Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PatW (talk | contribs) at 00:13, 18 November 2012 (→Prem Rawat). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archiving non-AE requests

Currently we have an archive for AE cases, but I do not see that there is an archive for requests for clarification, requests for amendment, or case requests. Occasionally requests that result in no action are pertinent to later discussions about a dispute, but I have found it a bit taxing to locate such prior requests. If these are not archived should we consider archiving them?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Full cases get archived as subpages of WP:Arbitration/Requests and show up among the pages that can be viewed here. You might have been asking about declined requests. Those survive only in a list at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests, as diffs into the page history of WP:A/R/C. It's my impression that amendments and clarifications which are specific to a previously-argued case, such as WP:ARBMAC, get archived to the talk page of that case (e.g. Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia). Some clarifications are opened without any reference to a specific case and it appears that they go into the archives of the page we are on now, such as Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 4. Anything that modifies a provision of a case, such as a motion, is linked from the case itself. The WP:Arbitration/Index can sometimes be used for finding things. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, well, in a few ways this would be more helpful as an archive similar to those of other noticeboards since those allow for searching through past discussions.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Requests for Amendment or Clarification about a specific case are archived on that case's talk page, whereas those unrelated to a specific case are usually archived on this page. -- Lord Roem (talk) 04:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

@TDA: Using the search box in WP:Arbitration/Index allows all *cases* and *AEs* to be full-text searched. You would have to do your own search to go through the text of past amendments and clarifications. Declined arbitration requests are kept only in the page history so special magic would be required to search their text. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am wondering if we should just do standard archiving for declined case requests so that people can search through the declined cases. Sometimes discussions in declined requests can be pertinent to the dispute at a later date.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

No special magic is necessary to review declined case requests. On the declined case page linked above, click on the 'diff' and go back one edit; this will show you the last state of the discussion. I hope this helps -- Lord Roem (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you can open an individual declined request and read it, but how do you search the text of all declined requests for something you believe was once said? EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

That capability is missing, yes. Now, I'm not strongly opposed to the idea of a declined cases archive, but I wonder how often reading some comment on such a page is actually desired. Lord Roem (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Prem Rawat

Once again the shameful harassment perpetuated for years against those people who were seen to be members of new religious movements has raised its ugly head at Prem Rawat. One letter to Jimbo's talk page has once again triggered a flurry of topic bans, mass reverting and Jimbo Wales breaking all the rules. This time, Blade of the Northern Lights has reacted to the letter by indefinitely topic banning, without warning, four editors for "battleground behaviour" including one editor whose crime is "Oh and the only other editor supporting their edits on the talk page is Rainer P., now also topic banned". A look at Rainer P's editing history shows a) he has edited the Prem Rawat article once this year and b) he has made only nine edits this month to the talk page, most of which concerned his opinion on a photo in the article. How can this possibly be battleground behaviour? And how can it possibly be grounds for an indefinite topic ban? Rumiton has made six edits to the Prem Rawat article in the last month, the majority being trying to fix a technical hitch and cropping a photo. And been far more involved in talk page discussions.. How can this be battleground behaviour? And how can it possibly be grounds for an indefinite topic ban? I have made twenty discussed edits to the article in the last moth including seven edits trying to improve the lay out of photos. How can this be battleground behaviour? And how can it possibly be grounds for an indefinite topic ban? Jimbo's letter then prompted DeCausa to join in by reverting my edits with the edit comment "restore last version prior to series of edits by topic banned users removing sourced material" when in fact neither Rumiton or I were "banned users" when we made the edits. And said in talk "Momento made a series of edits over the last few days filleting out material critical of the subject" which is completely untrue as this edit summary proves. When an independent and experienced editor, Little Olive Oil, disagreed with his action, he started an unpleasant attack on her. And finally Jimbo Wales has repeated his disgraceful, undiscussed edit of Feb 2011 by taking the predictably biased minority opinions of radio exorcist Bob Larson and Ron Rhodes and putting them in the lead to support Jimbo's POV. Have a look at these reliable sources for this claim. Last time Jimbo did this other editors removed his edit within days because it was so obviously a complete breach of just about every Misplaced Pages policy.. There has been no recent "battle ground behaviour" at Prem Rawat. What there had been over the last month is an absence of ad hominem attacks since PatW, the Jimbo Wales letter writer in Feb 2011 and again this week, has been absent. As the following exchanges show, even PatW's supporters Maelefique and Blade of the Northern Light have bent over back wards to avoid banning him for his continuous incivility and battleground behaviour whilst banning others.. His behaviour in this post to Little Olive Oil shows how persistent he is.

Misplaced Pages has stood back far too long while I, and others, have been systematically harassed and penalised because it was easier to support the "admin" than admit that some of them are extremely flawed and should be desysoped. I have been topic banned, good and neutral edits have been reverted and Jimbo Wales has characterised a good man as "a cult leader" by taking the 40 year old opinions of extremist Christian fundamentalists and putting them in the lead. The topic bans should be immediately lifted and Blade of the Northern Lights admonished for abuse of his admin powers. DeCausa's revert should be reverted and he should be admonished for his lack of consensus and incivility and Jimbo Wales should be topic banned from the Prem Rawat articles because he clearly thinks he is above the law.Momento (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

As usual you've completely missed the point. Rainer and Rumiton, Olive Oil and all remaining were supportive of your removing criticism etc.. There was of course no recent 'battle-ground' behaviour for the simple obvious fact that I announced that I was leaving, and left the way open for you and others who share your POV to do as you pleased unopposed. No opposition = no battleground. I left partly in protest at Olive Oil's caving in to your obsequious flattery and subsequent support for your revisions. She knew nothing about the subject of the article or it's history and was ill-equipped to deal with your sneaky methods. Her characterisations of my protesting her compliance as 'personal attacks' was an over-emotional response. She wouldn't even discuss the good points I raised because the 'I'm under attack' screen came up. So what hope was there for me to rationally argue? Anyway leaving the article utterly proved my point. It descended into a pro-Rawat editing fest. QED PatW (talk)

Furthermore your attack on Jimbo Wales for reinstating the information that Rawat has been called a 'cult leader' is ridiculous. There is a ton of reliable sources that attest to this. For example - scholar J. Gordon Melton's "Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America" (New York/London: Garland, 1986 as just one of many. PatW (talk)

Statement by Littleolive oil

I will definitely post on this and will be able to get to it tomorrow. Thanks.(olive (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC))

Comment by DeCausa

I became aware of this article from the various AN/I and RfC publicity it's recently received. I have not edited it previously - nor I have I edited any similar or related articles: I therefore don't have any track record of having a POV on Prem Rawat, "modern religions", cults etc etc. This is not the area of WP I normally edit in.

Between 10 November and 15 November Momento and Rumiton made a series of edits that, in my opinion, had a clear POV to remove negative material about the subject from the article. The material removed had cited sources, appeared relevant and not undue. I examined the sources and they appeared to me to be sound. Some of the edits had been posted for comment on the article talk page. The only editors commenting were Momento, Rumiton and Rainer P. All appeared to be of a like mind. All three editors were subsequently topic banned for battleground behaviour etc and clearly share the same POV. As can be seen from his post on Jimbo's talk page and from the article and talk page history, PatW had for long been making edits from a contrary stance from this grouping - and to an extent had been a lone voice, at least in its long-standing consistency. However, he had then - apparently out of despair - dropped out of resisting the POV editing of this grouping.

It seems clear enough that the POV edits of between 10 and 15 November were able to occur because PatW dropped out. With the topic bans of Momento, Rumiton and Rainer P., it seemed to me, as a neutral observer, the most reasonable thing to do was to restore the article to the pre-10 November position, a version less tainted by edits by battleground behaviour editors and POV-pushing, so that a new consensus of editors can develop from that base rather than a POV-inspired base. I don't intend to edit the article further. I don't think I have anything else to say. DeCausa (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be a case request? --Rschen7754 23:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't know. Momento will have to answer that. DeCausa (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Hold on

Until it's clarified whether this is a request for a new case, or a request for arbitration enforcement, or a request for clarification/amendment, or just a complaint...please don't post further. I will ask that an arbitration clerk contact the initiator to clarify what the intention is here. Risker (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

When notified of my topic ban Blade of the Northern Lights said if I wanted to appeal I should "should lodge an appeal at WP:AE" . When I asked Blade of the Northern Lights to clarify that since no "Request for Arbitration" had been filed, he replied "The reason I said AE is that this is a sanction related to an ArbCom case, Prem Rawat 2, and that's the normal place to appeal sanctions covered by arbitration cases".Momento (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

AE? That's that-a-way. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

BoNL's link led to the Request page but I'm not making a Request for Enforcement nor a new case or a request for clarification/amendment, or a complaint, and since he didn't file a Request for Enforcement there's no place on that page for me to argue my case. It seems logical to discuss it on the WP:AE talk page.Momento (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, Momento. If you would like to request an appeal of your arbitration enforcement, you can do so at arbitration enforcement noticeboard for review by other AE administrators (with community input). Alternately, you can ask the Arbitration Committee to review the AE at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. Either is acceptable; it's up to you who you'd prefer to have reviewing. Risker (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Haven't we missed a step here. Why didn't BoNL request an arbitration enforcement? Or if this is a Discretionary Sanction where is the due warning; where is the clear and unambiguous warning with link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways; where is the information required for administrators to determine whether enforcement is required?Momento (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Momento, one of the remedies from the first Prem Rawat case placed the article (and related contents) under article probation, and the clause of the remedy does not require BoNL to request arbitration enforcement. The warning template has been located on Talk: Prem Rawat since 2009. Thus, it is an arbitration enforcement, and as such you could either ask for WP:AE appeal, or file clarification/amendment request. - Penwhale | 03:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand how I can appeal a Discretionary Sanction but a Discretionary Sanction requires that - "Discretionary sanctions may be imposed by any uninvolved administrator after giving due warning. Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways". I wasn't given such a warning. Is WP:AC/DS wrong? Or is it correct and I have been denied a fundamental part of the ARB COM process?Momento (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It's assumed that if someone has previously been sanctioned under provisions from an ArbCom case, as you have, there's no need to issue another warning because that person should be aware of said provisions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

That's not what AC/DS says.Momento (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Even on the off chance we want to Wikilawyer that much, I warned you back in April if you'll remember. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikilawyering? I'm not sure the Admins who wrote that page would appreciate you saying that asking for their procedures to be followed is Wikilawyering! Nope, nothing at all from you on my talk page. And nothing in April via Prem Rawat talk.Momento (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• We were asked to with hold comments until this request if it is that, was posted in the appropriate place. Could we do that please so that we can all comment. Thanks.(olive (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC))

I'll cut to the quick - Comment by PatW

I wonder how many extraordinarily tiresome hoops Momento will make you all run through before you realise the cost (in your time) of the ride he is taking you on. Let me do you all a favour by being blunt. His presence here is 100 percent in the role of Prem Rawat apologist. He spends an inordinately large amount of his time (that is in-between his bans) trying to whitewash anything to do with his Lord and Master Prem Rawat - formerly known as 'The Lord Of The Universe' - a thoroughly controversial cult leader who is rightly now running scared of publicity because of the bad press he received in the seventies ( and which Momento is now kindly attempting to eradicate from 'His' history on his behalf). I came here only to oppose the unspeakably unethical, calculated revisionism of now permanently banned Rawat organisation honcho Jossi Fresco. That was 6 years ago. Momento was Jossi's sidekick then and he is still now perpetuating their same agenda. It was massively passive/aggressive POV pushing then as it is now. One thing I will predict - he will drag you all through a horribly protracted process and twist all Misplaced Pages guidelines to vindicate himself and make fools of you. As Guy Macon so rightly said - he is "uneducable". Never was a truer word spoken. Good luck! PatW (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll cut to the quick, too. Comment by Rumiton.

You have done a great job as usual of presenting approximately 50% of the facts, the half that supports your views. Guy did use the word "uneducable" and later explained that it was part of a strategy that he had used successfully in the past to get an inexperienced editor's attention. He failed to check how much noticeboard attention this article has attracted over the last 5 years or so. He went on to say:

If I had realized that I would have immediately come to the conclusion that anything I might try has been tried before and failed, and that my approach was completely wrong.

Another mistake is related to the above; by starting to work on the case and then bailing out, I only dealt with one editor's behavior, which no doubt the ones I didn't get to will use as a club against him. Not sure how I can fix that particular problem. (Does that describe what you are doing?)

That being said, I would very much appreciate any advice from anyone. (signed by Guy.) You have all this information, but you have withheld it from this argument. You are probably about to ignore it again.

Regarding Prem Rawat's life and career, he brought with him an Indian cultural milieu when he left India at the age of 13. His father's Indian organisation with its ashrams and devotional practises was not an exceptional thing in India but it was alien to the West, which made him an easy mark for lesser grade journalists. By 1980 or so he had dismantled all the Indian aspects and was talking to people about inner peace only. Since then he has addressed literally millions of people in person and through videos, and started a vigorous charity which addresses the basic requirements of food and clean water in undeveloped areas. His recorded talks are being used for rehabilitation in prisons in 25 countries around the world. The spiteful stuff that poor quality journalists came up with in the 70's needs to be acknowledged, certainly; it happened, and he dealt with it. But it needs to be weighed carefully in the article.

Regarding Jim Wales' edit (which he has made twice now) the chief anti-cult writer who called Prem Rawat a "cult leader" was Bob Larson who made, and still makes, the same accusation against the Catholic Church and the Mormons, not to mention day care centres across the world, which he claims are infiltrated by demons. Do we have to have this in a living biography? Rumiton (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

You're joking aren't you? There's tons of references to Rawat being a cult leader - there are COUNTLESS references to Rawat in books about Cults. How about scholar J. Gordon Melton's "Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America" (New York/London: Garland, 1986 amongst MANY others. Anyway who are you to say what jourmalists wrote was spiteful? Your opinion does not give you the right to dilute their reports. If that's your idea of 'dealing with it' you should expect opposition. Talking of only telling half the story - perhaps you are unaware that Rawat's former mission president (Mike Dettmers) said that the only reason Rawat disbanded the Indian system of ashrams was because he didn't want to have to pay for the followers incarcerated there into their old age! He said he had no concern whatsoever about dismantling the 'Indian Aspects' for the noble reasons you insinuate. In fact the opposite is true, he perpetuated and encouraged absolute devotion and surrender to him for as long as he could.PatW (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)