. [423]
Just as important is his attitude. As I have noted, he has used personal attacks and incivility even in this new Arbitration. More generally, he continues to maintain that he has done nothing wrong despite all his blocks and warnings. When editors present clear, documented evidence of his inappropriate editing in DR, he calls it "harassment" and "deliberate" attempts to "deceive the Arbcom" and "mislead editors." When neutral admins warn or block him, he complains, argues and is disrespectful to them as well. All of this makes it very clear that Momento feels he is right and supported by policy, has no intention of changing his behavior or attitude, and will continue in this behavior until forced to stop. Msalt (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Jayen466
Representative dispute
- As a representiative dispute I would offer User:Steve_Crossin/Mediation/Prem_Rawat/Proposal7, which was kicked off by this proposed addition to the article, which combines statements from various sources for dramatic effect and to me came off like an attack piece. Lengthy, but mostly amicable and productive discussions and over a dozen amended proposals ensued.
- Generally I find it worth noting that although editors have often had diametrically opposed views on which direction to take the article, discussions have on the whole been civil and marked by less overt ill temper and aggression than many other article talk pages in this project. I would say that redounds to the credit of all the editors involved here. Jayen466 20:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Comments on the evidence presented by Msalt
Much of the evidence presented by Msalt on Momento is quite old, predating last year's arbitration case (in which I remember I found some of the evidence brought against Momento less than convincing).
In this arbitration, we should focus on events that have transpired since the last case. A big part of this was the long dispute around how and whether to include the title "Balyogeshwar" in the lede.
While that dispute was very trying for all concerned, I wouldn't single out Momento for blame here. A number of editors made edits that presented this title as though it were in present-day use (i.e. not restricted to historical uses in literature). According to this scholarly publication which is considered among the best and most authoritative in the field, as well as the semi-authorised Cagan biography of Rawat (which unlike some other editors who object to the promotional nature of the book I would consider a reliable source on Rawat's present-day honorifics), Prem Rawat simply calls himself Maharaji today and has shed his other titles. A general Wikipedia principle is that we present people under the names that they self-identify with. For some reason, a number of editors were very reluctant to do so in the lede of Rawat's article.
At any rate, this revert by Francis Schonken did not help things at all, nor did this one in which Francis deleted the source I just linked to (based on the argument that the birthdate given in it appears to be wrong). Momento's following edit was actually in line with the source Francis deleted.
So in my view, the behaviour of a number of editors contributed to the impasse, as was acknowledged in the related AE thread. Nor did it help that Momento was three times dragged to AE in the course of a few days, where the first time resulted in Momento's accuser being blocked for a month, and where by the third time administrators considered blocking Francis for abusing AE. Neither of these trips to AE resulted in sanctions for Momento (although they brought us here), but naturally the situation created tensions that made it harder for everyone to cooperate in good faith.
To make this clear, I would not like to attribute any blame here to any individual editor. We are human beings, and this was simply the failure of a group to communicate effectively. Jayen466 15:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Rejoinder to Msalt
Msalt says about Momento that "Since the conclusion of the previous Arbcom case, he has been blocked 3 times for actions on Prem Rawat pages for disruption and edit-wwarring, as recently as January 25th, 2009, citing the following three links: [424] [425] [426]
Now, the first two of these related to the same incident. Momento was blocked at first, then the blocking admin unblocked him with the following comments:
I've unblocked you. I strongly suggest some sort of WP:DR, such as mediation, on this and related issues. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
* I've relisted this AE case so more evidence and input can be obtained. There's obviously more going on here than meets the eye. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The case was then relisted at AE, and both Momento and Francis were blocked a week later for 72 and 48 hours respectively. Now as for the third alleged blocking of Momento in January, there is nothing in Momento's block log to indicate he was blocked then, nor is there anything in the previous arbcom's sanctions log: [427] In fact, this was the incident where Nik Wright, who started the AE thread against Momento, was blocked for a month, while Momento was warned. So on closer inspection, the alleged three blocks since the last arbcom actually boil down to one, which took place nearly a year ago. Is it surprising if Momento feels that editors are misrepresenting the facts in their accusations of him? Jayen466 23:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The alleged "warnings" likewise appear to boil down to very little upon inspection:
- [428] seems like a spurious complaint by user:Francis Schonken – according to this principle, Momento would appear to have been the only one with grounds for a complaint
- [429] was a justified copyright infringement warning by user:Cirt – what Momento inserted was recognizably similar to the source text – but insufficient source text reformulation is not what this case is about
- [430] was the precursor to Momento's May 2008 block, not a separate incident
- [431] this relates to the removal of the link for the inclusion of which user:Nik_Wright2 was topic-banned for a month, Momento's action being in line, mutatis mutandis, with [432]
- [433] again relates to the removal of the same link; the link is the same one as the one supposedly documenting Momento's third block in the preceding sentence of Msalt's evidence. I'll leave it there, the "cautions" are not much different.
It is clear that Momento is a source of annoyance to some of the other editors here. However, I am far from convinced that the reasons for that are solely or even primarily to do with Momento not abiding by Wikipedia policies and guidelines – in some cases, it seems to me Momento has been the only one to uphold them. I think the reasons for this response to Momento's presence are a little more complicated and bear closer scrutiny. To be sure, I wouldn't give the Rawat article to Momento to write by himself. But neither would I give it to Francis, or Will, or Nik Wright to write by themselves, jointly or severally. Jayen466 01:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.