Welcome!

Hello, Momento, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 02:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your contributions. Please note that you can use four tildes ~~~~ to automatically add a signature and time stamp to your comments in discussion pages. Happy editing! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Concerning article Prem Rawat: Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• In an interview with in 1973 Tom Snyder host of "The Tomorrow show" TV series, Snyder asked Prem Rawat: "Now I'm not trying to be disrespectful but' Ive got to ask you this question: Many of your followers say that you are God. What do you have to say about this?" To which Rawat replied: "No, I am not God. I am only a humble servant of God." ^[1]

• At a press conference during the 1973 Millennium gathering, Rawat denied to the press that he believed himself to be the Messiah, characterizing himself instead "as a humble servant of God trying to establish peace in this world." A reporter then asked him about "a great contradiction" between what he said about himself and what his students were saying about him, and he responded by suggesting the reporter ask the devotees themselves about that. In a still-later speech, Rawat was to characterize as mistaken the early Western reaction to him upon his arrival, saying, "when people saw me at that time, they really didn't understand what it was all about."
  • He didn't answer the reporter's question. In fact, what his students said about him derived from claims he made about himself. The reporter was correct about there being a great contradiction. 69.251.176.184 01:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• In an interview with the Miami Magazine, in 1979, Prem Rawat spoke of what he believed God to be. In answer to the question, "If God is within, can't people experience God without the help of someone else?", Prem Rawat said, "God being within is one thing, and experiencing God is another. Just like having water in front of you is one thing, and drinking is another. God is within you. God is omnipresent." ^[2]

• Millennium Press Conference

Q: Guru, you’ve said that it’s the presumption of the press among others that claim has been made on your behalf that you are the Messiah, and that is not your statement. I understand this is not your statement. I have read on several occasions that you have disavowed any such claim. The question I am interested in is, since the presumption and the confusion seems to arise because your followers, especially those who are involved in the publication of the magazines, have made this claim on your behalf, are there any plans that you have to put an end to this confusion and these presumptions by directing them to quit making such claims?

M: Only thing I can do is pass my comments about it, pass my statements about it, which I am as a matter of fact doing. ^[3]

That you may want to add to the Prem Rawat article ~---

It was never my intention to misrepresent your opinion. Please tell me what is wrong with the follow ( http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/forum/posts/3540.html) Andries 18:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC) reply

What do you mean? Momento 08:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

This is what you wrote on my talk page "Andries your comment on the anti Prem Rawat forum ( http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/forum/posts/3540.html) that "Wikipedia editors assert that 'Guru Maharaj ji is God' can refer to his father", is untrue and should be retracted.Momento 02:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)" I have no problem to leave this case for what it is if what I wrote there no longer bothers you. Andries 18:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC) reply

What is wrong is that no Wiki editor has produced a quote of Guru Maharaji saying "I am God". And therefore no Wiki editors " assert that 'Guru Maharaj ji is God' can refer to his father". You discredit Wki and its editors when you say things that aren't true. The comment can stay on www.prem-rawat-talk.org, it is just one lie amongst many. Momento 21:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I disagree with you. First of all I was sincerely convinced that I was telling the truth then, so it was not a lie, but at worst a mistake. Second of all, I do not think that it was a mistake, but I still think it is true what I wrote there. Prem Rawat has said basically that Guru Maharaj Ji is God e.g. when he said "To be here as individual and yet to be able to be next to the person who is everything; in which everything is and he is everything. Guru Maharaj Ji. The Lord. All-powerful." from "The Final Step" Malibu, California, June 11, 1978. From the Divine Times June/July Volume 7, Number 4 ~ The Guru Puja Special. [1] Andries 22:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC) reply

How can you keep doing it Andries - "Prem Rawat has said basically that Guru Maharaj Ji is God." When he said over and over again a human being can't be god. Read the quote again. Momento 01:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply

That's not what he said, he said "God cannot be a human being. God is Light; God is power. God cannot talk." He was speaking of some concepts about God "up there" (for lack of a better phrase), not of God not being able to incarnate in human form. The above quote, which is one of many, clearly indicates that he has claimed to be the Lord incarnate. Just this year in India he said "If lord Krsn had appeared to the giant gathered armies at the battlefield as he did to Arjuna in his true form, the battle would have been over very quickly, but He did not, the lord comes to each individually." 69.251.176.184 01:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

There is a saying in WP that says: Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello. Got your message on my talk page.
Concerning the article, I'd love to help out. However, this is not something I'm familiar with. Also, the article seems to be out of stubhood and going quite strong, despite the debates. Could you specify what exact part/section of the article you'd like me to help with? Or is there some point you are trying to convey but not being able to get across? Waiting for your reply. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.D eepu_Joseph | TALK} 11:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply

There is no need to use "vandalism" on an edit summary, unless it is obvious vandalism, Momento. Simply revert and explain why in talk. That user is a newbie and does not understand how WP works, despite his claims to the contrary, in addition to having a huge ax to grind given the embarrassing situation he put himself into when he missapropriated data and got dinged. So, we need to be patience and not allow him to disrupt the editing process. Best would be if he engages constructively, although I doubt that it will be that easy... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello, Momento. You have new messages at Codename Lisa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Momento, for your information, there is an RFA Evidence Page involving Andries. SSS108 ^{talk- email} 16:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC) reply

You removed the following information from the article [2] witht the edit summary "Removed original research" [3]" This information is cited so it strikes me as not original research. I may miss something, but your edit summary strikes me as erroneous at best

A 1998 article in Rocky Mountain News referred to Elan Vital as a "cult"<ref>"Former Guru on a Different Mission", ''[[Rocky Mountain News]]'', [[January 30]], [[1998]].<br>Nowadays, former cult members estimate Maharaji (he's dropped the Guru from his name and simplified the spelling) has 100000 to 200000 followers...</ref>.

In case I am wrong, please explain. In case I am right I urgently request you to be more careful with your edit summaries. Andries 22:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

The fact the former cult members estimate Maharaji's following doesn't imply criticism. To insert this in the criticism suggests that the editor believes it is criticism without any supporting evidence. Momento 22:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

The label cult can be interpreted as criticism. Andries 22:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

That would depend on its context and since the context is estimating followers there is no reason to see it as critical. Momento 22:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Work in progress.

1) Wiki BLP policy is that "editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources". So is Mishler a reliable source, failing any one of the following criteria is enough to fail Wiki's standards.

Bias of the originator about the subject—If an author has some reason to be biased, or admits to being biased, this should be taken into account when reporting his or her opinion. This is not to say that the material is not worthy of inclusion, but please take a look at our policy on Neutral point of view. - Mishler is clearly biased.

Editorial oversight—A publication with a declared editorial policy will have greater reliability than one without, since the content is subject to verification.- Mishler is only quoted in 2 newspapers, neither paper corroborates his claims.

Corroboration—The conclusions match with other sources in the field which have been derived independently. If two or more independent originators agree, in a reliable manner, then the conclusions become more reliable. Care must be taken to establish that corroboration is indeed independent, to avoid an invalid conclusion based on uncredited origination.-No other source corrborates Mishler.

Recognition by other reliable sources—A source may be considered more reliable if another source which is generally considered reliable cites or recommends it. Sources which have been attacked, or have rarely or never been cited, may be more suspect.Melton mentions other Mishler claims but not these".

Age of the source and rate of change of the subject—Where a subject has evolved or changed over time, a long standing source may not be accurate with respect to the current situation. To interpret utility one must appreciate how the subject has changed and if that change has impacted any of the salient points of the source information. Historical or out-of-date sources may be used to demonstrate evolution of the subject but should be treated with caution where used to illustrate the subject. If no newer sources are available, it is reasonable to caveat use of sources with an indication of the age and the resulting reduction in reliability.- Mishler's claims are 30 years old

Persistence— If a reader goes to the cited source to validate a statement, or to gain further understanding of the topic, the form cited should remain stable, continuing to contain the information used by the editor to support the words. In this sense a book or journal citation is superior to an online source where the link may become broken. Some web resources have editorial policies which lead to a lack of persistence; therefore, web citations should be treated with caution.Mishler has been dead for 25 years

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources "Wiki policy is that exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to biographies of living people", Are Mishler's claims exceptional? They are according to Wiki policy. Exceptional claims are -

Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known - Mishler is the only one to claim Prem Rawat "had tremendous problems of anxiety which he combatted with alcohol". Suprising since PR promotes a method for achieving inner peace.

Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended. Mishler's claim that he left the group after trying to get the Maharaj Ji to tell his followers plainly that he was not God, is "out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest that PR had previously defended". See the numerous Wikiquotes where PR says that "a human being cannot be God".

NPOV - Undue weight = a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. The term mainly refers to a document produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event. Primary sources include official reports, letters, eyewitness accounts, autobiographies, statistics compiled by authoritative agencies, and court records. Experts usually have advanced training, and use as many different primary sources as are available so they can be checked against each other. Thus, primary materials typically require interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation, or corroboration, each of which usually constitutes original research. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reliable source, but only to make descriptive points about the topic. Any interpretive claims require secondary sources.

Your recent edits to Prem Rawat aren't corrections of errors on my part. You seem to be trying to truncate or contextualize the information for the reader. The more recent edit appears to be satisfactory, but the initial one clearly puts the author's words in the wrong context (as he wasn't speaking of other sant mats, but of Rawat and his lineage). Please be mindful that changing words in this way can easily change the meaning of a sentence to the point that what you're saying is wrong, as was the case with the previous set of edits you made to that passage which I corrected. Cheers. Mael-Num 22:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Stay tuned folks. Mael-Num is wrong and is probably realising it just about now. Momento 07:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm realizing something, but I don't think it's what you think it is. Mael-Num 09:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

If the root of realisation is "real", excellent. Momento 11:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Your conduct here appears to be a personal attack. Please review what Wikipedia says on this subject here. I'm posting this on your talk page in the hopes that we can resolve this situation amicably and without the need for escalation to administrative intervention. Thank you. Mael-Num 09:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply

In Maerl-Num's three months at Wiki M-N has been cautioned for incivility twice, cautioned for personal attacks once, blocked for violating 3RR and recently accused me of being a sock puppet and a meat puppet with zero evidence. Momento 09:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

<<unblock|First and ultimate point I am not a sock puppet and ever since I created the Momento account I have never edited Wiki as anyone else. Therefore Betacommand is wrong. Second, I am a consistent editor of Prem Rawat articles and constantly involved in discussions on the talk pages. Two of the most consistant editors Jossi and Andries both rejected the sock puppet argument presented by Mael-Num. No other editor supported Mael-Num. Third, my accuser has been editing Wiki for just three months and has been cautioned for incivility twice, cautioned for personal attacks once, blocked for violating 3RR.Fourth, the only "evidence" presented is that I and VictorO edited a Prem Rawat article on the same day. A closer look will show that on one occassion we were editing different bits at exactly the same time - Here's VictorO editing Prem Rawat at 21:57, 20 January 2007 and Momento is editing Talk:Prem Rawat at 21:57, 20 January 2007. Fifth, VictorO was blocked from 22:21, 20 January 2007 by Sandstein until 10:22, 21 January 2007. During that period I made nearly 20 edits.This action by Betacommand is a joke and he has been criticised for incorrect blocking by others.>>

Reviewing admin: I support the unblock. I cannot unblock him myself as I am involved in editing that article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Here are the diffs for Momento's evidence above (sent by Momento to me via email):

• VictorO: 21:57, 20 January 2007 diff

• Momento: 21:57, 20 January 2007 diff

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of Momento lifted or expired. Request handled by: ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

The autoblock was removed by me after user was unblocked by User:Betacommand on 17:02, February 26, 2007 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Hi - there is no point adding a comment to this page, it is an archive, a historical record - people will revert or remove additional comments to that page. -- Fredrick day 11:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia by creating the page Editing Prem Rawat/lead. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Peripitus (Talk) 09:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia by creating the page Editing Prem Rawat/lead. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Lelkesa 09:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Please agree with formal mediation and sign your agreement with it there Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Prem_Rawat Thanks. Andries 22:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC) I now included Vassyanana and Rumiton in the mediation and informed both of them. Please re-consider your rejection of mediation. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Prem_Rawat Thanks. Andries 09:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC) reply

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat. For the Mediation Committee, ^ demon [omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

I understand the discussion over at Talk:Prem Rawat can get heated and frustrating. However, please try to refrain from snarky comments like this. They only serve to bait people who are already hot under the collar. Please try to keep a polite tone, even when you feel flabbergasted or offended. Thank you for all your effort on the article. I look forward to your further contributions. Be well!! Vassyana 06:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Momento, it seems that you try to hurt my credibility by writing that I post on the ex-premie forum. Where else on the internet is there open and frank discussion of Prem Rawat? I was unable to find it, except on the ex-premie forum. Andries 14:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC) reply

That you choose to write on an anti-Rawat is as relevant as Jossi having a potential COI. Momento 21:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Where can I write on a more neutral forum? Andries 21:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I have no idea where a "more neutral forum" is. I have no interest in discussing Rawat on an internet forum of any sort. Momento 21:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC) reply

You have made three reverts at Prem Rawat. Please avoid violating the rules. Vassyana 00:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I did not revert three times. In the context of the English Wikipedia three revert rule, a revert is defined as any change to an article that partially or completely goes back to any older version of an article. I made an edit to a long standing section based on "exceptional claims" and "BLP" which Andries immediately reverted to a previous version. Andries made another edit which I allowed and after discussion in the talk page I again removed only the material that I believe contravenes "exceptional claims" and "BLP". Andries reverted a second time and added some more material which I again allowed stand. I then checked and translated the original source material and found evidence that Andries had deleted crucial material from the quote and after discussing in tallk, I removed only the material that I believe contravenes "exceptional claims" and "BLP", Andries reverted for a third time. But thanks for your intervention anyway.Momento 02:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of your recent edit summaries have been off-key and potentially inflammatory. [4] Please try to stay cool and civil. Comments, and especially edit summaries, like that are not at all helpful to the edit history or editing climate. Thanks. Vassyana 10:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC) reply

You cannot have me banned so easily, so I request that you re-consider your disagreement not to have mediation. You can try to get me banned by making a request to the wikipedia:arbitration committee, but your behavior will then be scrutinized by them too. Andries 17:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat. For the Mediation Committee, ^ demon [omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Can you please sign the agreement to mediation there Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Prem_Rawat_2? Thanks in advance. Andries 15:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC) See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Prem_Rawat_2. Andries 16:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC) reply

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 2. For the Mediation Committee, ^ demon [omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Hello, I'm taking this mediation case. Please provide me with an e-mail address for yourself I can use, if that is okay. Thanks. — Sean Whitton / 15:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Please sign to agree with mediation here Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 3. Andries 19:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 3. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 04:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply

1. Many newspapers use terms like "accused" and "alleged", while reporting a story.
2. It is quite possible that the emails were called "secret" upon reliable information from a confidential source known only to the Evening Standard, who did not want to be revealed for fear of retribution. Also common in journalism.
3. Again, other statements in the article are most likely backed up to confidential sources that were afraid to speak publicly on the record.

But in any event, I have said from the outset that these are all points better addressed by other regular contributors to WP:RSN, and not by regular posters to the talk page Talk:Prem Rawat and the Prem Rawat associated articles - who would most understandably have a colored opinion about the use of a source which speaks negatively of that individual. You say that my posting to that noticeboard was "attempt to circumvent Wiki policy and guidelines." -- However I have not edited the Prem Rawat article to put that information into the article or into any other related article, I have instead waited for feedback from the noticeboard, which exists specifically to give feedback on usage of sources like this. I fail to see how you could come to the opinion that this is in any way, shape or form an "attempt to circumvent Wiki policy and guidelines." Now, I'd like us both to wait for a response at WP:RSN from someone who does not regularly post to Talk:Prem Rawat or edit the Prem Rawat article regularly. Thanks. Cirt 09:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC). reply

1. You forget to mention that the evening standard is a tabloid and tabloids are not considered reliable sources for articles, and particularly BLPs
2. You are assuming too much in your repetition of "secret:, "fear of retribution" and other such colored opinions
3. You are indeed subverting process and bypassing, by assuming bad faith, discussing editor's opinions, and making these public
4. You have done that in the past, and you should know better by now. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply

1. How am I assuming anything? Aren't you and Momento also assuming about just how this source obtained its information, as well?
2. What have I done that discussed any editor's opinions? I think it is most appropriate to ask for a neutral point of view from a noticeboard that is specifically constructed for that purpose. If I wanted input from regular, heavy posters to Talk:Prem Rawat, I would have asked at that talk page for opinions on the source. I didn't. I asked at WP:RSN, which is the specific place to do just that. That is not a "subversion" of anything, it is specifically what the page is designed for, to ask questions about usage of sources. Cirt ( talk) 22:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC). reply

You do not have to respond, if you feel that I need further clarification on something regarding this, please politely contact a third-party administrator who is more neutral in this manner, and ask them to talk to me about something. Otherwise, we're done here. Thanks. Cirt ( talk) 22:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC). reply

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I am interested to know why the opening paragraph of the Divine Light Mission fails to mention what it was. Can you think of a suitable noun to describe it, or is the idea of describing what it was somehow anathema to some people, on the basis that it is better not to know? I understand that some people are very much against people knowing about cults in order to protect those people from such. Nevertheless, it might be useful to describe what the Divine Light Mission was, for those with an academic interest, at least. Matt Stan ( talk) 22:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

DLM covers a very wide spectrum. It started as as a vehicle to help spread Shri Maharaj Ji's message in India, it became a religion in the US, a charity in England, an association else where. It has been described as a New Religious Movement, as a New Age cult,a s an off shoot of Sant Mat, as a Hindu off shoot etc. Ours is not to choose a description but to provide what scholars say and let the reader make up their own mind. Momento ( talk) 00:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC) reply

OK, you haven't actually answered my point, which is that the introductory paragraph of the article doesn't yet say:

• It started as as a vehicle to help spread Shri Maharaj Ji's message in India
• it became a religion in the US
• a charity in England
• an association else where
• It has been described as a New Religious Movement
• as a New Age cult
• as an offshoot of Sant Mat
• as a Hindu offshoot

Someone had indicated in the article that it was, as you say, a cult, but you removed that edit with a pejorative comment and left no description at all. Is your assertion that "Ours is not to choose a description" an edict of Mr Ji himself? It is usual in wikipedia that one does choose a description for each entity described. That is what the encyclopedia is for. Also it would be interesting to know whether there are in fact any disinterested scholars who have performed academic analysis and with sufficient credentials for them to be cited in support of any description. Or is the mention of scholars itself an unverifiable assertion? Otherwise, why not just include what Divine Light describes itself as, or does it not provide any description? If I said an apple was a fruit, would you require me to provide academic references to verify that fact? I think not. If someone puts that the Divine Light Mission is a cult, given that it is so many things in different countries, presumably for financial reasons, then is that not a sufficiently succinct description? 84.9.48.35 ( talk) 09:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC) reply

No. Momento ( talk) 17:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Why not? Melton mentions it in his encyclopedia of cults, so that is a reputable source, I has also been described as an NRM in reputable sources and a sect. All this should go in. Andries ( talk) 17:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC) reply

If you spent a minute reading the article you would see the views of Aagaard, Barker. Chryssides, Derks, Downton, Galanter, Haan, Hummel, Hunt, Kranenborg, Lee, Lippy, McGuire, Melton and Messer are all included and references to sources given. You will also note that most scholars refer to DLM either by name or as a "movement" in their writings. Momento ( talk) 17:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, and? Movement is not the only label for the DLM given by scholars. Andries ( talk) 18:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC) reply

LOL! That is really disingenuous... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Sory, I so not understand your comment. Andries ( talk) 07:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Please take this conversation else where. Momento ( talk) 21:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Momento loves Prem Rawat so so much that he cannot bear to have anything critical of him said anywhere, for numerous obvious reasons, though his love for mankind may be more quesionable. Why not, for instance, allow people to hear a balancing view? Surely Momento would demonstrate his love for mankind better if he allowed people with grievances against the money-collecting organisations of Mr Ji to be heard, just in case there was something in what those people had to say, and so that others could take a more objective view! Latest news from the horse's mouth, so to speak, is that recruitment of new premies is not going according to the Lord of the Universe's business plan, but donations from existing disciples are well up, so there's not too much to get worried about at the moment. 147.114.226.175 ( talk) 09:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm not adverse to criticism, it's like bugs on your windscreen. You're a bit late for this conversation. Momento ( talk) 11:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Nobody is criticising you, Momento, but you deleted some criticism of Mr Rawat, as you said in the edit summary, for obvious reasons. Obviously it is your love for Mr Rawat that overrides any judgment that you might have about allowing criticism of him to be known. You are a survivor. Maybe not everyone else is. Incidentlly, is it true that if you were to seek an audience with the Guru on order to get advice on how best to keep a lid on things then a ticket for such an audience would cost you $500? 147.114.226.175 ( talk) 12:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Trying to follow your analogy: if wikipedia is the windscreen and you are not averse to criticism (but you nevertheless remove it), perhaps you are the bug? 147.114.226.175 ( talk) 14:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

You removed the following from the Prem Rawat article and stated "Reverting ex-premie attack." This is not adequate explanation and as such I have now reverted.

"His religious movement is widely recognized as a cult or former cult - by independent academics and the mainstream media as well as ex-Rawat-followers." This is from today's article found in The Register: The Cult of Wikipedia.

You may disagree with what is said about this topic but to delete anything that you find objectionable is not acceptable. Wiki is not a personal encyclopedia but is instead intended to represent a general world-view of knowledge. It is recommended that you not participate in articles in which you may have difficulty maintaining a NPOV. Regards.

• As you referred to me as an "ex-premie" I googled the term and found this site: [ Prem Rawat's former followers present Ex-Premie.Org, the truth about Prem Rawat, a.k.a. Maharaji, The Prem Rawat Foundation, and Elan Vital] As I've never been involved with this organization your reference is inaccurate. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.132.123 ( talk) 18:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Your continued reverts without responding to my comments is puzzling, especially as you note "Reverting undiscussed edit" in your most recent revert of my contribution. It's difficult to ascertain your intention if you do not respond to my inquiries. As mentioned previously it is recommended that you not participate in articles in which you may have difficulty maintaining a NPOV. Regards.
• I completely agree with you. I think momento was right to consider theregister a poor reference, so he correctly removed it. But each of the references in the section he is removing seems very strong. Does anyone disagree? It can not be considered appropriate to remove that content without giving any indication of why *each* of the references is not valid as strong as it appears. 217.33.236.2 ( talk) 19:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Before making any substantial edits, discuss on the Prem Rawat talk page. Thanks. Momento ( talk) 19:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

... of WP:3RR. There is no need to engage in edit wars with anon editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm either reverting vandalism or violations of BLP. Please protect the PR article from undiscussed and improper edits from anon editors. Momento ( talk) 19:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

You can request semi-protection at WP:RFPP. That could help. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia was explicitly designed to allow for anonymous contributions and editing. Those sections of Wiki that need protection from anon editors are protected. Please do not diminish the value of anonymous editors merely because you disagree with their input. User_talk:Jossi's admonition is nearly correct but should read: "There is no need to engage in edit wars." Additionally, my attempt to warn you of WP:3RR was deleted by you as "vandalism." 24.98.132.123 ( talk) 20:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

May I suggest that you are also edit warring and violating WP:3RR. My I also suggest that you seem to know too much about Wikipedia, to assume that you are a new editor? See WP:SOCK for more information. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I apologize if I implied that I am a new editor. That is not the case as you will see if you look at my history. Your reference to WP:SOCK is unclear - is your implication that I am a sockpuppet? That is inaccurate and unwarranted. WP:NPA 24.98.132.123 ( talk) 20:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I looked at your history, and 10 edits was way too little to assume that you have not edited before or currently edit under another username. If that is not the case, my sincere apologies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Apology accepted. 24.98.132.123 ( talk) 20:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Also, as you likely realize most IP addresses are refreshed and released to other users. Not every edit listed is mine (but the majority are) and I've edited many other times but apparently with a different IP address. 24.98.132.123 ( talk) 20:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I see that the article has been semi-protected. You are welcome to register and create a new account if you don't have one. Editing as a registered user has many benefits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Don't feed the wildlife. [5] I would recommend self-reverting the comment. Thanks! Vassyana ( talk) 01:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I suggest you stop inserting negative material to placate the wildlife. Momento ( talk) 02:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply

What's wrong with what I added? It's all well-sourced and it's not all negative material. My aim remains the same as it ever was regarding Prem Rawat's article ... that it be well-sourced and comprehensive. Considering my past involvement, I would have hoped you'd have better faith in me. Vassyana ( talk) 02:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I operate on a day to day basis. And you are no longer the independent, neutral editor I admired. You are now editing with the sole aim of putting negative material in. As Melton says in Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America (New York/London: Garland, 1986; revised edition, Garland, pages 141-145) "Ex members attacked the group with standard anti cult charges of brainwashing and mind control." Your inclusion is a cheap shot that could be inserted about any minority philosophy. It is unworthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. You should revert it. Momento ( talk) 11:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I am the same person with the same view of the article that I had previously. I'm not making any cheap shots. Even though the information is negative, it is well-sourced. NPOV demands that all significant views be given an appropriate amount of space. Regardless of personal opinions, a number of clearly reliable sources discuss some negative claims about Prem Rawat and Divine Light Mission/Elan Vital. Such claims should be proportionately represented in the article. I understand it can be a touchy subject, but please take a breath and don't take it personally. Vassyana ( talk) 12:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I'd check your reference. My version of J. Gordon Melton Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America (New York/London: Garland, 1986; revised edition, Garland, pages 141-145 says

D. DIVINE LIGHT MISSION

The arrival in the United States in 1971 of a 13 year old religious leader from India was met with some ridicule but, more importantly, an extraordinary amount of interest from young adults who were willing to seriously examine his claims of being able to impart direct knowledge of God. From that initial support, Guru Maharaj Ji was able to establish a flourishing American branch of the Divine Light Mission.

Founders and Early History The Divine Light mission was founded by Shri Hans Maharaj Ji (d. 1966), the father of Maharaj Ji. Early in life he encountered Sarupanand Ji, a guru of the Sant Mat tradition by whom he was initiated. Though Sarupanand Ji had told his disciples to follow Hans Maharaj Ji, after the guru’s death another disciple, Varaganand, claimed the succession and took control of the guru’s property. Hans Maharaj Ji began to spread the teaching independently in Sind and Lahore, and in 1930 he established an informal mission in Delhi. His following grew steadily. In 1950, shortly after Indian independence had been declared, he commissioned the first mahatmas, followers who had the ability to initiate and who devoted themselves full time to the work of propagating the teachings of Shri Hans Maharaj Ji. He also began a monthly magazine, Hansadesh. By 1960 followers could be found across northern India from Bombay to Calcutta, and the need to organize them more formally led to the founding of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad). just six years after the founding of the Mission, Shri Hans Maharaj Ji was succeeded by his youngest son, Prem Pat Singh Rawat (b. 1957), who was but eight when he was recognized as the new Perfect Master and assumed the title, Maharaj Ji. Maharaj Ji had been recognized as spiritually adept, even within the circle of the Holy Family, as Shri Hans Maharaj Ji’s family was called. He had been initiated (i.e., given knowledge) at the age of six and soon afterward gave his first satsang (spiritual discourse). After his father’s death he heard a voice commissioning him as the one to take the knowledge to the world. He assumed the role of Perfect Master at his father’s funeral by telling the disciples who had gathered, “Dear Children of God, why are you weeping? Haven’t you learned the lesson that your Master taught you? The Perfect Master never dies. Maharaj Ji is here, amongst you now. Recognize Him, obey Him and worship Him.” Though officially the autocratic leader of the Mission, because of Maharaj Ji’s age, authority was shared by the whole family. During the 1960s Americans in India searching for spiritual guidance discovered the Mission and a few became initiates (i.e., “premies,” or “lovers of God”). They invited Maharaj Ji to the United States. In 1970 Maharaj Ji announced his plans to carry the knowledge throughout the world and the following year, against his mother’s wishes, made his first visit to the West. A large crowd came to Colorado the next year to hear him give his first set of discourses in America. Many were initiated and became the core of the Mission in the United States. Headquarters were established in Denver, and by the end of 1973, tens of thousands had been initiated, and several hundred centers as well as over twenty ashrams, which housed approximately 500 of the most dedicated premies, had emerged. The headquarters staff expanded to 125, and social service facilities, such as a medical clinic in New York City, were opened. Two periodicals, And It Is Divine, a magazine, and Divine Times, a tabloid, were begun. Enthusiasm ran high. After a spectacular beginning in North America, the Mission suffered a major setback in November 1973 It rented the Houston Astrodome for “Millennium 73,” an event celebrating the birthday of Maharaj Ji’s father and designed to announce the beginning of a thousand years of peace and prosperity. The event failed; attendance was miniscule. The Mission was left with a $600,000 debt which required it to cut its staff and programs. Millennium 73 was but the first of a series of events which gradually led the Mission to withdraw from the public scene. It was staged just as the anti cult movement reached national proportions and turned its attention upon the Mission. Several deprogrammed ex members became vocal critics of the Mission. Through his Executive Secretary, Maharaj Ji announced that he was replacing the predominantly Indian image with a Western one. Among other changes, he began to wear business suits instead of his all white Indian attire. Many of the ashrams were discontinued. To the problems caused by the debt and the attack of anticultists were added internal problems within Maharaj Ji’s family. In December 1973, when Maharaj Ji turned 16, he took administrative control of the Mission’s separate American corporation. Then in May 1974, he married his 24 year old secretary, Marolyn Johnson, and declared her to be the incarnation of the goddess Dulga usually pictured with ten arms and astride a tiger. Premies purchased an estate in Malibu into which the couple moved. Mataji, Maharaj Ji’s mother, disapproved of the marriage and the life style of the now successful guru. Relations within the Holy Family were strained considerably. Accusing her son of breaking his spiritual disciplines, Mataji took control of the Mission in India and replaced him with his eldest brother. In 1975 Maharaj Ji returned to India and took his family to court. In a court decreed settlement, he received control of the movement everywhere except in India, where his brother was recognized as its head. Publicity about the marriage and the subsequent family quarrels caused many Western followers to leave the Mission, though a large membership remained. By the late 1970s the Mission in the United States had almost disappeared from public view. Maharaj Ji continues to travel the globe speaking to premies, and the Mission, while growing little in the United States, has expanded significantly in Southern Asia, the South Pacific and South America.

Beliefs and Practices The Divine Light Mission is derived from Sant Mat (literally, the way of the saints), a variation of the Sikh religion which draws significant elements from Hinduism. It is based upon a succession of spiritual masters generally believed to begin with Tulsi Sahib, an early nineteenth century guru who lived at Hathrash, Uttar Pradesh. It is believed that the person mentioned as Sarupanand Ji in Mission literature is in fact Sawan Singh, a prominent Sant Mat guru. In any case Hans Maharaj Ji claimed a Sant Mat succession which he passed to Maharaj Ji. Maharaj Ji, as do many of the other Sant Mat leaders, claims to be a Perfect Master, an embodiment of God on earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration. The Mission has as one of its stated goals the instruction of the world in “the technique of utilizing the universal primordial Force, that is, the Holy Name (Word) which is the same as the Divine Light and which pervades all human beings thus bringing to the fore the eternal principle of unity in diversity.” In the Sant Mat tradition this practice is called surat shabd yoga, the practice of uniting the human spirit with the universal divine sound current. The particular methods of accomplishing that union vary from group to group and are one reason for their separation. Within the Divine Light Mission, initiation into the yoga is by a process known as giving knowledge. Though premies were instructed not to talk about their initiation outside of the Mission, details of the process were soon revealed by ex members. At initiation, a mahatma, the personal representative of Maharaj Ji, introduces new members to four yogic techniques, all of which are quite common within Sant Mat circles, although equally unknown to the average person, even to the average Indian. These four techniques reveal the means of experiencing the divine light, sound, word, and nectar. To experience the divine light, one places the knuckles on the eyeballs, a process which produces flashes of light inside the head (and also pinches the optic nerve). To discover the divine sound or music of the spheres, one plugs the ears with the fingers and concentrates only on internal sounds. The third technique involves concentration upon the sound of one’s own breathing. Finally, to taste the nectar, the tongue is curled backward against the roof of the mouth and left there for a period of time. Once learned, these techniques are practiced daily. Frequently, meditation is done under a blanket, both to block outside disturbances and to conceal the techniques. Unlike many Sant Mat groups, the Divine Light Mission has had a social program from its beginning. Shri Hans Maharaj Ji called for a balance between temporal and spiritual concerns, and the Mission's stated goals include the promotion of human unity, world peace, improved education for all (especially the poor), and relief from the distress caused by ill health and natural calamities. The Mission made provision for the establishment of hospitals, maternity homes, and residences. This emphasis upon social programs was transferred to the United States. Three holiday festivals which members are expected to attend are held annually. The Holi festival is in March or April. The Guru Puja (Maharaj Ji's birthday) is in July. Hans Jayanti (Hans Maharaj Ji's birthday) is in November. Current Status Since 1974, the Divine Light Mission has increasingly kept a low profile and at present is virtually invisible in the United States. In 1979 the Denver headquarters quietly closed, and both it and Maharaj Ji moved to Miami Beach, Florida. From there, two periodicals are currently published, Divine Times and Elan Vital. In 1980, the Mission reported 10,000 to 12,000 active members in the United States. The Mission is headed by Maharaj Ji, its Spiritual Leader and the Board of Directors which supervises the 23 branches. Ministers (mahatmas) lead the Mission centers around the world. Many of them travel from center to center to give initiation and satsang (spiritual discourses). Members are required to participate in meditation daily and attend satsang each evening. Controversy During the first years of the Divine Light Mission in the United States, both it and Maharaj Ji were constantly involved in controversy. The teachings of the Mission, particularly the public discourses of Maharaj Ji, were condemned as lacking in substance. Maharaj Ji, who frequently acted like the teenager that he was in public, was seen as immature and hence unfit to be a religious leader. At one point, a pie was thrown in his face (which led angry followers to assault the perpetrator). Ex members attacked the group with standard anti cult charges of brainwashing and mind control. However, as the group withdrew from the public eye, little controversy followed it except for the accusations of Robert Mishner the former president of the Mission, who left in 1977. Mishner complained that the ideals of the group had become impossible to fulfill and that money was increasingly diverted to Maharaj Ji's personal use. Mishner's charges, made just after the deaths at Jonestown, Guyana, found little support and have not affected the progress of the Mission. Momento ( talk) 13:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply

It may be better smaller, but it isn't appropriate for an editor to delet 20k of material and just say "Better". The editor who re-added the info has been discussing the changes and that's the right way to proceed. Get a consensus of editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply

If you look at the history you will see this article has been stable at 53 since May 2007 as a result of GA reviews and independent editorial advice. Francis added 30 kilobytes of material at 16:52 today without discussing it until 20:13. Momento ( talk) 22:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply

As I say, he's discussing it which is the right way to proceed. While the article may have been stable for a time, questions about its neutrality have been raised so it may have to be substantially edited in order to become stable in a modified form. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Stable because you reverted nearly all my edits. Andries ( talk) 23:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Prem Rawat. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --> -->

You've removed an image from the Prem Rawat article several times now within less than 24 H: [6] [7] [8] [9]

In the same time period you removed some additional external links several times too: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

I'm not dealing with whether or not these are useful/appropriate images/links (I gave the person continuing to insert them a similar 3RR warning), but please cut the edit warring. The related discussion is ongoing on the related talk page. Please work towards consensus there, or follow other steps in dispute resolution if you think that necessary. Working towards consensus can't get you blocked. 3RR can. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 13:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply

FYI

Please see WP:ANI/3RR. Cirt ( talk) 13:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply

The three-revert rule does not apply to editors who remove contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). Momento ( talk) 13:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply

To your first point, you are correct. To your second and third, you are incorrect, and your disruptive revert warring and edit warring did not apply to your first point. You have been warned numerous times in the past. Apparently you did not heed those warnings, from multiple different editors. In order for neutral parties such as Francis Schonken ( talk · contribs) and others to be able to continue to work constructively on the article to add balance, the disruption, reverting, edit-warring from individuals such as yourself needs to stop. Cirt ( talk) 13:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Let's see what others think. In the mean time I'll continue to edit in good faith. Good bye. Momento ( talk) 14:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Please see the discussion at Talk:Prem_Rawat#Kissing_Prem_Rawat.27s_feet and weigh in there. Lawrence § t/ e 19:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply

As you are aware you are far over your 3rr limitation. I don't know if you're trying to get in as much as possible in case you get blocked. You need to stop immediately. Lawrence § t/ e 20:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Please be consistent Lawrence. You said "That's a house keeping task then, to move it to a different section." and so I moved the cite to the appropriate section. Now you're complaining about it and have put a quote about Rawat in the US back into the section of Rawat in India. My head's spinning. Momento ( talk) 20:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Momento, you seem to be reverting a lot and you're risking being blocked for 3RR. The policy states that any undoing of another editor's work, in whole or in part, counts toward 3RR. It need not involve the same material each time. I advise you to take a break from this article and to read the the policy carefully. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, I've blocked you for 24 hours for disruption and edit warring on Prem Rawat. Please be sure to discuss your changes on the article's talk page when the block expires. Nakon 20:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Momento ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))

---

Request reason:

I have been accused of being disruptive because I have been applying BLP policy. I have continuously deleted links to third-party self-published sources (that) are not allowed (that is, material self-published by anyone other than the subject or his organization), in a BLP, so that would exclude any personal websites. They are not allowed as sources or as external links, per BLP. And I have continuously deleted an unsourced photograph because - unsourced material obtained from a Wikipedian's personal experience should not be added to articles. It would violate both this policy and Verifiability, and would cause Wikipedia to become a primary source for that material. This photo of the house has not been published in a reliable source nor has a reliable source identified it as Rawat's. In fact it is owned by Seva Corp. The 3 revert rule does not apply to violations of BLP

Decline reason:

Removal of an image that flagrantly violates our non-free content policy is exempt from revert limitations. I can find nothing in the policy that would exempt the link removals, though, and am thus upholding the block. — B ( talk) 22:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

B, it's a pity you're not familiar with Wki's BLP policy. It states very clearly the 3RR does not apply "to reverts to remove clearly libelous material, or unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons" and further "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies and external links guidelines". In this case "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims. Contentious material in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used to support edits about living persons, either as sources or via external links. Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." Which perfectly described the links I removed. Momento ( talk) 02:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Note to reviewing admin: 3rr report here. The 3rr violation included detailed repeatedly removing references to various Time Magazine articles, which were in no way, shape or form BLP violations. Lawrence § t/ e 22:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm looking at it now ... using Image:Prem Rawat's Property.jpg is a pretty flagrant violation of the fair use policy for obvious reasons and removal of that image falls under the "reverts to remove clear violations of the copyright, spamming or non-free content policies" section of WP:3RR#Exceptions. I'm looking for 3 reverts not counting that now. -- B ( talk) 22:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply

copyright was not Momento's motivation. I admit that Momento's removal of external links that violate BLP is a good reason not to count some of his reverts. Andries ( talk) 23:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply

There are other obvious instances of disruption, after the second 3RR notice was filed. See for example the warning above on this very talkpage by SlimVirgin ( talk · contribs). See the comment above by Lawrence Cohen ( talk · contribs). There is no reason to expect that the disruption will not continue the instant the user is unblocked. Cirt ( talk) 23:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply

(ec) WP:3RR doesn't specify motivation as being an issue. Removing a copyvio image is exempt from revert limitations even if the reason you remove it is because you don't like the color. As for the links, some are questionable, but (1) they aren't flagrantly BLP violating and (2) some legitimate links were removed along with the more questionable ones. I don't know a thing about the issue, though, and if someone else reaches a different conclusion than I do, I don't mind. (I haven't looked at any other conduct mentioned by Cirt - I only looked at the diffs given at the 3RR report so I have no opinion on any other edits.) -- B ( talk) 23:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply

User:B, I strongly disagree that the motivation should play no role. If I blanked the article George W. Bush motivated by vandalism and at the same time also happen remove a copy right violation then I should still be blocked for vandalism. Andries ( talk) 18:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC) reply

The disruption Cirt is you constantly inserting material that is in flagrant breach of BLP and other policies ie. the photo and the links. The three-revert rule does not apply to editors who remove contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research) And yes, as soon as I'm unblocked I will remove the photo and the links unless some other editor who has a regard for Wikipedia policy beats me to it. Momento ( talk) 23:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply

And Lawrence, I deleted the Time quote once because the claim "At the time" was obviously incorrect as the quote was used in the 60s section but wasn't written until 1972. And after Francis reinserted it, I relocated it to the 70s section where it belongs. So that's one delete and one relocate. Momento ( talk) 23:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply

And B, the links I removed are clearly in violation of BLP, as per - "Third-party self-published sources are not allowed (that is, material self-published by anyone other than the subject or his organization), again because it's a BLP, so that would exclude any personal websites. They are not allowed as sources or as external links, per BLP. Momento ( talk) 23:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply

It's hilarious that I can get blocked by policy breaking editors for trying to edit according to Wikipedia policy. But lo and behold, whilst confined to my bedroom, independent editors who understand Wiki policy are doing it for me. I'll never lose faith. Momento ( talk) 23:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Momento ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))

---

Request reason:

B has already dismissed one reason given for the block. That I wasn't being disruptive "Removal of an image that flagrantly violates our non-free content policy is exempt from revert limitations". And the following dismisses the other claim of "disruptive editing". It states very clearly the 3RR does not apply "to reverts to remove clearly libelous material, or unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons" and further "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies and external links guidelines". In this case "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims. Contentious material in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used to support edits about living persons, either as sources or via external links. Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." Which perfectly described the links I removed. Momento ( talk) 02:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Decline reason:

This does not explain your removal of citations to Time Magazine articles, without edit summaries. Overall, your editing of this artivle was aggressive enough to warrant a block for edit warring. — Sandstein ( talk) 07:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Sandstein. you might recall BLP policy says - Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space. As for the Time quote. I removed it once because the inserting editor falsely claimed that the article was written prior to Rawat coming to the West, and when it was re-inserted, I moved it to the correct 70s section. At least you tried to understand. Momento ( talk) 08:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

The BLP revert exemption narrowly applies to removal of "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research)" [16]. It does not apply to the full litany of potential BLP problems. For example, WP:BLP discusses the privacy of birthdays, but we obviously would not exempt removing birthdays from revert limitations. A questionable external link would not be "contentious material". If the link were obviously and unquestionably trash (eg, linking to a racist website in an article about Barack Obama or linking to a site that had at the top in big bold letters "GEORGE BUSH EATS BABIES"), ok, but on their surface, these links do not appear to be in and of themselves "contentious material". -- B ( talk) 04:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Did you notice that Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. They are not allowed as sources or as external links. But if you wonder about Bush eating babies how about "This a picture of Mahatma Jagdeo, who sexually abused and raped children while working for Maharaji. The webmaster of this site believes that Maharaji has known about this for many years and yet did nothing to bring him to justice, or to keep him away from children, or to warn parents. Read the webmaster's personal view here". Momento ( talk) 05:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Read it WHERE? momento? Did you forget to add your link? Wowest (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC) (oops. Did that in the wrong place) Wowest ( talk) 15:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Are you going to work on this with me or should I just assume you are not going to rework the sentence and move on? Onefinalstep ( talk) 22:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I already worked with you on Hunt by pointing out what an appalling summary it was and that the info about supported by his followers is already covered more appropriately earlier in the article. And Hunt's note of criticism of leading a "sumptuous lifestyle" is adequately covered in the NPOV violating "Criticism" section. Momento ( talk) 22:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Prem Rawat. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --> -->

You made this sentence of the lead section of the Prem Rawat article:

Rawat has been criticized for lack of intellectual content in his teachings,[11][12] and for leading a sumptuous lifestyle.[13][14]

agree with your POV ("70s" - which was debunked at Talk:Prem Rawat#Concern regarding place/time incoherence of references - Schnabel is a 1982 book) 4 times in less than 16 H:

• 04:55, 13 February 2008
• 20:02, 13 February 2008
• 20:29, 13 February 2008
• 20:51, 13 February 2008

Plus your behaviour more and more resembles some sort of disruption or trolling: something is discussed on talk page, you can't win the argument, you do the revert again, and start a new talk page section on the same topic as the one you couldn't win the argument on the previous day, e.g.: 20:06, 13 February 2008, starting new thread on the photo that was already discussed at Talk:Prem Rawat#Third Photo Thread (to which you contributed the previous day, and couldn't win the argument), and yet again you start deleting that photograph, moving it around etc. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 20:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Not reversions Francis. I relocated the sentence to reflect chronology. Momento ( talk) 20:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

OK, corrected above. And made an even better version at WP:AN3. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 21:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Francis, Momento, please. It takes two to tango... I have requested page protection. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

No, in this case: three. Page protection is probably not the best solution here. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 21:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

The ball is in both your courts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Momento did 5 reverts in less than 24H, continuing after the warning above. I didn't. My total sum of edits to that page in the last 24H is two.

The 5 reverts are now reported at WP:AN3.

Also, the talk page disruption I spoke about above was his, not mine.

You invite me to exert talk page discipline, I do.

And your defense of Momento comparing his behaviour with mine is less than exemplary. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 22:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I am not comparing you with Momento. I have asked several times that you and Momento try and find common ground by building consensus and compromise. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

As for talk page discipline, you did not much when people were verbally abusing fellow editors, besides saying "Jossi thinks that your comment was a personal attack", when it was obvious what it was. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Little technical glitch

Hi Momento, re [17], the first of your list of three diffs isn't working: there's a space missing between "...oldid=190923935" and "16:34,..." -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 23:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

At the same page you now wrote [User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] - shouldn't that be [[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]]? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 23:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

That's OK I see you've given up on your first 3RR, so I've addressed the new one. Momento ( talk) 23:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Momento, please re-consider the way you are editing. It would be much more productive to pursue WP:DR via WP:RFC and other mechanisms, than to respond to a revert with another revert. That bhavior escalates quite rapidly resulting in editors getting dinged for 3RR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

You have been blocked for 24 hours for 3rr violation. Vsmith ( talk) 02:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

onefinalstep's claim that Rawat "no longer denounced material possessions" Is 100% OR. The source that onefinalstep provides doesn't mention "denounced" in any shape or form. Hunt doesn't say Rawat "no longer denounced material possessions", Hunt says Rawat "does not personally eschew material possessions". The are almost opposite in meaning. onefinalstep has Rawat "denouncing" things whilst Hunt specifically stated that Rawat behavior was "personal", not in any way a public announcement, pronouncement or denouncement. Which editor, other the me, can see the difference between what Hunt says and what onefinalstep says. First one to follow the rules wine a praise. Momento ( talk) 09:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC) Momento ( talk) 09:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Almost Vassyana but the"no longer" part of the sentence is also a complete fabrication. Momento ( talk) 09:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey Vassyana, Hunt said "Leaving his more ascetic life behind him, he does not personally eschews material possessions. Over time, critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle and argue that it is supported largely by the donations of his followers". Stick to that and you can't go wrong. Momento ( talk) 10:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Momento, I made a proposal here: Talk:Prem Rawat#Here we go again - do you think it has merits? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

BLP -

Articles about living persons, which require a degree of sensitivity, must adhere strictly to Wikipedia's content policies. Be very firm about high-quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space."

No original research -

Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

Verifiability

We cannot check the accuracy of claims, but we can check whether the claims have been published by a reputable publication. Articles should therefore cite sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

Reliable sources -

Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.

Questionable sources -

are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

Conjectural interpretations

Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy.

Momento ( talk) 03:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Prem Rawat. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --> -->

You've removed " Prem Rawat aka Maharaji Prem Rawat aka Maharaji Information Resource" two times now in less than half a day. Just giving a warning in due time. I'm going to put that external link back (if nobody else has beaten me to it yet), which would also be my second revert in less than 24H, because there's no demonstration that this is in any sense or format a breach of Wikipedia content policy (as you claim). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Please don't use results of your forum shopping in an edit summary [18]

I already pointed you to WP:FORUMSHOP, part of a behavioural guideline.

There's a policy containing virtually the same wording: WP:PARENT (I just discovered, sorry, if I'd know I'd directed you there directly).

What you assume to be a policy breach has not been demonstrated. Your policy breaking is nonetheless demonstrable. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 22:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Which part of BLP policy don't you understand Francis? Momento ( talk) 22:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I understand WP:BLP very well, thank you. No infringement on WP:BLP has been demonstrated. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Forum shopping? Or a good faith attempt to ask uninvolved editors to weigh in in a dispute? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

You had just opened the discussion on this source at WP:BLPN. Within a few hours, not ready to wait for the outcome of that discussion, you had started the WP:ANI thread on the same topic. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I consider your frequent posting on my talk page to be harassment. Stop it. Momento ( talk) 10:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Momento, you have repeatedly deleted sourced material from Wikipedia articles, despite numerous warnings and requests to stop. If you continue I will ask for limits on your editing. Please respect this project and its policies. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Do you mean BLP policies? If so, look under "poorly sourced, contentious and irrelevant gossip given undue weight". Momento ( talk) 09:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC) reply

The material in question is not poorly sourced, contentious, or irrelevant, and it certainly isn't gossip. Your answer to this request isn't helpful. I suggest you take a break from editing the Prem Rawat-related articles in order to regain perspective. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC) reply

We will see Will BeBack. Momento ( talk) 11:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Prem Rawat 1RR parole proposal, the articles now in category:Prem Rawat are on special 1RR and disruption probation. A notice describing the probation is at talk:Prem Rawat. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I think you really should be a little more civil in your discussions on the Prem Rawat page. Spoonkymonkey ( talk) 00:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC) reply

In my opinion 1rr, and DR via AN and ANI, and discussion, have failed. Take it to RFAR. Lawrence § t/ e 18:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC) reply

You have been named as a party at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Prem Rawat ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Please do not add text to other people's section. Only the clerk can do that. Please move your comments to your own section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Based on your rebuttal post that Jossi refers to above, is it also just as true that you have been a follower of Rawat for 30 years, as claimed, and that despite that, you feel you have no COI on this subject? Maelefique ( talk) 02:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply

That's correct. I want a "neutral, reliably sourced" article. Momento ( talk) 02:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg ( talk) 02:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Facts - The Register 6th Feb. Momento ( talk) 06:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I have added a couple of items to my evidence in the Prem Rawat arbitration and wanted to make sure you knew about them and had full opportunity to respond. I added some WikiDashboard statistics in the section on ownership, and more examples of Jossi defending you in dispute resolution in the Mixing Roles section. Msalt ( talk) 08:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC) Test 5/4 13:37 reply

Talk:Criticism of Jimbo Wales]]== Per your comments at Talk:Criticism of Jimbo Wales, the article was deleted not because I objected to the subject matter, but rather because it contained no content of any value at all. Why not add to the article on Jimbo Wales rather than expand into a new article? -- Longhair\ ^talk 08:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I've only just begun adding material. It will be a comprehensive criticism of Jimbo with numerous sources and deleting it within minutes is censorship. Momento ( talk) 09:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

It's not censorship when the material you are adding is already sufficiently covered in the main article on Jimbo himself. -- Longhair\ ^talk 09:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

The new article will far more comprehensive than the current one and will focus entirely on criticism. Momento ( talk) 09:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Momento, I know we have long been at loggerheads over the Rawat article but please don't let that make you think I don't harbour a friendly concern for your well-being. We are after all 'bonded' through adversity. So I just want to tell you that I am a little concerned that your adventure here is just a weeny bit indicative of you er...losing the plot. :-) What exactly is the point of this demonstration? Why don't you just come out with it and explain whatever your beef is or whatever injustice you feel is being done? Instead of launching into this oblique, unexplained new adventure of yours.... What's your problem man? PatW ( talk) 22:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I notice on the talk page - you say that several people have criticism articles? who are you referring to? -- 87.114.159.98 ( talk) 22:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply

There are three living people with "criticisms of..." articles. 2 redirect to "criticism of.." articles and one to the subject's article. There are 9 living people with "criticism of.." articles, 5 of the 9 are politicians, the other 4 are Cindy Sheehan (her article is titled "Criticism and support of..), Naom Chomsky, Sylvia Browne (psychic and medium) and Bill O'Reilly (reporter) Momento ( talk) 22:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Momento, please read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply

How can having an article "Criticism of Jimbo Wales" be a disruption if "Criticism of Prem Rawat" is not? Momento ( talk) 00:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Jimmy Wales has been subject of considerable criticism by former employees and the media, but editors have made the editorial decision to incorporate that criticism into the main article about him, for a better NPOV presentation of the subject. In any article, and in particular in BLPs, any criticism should not overwhelm the article, as per Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue_weight, and Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply

So if it's good enough for Jimmy, why does Will want a "Criticism of..." article for Rawat. What justification is there for this contradiction? Momento ( talk) 01:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Momento, have you had a chance to read the guideline yet? It's apparent that you are trying to make a point, and that you are being disruptive by doing so. There is an active ArbCom case covering your behavior, among others. This incident appears to be worth mentioning in that case. Editors have been rebuked before for similar disruptions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply

What's your point Will? I suggest Jimbo should have a "Criticism of..." article and it's a "disruption". And you suggest Rawat has a "Criticism of..." article and it's "not a disruption". The guideline says " disruptive: i.e., they require the vast majority of nonpartisan editors to clean up or revert the "proof". I haven't done that. Momento ( talk) 01:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Since you've shown no previous interest in the article on Jimmy Wales, or even about criticism of him, it's obvious that this is just in response to the article Criticism of Prem Rawat. It's also obvious that you haven't read WP:POINT and don't understand it. If Jossi chooses to endorse your disruption then that's not helpful either. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I haven't caused a disruption and you repeating it without evidence is a "personal attack". I presume my interest in Jimbo is the same as yours in Rawat, my attention has been drawn to his article by The Register. Momento ( talk) 01:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I've posted it to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence#WP:POINT violation by Momento, in case you wish to respond there. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I find your explanation to be hard to believe. If I recall correctly, you've made statements in the past that you think having a "criticism of..." article is inappropriate. Am I mistaken? Have you changed your mind? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I have always rejected "Criticism of..." articles as a means get around BLP [19]. Momento ( talk) 04:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Then why did you create one of them twice? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I didn't create it twice. Check my contributions. Longhair and Jossi objected to it so I immediately stopped. Momento ( talk) 04:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, you did create it twice. [20] [21] The first version was speedily deleted (which is why it doesn't show up in your edit history. You've written that I've made a false claim about this. The facts say otherwise. Please correct the record. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I can't see what 20 links to. And I can't see how my edit history and the article edit history can both be wrong. I created the article at 8:508:47, contested the speedy deletion at 8.50 and added source at 8:52 and it was gone by 8:56. Momento ( talk) 04:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply

You can't see it because seeing deleted edits requires having the administrative bit set in your user account. That's why your revision history doesn't show it either, etc. You created it at 8:47 and again at 8:50, perhaps unaware of the fact that it had been deleted in between. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply

The 8:50 is objecting to the speedy deletion. If that's a re-creation, software did it, I didn't do it. Momento ( talk) 04:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply

As I said, you may not have noticed that you were recreating a deleted article since it happened so fast. Nonetheless, you did so with the sole purpose (so far as I can tell) of making a point. Not content to leave it there, you went on to argue in favor of having the "Criticisms of Jimbo Wales" article. If I were the admin involved I'd think my time had been wasted due to intentional disruption. Please don't do it again. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Momento, you are engaged in edit-warring on the Divine Light Mission page. Reverting a revert is edit-warring, pure and simple. Please self-revert and cease this behavior. Let me remind you of the words of Jossi, earlier on this user: Talk page: "Momento, please re-consider the way you are editing. It would be much more productive to pursue WP:DR via WP:RFC and other mechanisms, than to respond to a revert with another revert. That behavior escalates quite rapidly resulting in editors getting dinged for 3RR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)"

As you will recall, you were blocked for edit-warring shortly after that warning. And of course, the article is now under 1RR probation, so this behavior escalates that much more rapidly. Msalt ( talk) 06:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Talk:Teachings of Prem Rawat is not the Arbitration page. Comments about other editors are out of place there. Please stop making negative personal remarks and assuming bad faith. The article is on probation and I will file a complaint if you don't stop with your incivility and tendentious editing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply

And here is Will Beback's version of civility - "Ample evidence has been provided about this editor's problems." "Momento, that has got to be one of the most ridiculous arguments I've heard. So ridiculous that it qualifies as tendentious editing.". "Momento's argument is just plain ridiculous. [22]. Momento ( talk) 02:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply

... for the Barnstar, Momento. Best wishes, Jayen 466 23:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Criticism of Jimbo Wales, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also " What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{ dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? — Dæ dαlus ^T@lk / Improve 20:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC) reply

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Evidence presented did not disclose a history of problematic editing, in terms of basic content policy, by Jossi, and the Committee commended Jossi's self-imposed restriction to edit only talk pages for Prem Rawat related articles. Due to a history of incivility and personal attacks surrounding articles related to the Prem Rawat movement, the preexisting community enforced one-revert rule on Prem Rawat and related articles that commenced March 4, 2008, has been superceeded by Arbitration Committee enforced article probation. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 15:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20 Divine Light Mission has become active. Your participation is required to make it a success. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Based on your deleting the entire criticism section of Prem Rawat twice [23] [24] without consensus, and on your previous editing behavior which includes tendentious behavior and POV pushing, I believe that you should be banned from editing the article per the ArbCom's probation. I invite you to undo your edit and work towards consensus with other editors to achieve neutral and balanced articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Momento edit-warring over criticism section at Prem Rawat. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I didn't delet "the entire criticism section". Once the redundant Mishler and Kent material is removed and the Schabel paragraph removed to the "Teachings" article where it belongs, the "Criticism" section is empty. And, of course, it violates NPOV. Momento ( talk) 01:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply

The Mishler and Kent material wasn't redundant because it's not included anywhere else - it's referred to without explanation. After editing this topic for two years now you should realize that NPOV cannot be achieved by deleting all criticism. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply

As I pointed out the article already says "In the mid-1970s several ex-members became vocal critics of Rawat's movement, including Robert Mishler, the former president of DLM.[59][60] A number of these critics made the standard anti cult charges of brainwashing and mind control.[61][62]" and "Some journalists and scholars have described Rawat's teachings as lacking in intellectual content." Anymore from them in a different section is redundant and undue weight. And, by the way, why didn't you report Francis when he wrote I was telling lies and reinserted the following errors -

1. Lipner doesn't refer to "dogma" or " direct inner experience' but to "ritual" and "true religion is a matter of loving and surrendering to God who dwells in the heart" as I corrected

2. Galanter source refers to premies giving satsang not Rawat which I corrected.

3. Naming Van der lans and Derks is undue weight, which I corrected.

4. Inserted material than has been tagged "citation needed" for more than a month, which I corrected. Momento ( talk) 02:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply

You have been blocked for 72hours for disruption at Prem Rewat. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Momento_edit-warring_over_criticism_section_at_Prem_Rawat. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply

It says at the top of the Arbcom page "Please notify the user of your report at his or her user talk page". Francis didn't notify me and you have blocked me with 2 hours of his complaint. Francis has "Gamed the system". I had no time to reply and you "should still Assume Good Faith. ArbCom decisions are designed to be coercive, not punitive. Gaming the system at editors under ArbCom sanction is about as civilized as poking sticks at caged animals". Please undo this block. Momento ( talk) 02:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry I didn't notice he did not notify you. It looked solid to me, though I will admit I was a bit hasty. I'll ping Francis. As for your situation, please comment here as I'm more than willing to discuss it. I'll be back on in about 8 hours. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your honest reply. I'm not the complaining type, a few days ago Francis called me a liar and two days ago I had to deal with the following but I never thought to make a complaint. I wrote this on the PR talk page after Francis reverted an hour's worth of careful editing -

I cleaned up the Teaching section and corrected several errors but it was immediately reverted by Francis [8].

Here are the errors he re-inserted -

1. Lipner doesn't refer to "dogma" or " direct inner experience' but to "ritual" and "true religion is a matter of loving and surrendering to God who dwells in the heart" as I corrected

2. Galanter source refers to premies giving satsang not Rawat which I corrected.

3. Naming Van der lans and Derks is undue weight, which I corrected.

4. Inserted material than has been tagged "citation needed" for more than a month, which I corrected.'' Momento (talk) 06:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been happy to deal with Francis on the talk page but it seems that isn't enough for him.

As for WillBeBack's input, I'd advise you to check the facts for yourself. Here's a recent example of how Will reports on my actions. He recently wrote to another editor -

Momento asserts that Collier is the most reliable source available. If a highly reliable source says that someone was drunk then it is not a BLP violation to discuss that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

But look at how many times I've denied that claim just a few days before.

Momento, Are you asserting that Collier is the most reliable source we can use for this article, more reliable than newspapers or scholarly accounts? If so there's lots of material from that book that I'd like to add. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No.Momento (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No what? Is Collier a reliable source for the comments of Rennie Davis, and other personal observations? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You asked me a question. The answer is "No". Yes, Collier is a reliable source, providing normal Wiki policies are followed.Momento (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

So if you agree that Collier is not more reliable than newspapers why did you assert that previously? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You asked me if Collier is " the most reliable source we can use for this article". And the answer is still "No". As for whether Collier is more reliable than "newspapers", that obviously depends on the particular material in question and the newspaper concerned.12 MayMomento

As you can see, Will isn't a "reliable source". Momento ( talk) 03:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Momento's narrative doesn't include him replacing the newspaper account with the cccount in Collier's memoir because, in his edit summary, "eyewitness [Collier] trumps all". [25] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Will's narrative doesn't include that I was paraphrasing his edit summary "AP trumps 2nd hand quote in memoir.)" Momento ( talk) 04:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I warned Momento that I would request enforcement at [[#Warning] above. Francis went ahead and made the request and I promptly notified him under the same heading. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply

You may work very well with Francis but it is Francis who is obliged to inform me. Momento ( talk) 04:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I certainly wasn't working "with" Francis. I simply noticed that you had't been notified and did so myself. It doesn't matter who alerted you. If you look at the my posting to the complaint you'll see I explcitly requested that no action be taken until all of the evidence was added. The blocking admin apparently felt there was enough evidence already. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• 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) reply
  • 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) reply

Thanks but I'm still blocked. Momento ( talk) 21:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Try it now - I cleared an autoblock. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply

He asked I post this on your talk page (see my page): "Momento, please lift the prohibition for me to post on your talk page, which you issued several months ago, User talk:Francis Schonken#Invading my space. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)". Also, see unblock statement above. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Not to encourage you to revert other editors, but note that the article probation superseded the community-enforced 1RR restriction. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat#Article_probation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC) reply

You may have missed the thread at talk:Prem Rawat#DLM/PR coordination, where I discussed minimizing the overlap between the Prem Rawat article and the DLM article. There's no need to include much of the same text in both places. Please discuss your recent edits on the talk page there. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Much of this article is repeated in related articles else where. We cannot assume someone is going to read every article, so me must provide balance and context where necessary. Momento ( talk) 09:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Francis asked me to tell you he's posting another subtopic here. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Momento, tx for the reply. The message is above, and you've found the new subtopic on the AE noticeboard, since you've been adding a comment to it already. I hope that herewith at least the communication problem is alleviated. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Momento_edit-warring_over_criticism_section_at_Prem_Rawat you have been blocked 72 hours. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I've invited the other editors to join, I'll invite you as well. I have a channel, ##Steve , my nickname on IRC is SteveCrossin. Jossi, Mael-Num is there, and Will is joining too. It's up to you if you wish to or not, but you are invited. Steve Crossin (talk) (email) 22:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks Steve. Busy now but I will join. Momento ( talk) 22:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has a right if they wish to remain completely anonymous. Wikipedia policy on that issue is strictly enforced. Posting private information about a user with the intent to annoy, threaten or harass, specifically their (alleged) name and/or personal details, is strictly prohibited as harassment, and users who do that are often immediately blocked from editing Wikipedia. Such posting can cause offense or embarrassment to the victim of the posting, not least because it means that their name, and any personal criticism or allegations made against them can then appear on web searches.

If you have posted such information, please remove it immediately. Please then follow the link to this page and follow the instructions there, including emailing this address. It will then be removed from the archives of Wikipedia.

If you do not ensure that the personal information you posted is removed from this site you will be blocked from editing this site. Remember: Wikipedia's privacy policy is there to protect the privacy of every user, including you.

You posted a possible irl name on several user talk pages recently (don't think I'll need to spell out), please remove the actual alleged irl name from these messages (the message can be perfectly conveyed without it). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you Francis. User:John Brauns, user:WillBeback, user:Steve Crossin and user:Francis Schonken are often referred to as John, Will, Steve and Francis. What isn't acceptable is John Brauns using any other name for me other than Momento. Momento ( talk) 10:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I read your message on my talk page. As of writing this, you didn't remove the alleged irl name from three user talk pages (the messages to these user talk pages can be perfectly conveyed without mentioning the actual alleged irl name). Thus the warning above stands as I wrote it. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Clarification: I'm not referring to the use of the name "John" (or my name, or Will's name, nor any other name that is used as (part of) a wikipedia user name). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply

So you're saying I cannot repeat what John Baruns said? I'm afraid I can't see your reasoning. It sounds as if John Brauns can do what he likes but I can't object to it. Momento ( talk) 10:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply

If you think what John said objectionable, I don't see the use of repeating the part you object to on multiple other pages. As said, the message can be conveyed without the part you object to.

There's a distinct possibility the wikipedia user and the alleged irl name are not linked (I don't know, and I don't want to know). Because of that possibility disseminating the irl name might be perceived as harassment. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Why don't you be a good friend and remove them. Will and I removed them. Momento ( talk) 10:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, don't make this into a catch 22 situation. I'm not going to modify your edits to someone else's user talk page. The warning message above is clear: you should remove the perceived problematic content immediately. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 11:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Will and I stepped in immediately and modified John Brauns edits on a talk page but then I realized the damage had been done when Brauns did it for the fourth time. I think the horse has bolted on this one Francis. It's like making a claim in the NYTimes. Once it's out, it's out and reporting on it no longer falls under the category of "outing" someone. Let's see what the experts say. I can hardly get into trouble for quoting John Brauns? Momento ( talk) 11:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Please see WP:Oversight, and read it carefully. That's why I urge you to follow the procedure exactly as foreseen in the {{ uw-pinfo}} template (its content is displayed above in this section, the first three paragraphs), including the e-mail as described.

This is about your credibility. How do you expect oversight would be applied to John's questionable edits, if you continue to add similar info to ever more pages? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Ex-premie.org. Thank you. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Sworn and attested testimony to the Supreme Court of Queensland? There can hardly be a better source. And the fact that three notable ex-premies, almost the entire Australian chapter, are convicted criminals is not the slightest bit controversial it is a fact verified by the Supreme Court of Queensland. Could you explain what is controversial about their convictions or the court documents? Momento ( talk) 07:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Please consider removing this comment. [26] It is inconsistent with the standards set by the ArbCom for the topic probation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Momento, please note what I have said here, and remember that if you have a problem with another editor, that I am only an email away, or a talk page post away. Despite being on Wikibreak, I check in rather regularly, but remember that taking matters into your own hands is not the way to handle matters. Remember that this is a contentious dispute, and strong feelings are involved. I am aware that you are what some would call "pro-Rawat" (I cant think of another way to put it), and I know that some editors are what followers of Rawat would call "anti-Rawat". Obviously it's not as black and white as that, but remember that some comments that may not look favourable, may not be a policy violation. I keep an eye on the case and I'll pull up editors on their conduct if necessary, but please don't take matters into your own hands. Steve Crossin (talk) (contact page) 09:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply

BLP policy says "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space". Will BeBack's saying in a discussion of the Halley beating - "The idea that Rawat can absolve himself of any responsibility for things done on his behalf, in his name, by his senior apostles is ridiculous" or "This idea that Rawat had no involvement with the people he lead and gave orders to, no responsibility for the actions of the church he led and that paid his bills, is absurd, IMO", is a clear suggestion that the beating was done "on his behalf" by a person he "gave orders to". It is a flagrant violation of BLP policy and libel [27]. Momento ( talk) 10:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 3. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel ( talk) 05:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I have nominated The Prem Rawat Foundation, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Prem Rawat Foundation. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. rootology ( C)( T) 06:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your participation at my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to act in ways that earn your full confidence, even though I don't have it now. Cirt ( talk) 01:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I have nominated Words of Peace, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Words of Peace. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Kelly ^hi! 22:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Are you still active on that talk page? There are several threads where I've left questions for you. If those aren't active anymore we can mark them as resolved. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I'll be back. Momento ( talk) 07:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Momento, I've notice that when you edit you don't insert a space between the citation for one sentence and the first letter of the next sentence. For example, this edit. [28] Could you please remember to add the space? Thanks. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks Will, I will do so in future. Momento ( talk) 22:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Prem Rawat. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. [29] - Please be wary of avoiding inserting copyright violations into articles. Thanks. Cirt ( talk) 23:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Edits like this [30], in which you move or remove text while leaving the source, are very harmful in that they scramble the citations. In this case you make it appear that a source is being used for something that it doesn't necessarily say. I've brought this problem to your attention before. Please be more careful. If you cannot edit properly then please ask others to do so on your behalf. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply

I left the source because it is the source of the previous sentence as well. Unless, of course, it isn't then that will be sloppy editing on your behalf. Momento ( talk) 21:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply

According to whom is Lewis the source for the previous sentence? The material in that sentence is verifiable in many sources, but Lewis does not assert that Mata Ji was a leader of the Indian branch, unlike other sources. If you think that sentence is controversial please raise the issue separately. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply

You put it in as per [31] Here it is - "Meanwhile Maharaj Ji was coming of age and taking greater responsibility within the movement. A month after the festival he turned 16 and the following May he received court permission to marry, making him an emancipated minor. The marriage, to a Californian follower nine years his senior, along with his move to take control of the DLM led to a rift within the family that resulted in the movement being split between a Western branch, led by Maharaj Ji, and an Indian branch, run by his mother and Bal Bhagwan Ji. By the end of the decade, the U.S. branch had lost an estimated 80% of its membership.[186] So not only is you editing sloppy, you accuse others of doing it. Fix it and stop harassing me. Momento ( talk) 22:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Pointing out editing issues is the purpose of a user talk page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Blaming others for your sloppy editing is harassment. And continuing to do so when your mistake is pointed out is persistent harassment. Apologize and Stop it. Momento ( talk)s

You are under the mistaken impression that it is necessary or traditional to cite every sentence in an article. In this case, I cited the assertion that I thought might be disputed. Then you deleted that assertion anyway but left the citation. That was the problem. Please don't do it again. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply

I never agreed to that. I agreed to leave in the existing material at the time for the sake of stability. Now that the article is getting extraenous material moved out it's a good time to delete a very poor source. Also, please don't reinsert the unnamed newspaper article unless it's verifiable. Can you post the text you're using as a source? If not I'll delete it again. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC) reply

You can verify any source if you are concerned or are you suggesting that I can remove anything I can't find? Momento ( talk) 01:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC) reply

See the discussion, where I've repeatedly asked for the title of a work you're citing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC) reply

A reminder that all articles related to Prem Rawat are under ArbCom probation, and that it may be a good idea to take a break from editing these articles before you find yourself in trouble. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Forgive me if this is inappropriately intruding, but I would like to request an alteration of comments on my ArbCom election vote page. I find "which still annoys the anti Rawat crew" to be a bit too targeted and antagonistic. I would like to see the voting kept civil and positive. Will and Cirt's comments were civil, polite and to the point. I would truly appreciate it if you were willing to redact that portion of your comments. Thanks! Vassyana ( talk) 21:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you! It is sincerely appreciated. Vassyana ( talk) 22:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply

You're a good editor Vassyana and I hope you get in. Momento ( talk) 23:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Prem Rawat. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

Don't forget the article is under article probation (see Talk:Prem Rawat)!

Your reverts also seem disruptive while most often not using an edit summary, apart from the automatically generated "undo" message. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm reverting changes made without consensus. Momento ( talk) 10:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Still forgot, the fact that you're a near-SPA on Prem Rawat related topics doesn't help your cause when entangled in edit-warring on such articles as you are. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC) reply

You'll therefore be aware the NikWright2, John Brauns and 41.223.60.60 are SPAs. The difference is, they are inserting a link that was removed by consensus 12 months ago. And the 3RR rule doesn't apply to removing contentious material inserted without consensus into the BLP. If you're really interested in the well being of Wiki you should be writing on their talk pages not mine. Momento ( talk) 10:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC) reply

While I agree my account is an SPA, I haven't inserted any links in the article for many years, so I am a little baffled why you say 'they' are inserting a link. Do you have a problem seeing people as individuals? -- John Brauns ( talk) 11:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC) reply

"they are inserting a link that was removed by consensus 12 months ago" either give the diffs for this 'consensus' or stop making the contention. The edit which you keep reverting was made by a new editor who can not possibly be expected to read through the talk page archive and it is grossly WP:UNCIVIL for you to revert without due explanation. -- Nik Wright2 ( talk) 14:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• And the 3RR rule doesn't apply to removing contentious material inserted without consensus into the BLP.

For the record, there is no such exemption in WP:3RR. Material that actually and clearly violates WP:BLP may be reverted without regard to 3RR, but issues of consensus and conentiousness are not exempt. Whether that link violates BLP is not clear enough to allow endless reverts to remove it.   Will Beback  talk  15:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• As an involved admin WillBeBack shouldn't you have removed the link and warned the 3 anon editors and Nik Wright2 instead of joining in Nik Wright2's dishonest complaint? And when an independent editor comes to the only possible conclusion why would you push to have it overturned? And still not warn the 3 anon editors and Nik Wright2. Momento (talk) 05:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Momento, I'm on a Wikibreak and didn't learn about this latest edit war until the complaints had already been filed and Nik had been banned. Not aware of the full situation, I first replied here to the message I saw you'd posted make an incorrect interpretation of the policy. As for the external links in the prem Rawat article, I've repeatedly supported the consensus of including only a single link, and my position has not changed. But regardless of my actions, Nik's actions, or any one else's actions you are not entitled to edit war. Please make sure that it does not happen again. Everyone's patience for conflict over this topic has alreaady run out.   Will Beback  talk  14:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply

@WP:AE

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Prem Rawat -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 17:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello. In enforcement of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat#Article probation, I am warning you that you may be subject to sanctions, including topic bans or blocks, without further warning if you continue to resort to WP:EW to resolve external link issues on Prem Rawat. In such situations, please request appropriate administrator intervention to enforce the application of WP:BLP instead.  Sandstein  22:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Please adhere to WP:TPG and do not modify the substance of comments that others have already responded to. Also, please take your issues with other editors elsewhere. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Momento at Prem Rawat (continued) -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 20:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC) reply

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat-Balyogeshwar, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks,   Will Beback  talk  07:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)   Will Beback  talk  07:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply

WP:AE#Momento at Prem Rawat (continued, again) -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 14:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply

WillBeBack provides 5 diffs to support his claim of "a pattern of misbehavior regarding this particular bit of information" (removing Balyogeshwar from the lead). [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] The first 3 relate to 2008 and WillBeBack asserts that "The information has been in the article for over a year, except when Momento has deleted it". But a little research reveals an entirely different story. Firstly, for all of 2007 the first sentence of the Prem Rawat article said something to the affect of "Prem Rawat (b. Prem Pal Singh Rawat, 10 December 1957 in Haridwar, India) also known as Maharaji (formerly Guru Maharaj Ji) has been a speaker on the subject of inner peace since the age of eight". No mention of "Balyogeshwar". And then on Feb 17 2008, with no discussion FrancisSchonken inserted "Balyogeshwa"r into the lead, an edit that WillBeBack omitted from his summary of diffs. [37] WillBeBack's summary begins with me reverting because, amongst other things, it was not discussed and poorly sourced [38] FrancisSchonken inserted it again while the issue was being discussed, again this edit is missing from WillBeBack's summary. [39] So I removed it again while discussions continued. [40] FrancisSchonken inserted it a third time while the issue was still being discussed, again missing from WillBeBack's summary. [41] So once again I removed it pending a resolution to ongoing discussions. [42]. When FrancisSchonken inserted it for a fourth time [43] and WillBeBack continued to support him, I gave up. So contrary to WillBeBack's claim that "The information has been in the article for over a year, except when Momento has deleted it", the real story is that "Balyogeshwar" was not in the lead until FrancisSchonken inserted it without consensus or discussion. So rather than being "misbehavior", I was legitimately removing an undiscussed, poorly sourced insertion against consensus by FrancisSchonken that disturbed a lead that had been stable for over a year! WillBeBack's evidence is irrefutable evidence of FrancisSchonken's "pattern of misbehavior". Momento ( talk) 20:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I just came across this, which I suppose is in response to the thread on WP:AE. As I mention on that page, the Wikiblame tool is out of order so it's harder to find when individual words were added and deleted from the article. I do see that "Balyogeshwar" was included in earlier years. But without a careful analysis of all of the edits related to the term it's hard to draw a conclusion about the early editing. As for edits in 2008, the inclusion of the name is consistent with biography guidelines so it shouldn't have been controversial. As for my own participation, I left a few comments on the talk page, but they were little in comparison to the 7,000 words posted by editors on that thread (which also discussed "Sant Ji"). Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive_33#Balyogeshwar Looking back over the last year, the inclusion of the term has been stable with the implicit consensus of all involved editors. I don't see why there is a sudden impulse to remove stable,neutral, sourced material.   Will Beback  talk  21:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply

yea hi momento I was reading a few of your posts and having a right laugh.. ta.( Off2riorob ( talk) 21:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)) reply

I have initiated a request for arbitration and named you as a party. [44] You may wish to make a statement there. Durova ^Charge! 08:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Example 1: WillBeBack asks me three times if "Collier is the most reliable source available", I say "No" three times. He then claims that I assert that "Collier is the most reliable source available" to another editor. Here's the exchange -

Momento, Are you asserting that Collier is the most reliable source we can use for this article, more reliable than newspapers or scholarly accounts? If so there's lots of material from that book that I'd like to add. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Momento (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No what? Is Collier a reliable source for the comments of Rennie Davis, and other personal observations? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You asked me a question. The answer is "No". Yes, Collier is a reliable source, providing normal Wiki policies are followed. Momento (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

So if you agree that Collier is not more reliable than newspapers why did you assert that previously? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You asked me if Collier is " the most reliable source we can use for this article". And the answer is still "No". As for whether Collier is more reliable than "newspapers", that obviously depends on the particular material in question and the newspaper concerned. 12 May Momento

Two days later, here's WillBeBack's post to another editor -

"Momento asserts that Collier is the most reliable source available". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for making a statement in an Arbitration application on requests for arbitration. We ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Please trim your statement accordingly. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence. Neat, concisely presented statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee. MBisanz ^talk 02:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply

History

On Feb 8, 2008 the relatively stable Prem Rawat article was thrown into disarray when Francis Schonken without a word of discussion reverted over 1000 edits and 12 months of co-operation and consensus to a version of the Prem Rawat article that suited his POV. [45] Over the next two weeks he was joined by WB, Ms and NW. Will Beback used his first ever PR edit, to revert the consensus version to the FS's POV version despite clear opposition on the talk page. [46] [47] And even after a compromise version was achieved, FS made another massive 26,000 byte edit before being reverted by Sarcasticidealist. [48] [49] [50]

Msalt's first edit in PR Talk after FS's massive reversion was "I am encouraged by the direction of the most recent changes." [51] His second ever PRa edit was to revert my removal of unsourced material. [52] and he began removing sourced material that didn't suit his POV. [53] [54] [55] [56] [57]

Nik Wright2 re-appeared on Feb 26 and started an edit war by adding 12,000 bytes of undiscussed, contested material and reinserting it when it was reverted. [58] [59] [60] Nandesuka protected the article until March 4. [61]

In the mean time, the now retired, Onefinalstep also added the house image and the EPO link without discussion. [62] [63]

House image

The house image was objected to by several editors and an IfD started. [64] Admin Jeepday removed the image pending outside input. [65] Despite the objections, the IfD, the Jepday's removal, it was inserted 3 times by FS [66] [67] [68] And once by Msalt. [69] The image was rejected by IfD on Feb 21. [70]

Ex-Premie-Org dispute

The undiscussed EPO link was also vigorously opposed and deleted 12 times by 6 editors before WB & Jossi proposed a "one link" compromise on Feb 13 and since "there has been no opposition, and some support, for deleting the additinal links", all links except Rawat's personal site were deleted. [71] [72] [73] [74] FS promptly added sites including EPO and edit warred for a week over them. [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83]

Balyogeshwar evidence Part 1

"Balogeshwar" had not been included in the lead since the article was created in May 2004 [84] FrancisSchonken inserted it without discussion, consensus or source on 17 February 2008. [85] Jossi immediately started a discussion about in PR Talk objecting to its inclusion in the lead. [86] Noting the objection and lack of discussion, consensus or source I removed it. [87] While the discussion continued Francis reverted anyway still without a source. [88]. Which was removed by another editor. [89] Francis once again inserted it. [90] So I removed it again. [91] Francis, again inserted it a fourth time, this time with a source [92] And again I removed it while discussion took place because it was still inserted without consensus and text that didn't match the source. [93] When Francis inserted it a fifth time [94], we all gave up.

Balyogeshwar evidence Part 2

On Jan 26 Cla68 changes the opening sentence into the present tense. [95] Then adds "Lord of the Universe" to sentence. [96] I rewrite the sentence to remove "LOTU" since it is undiscussed and unsourced and "Balyogeshwar" since it is not currently used nor a pseudonym as per WP:NAMES. [97] [98] Several editors then re-write the sentence leaving out "LOTU" and "Balyogeshwar" and WB reverts them twice in 24 hours claiming that "LOTU" has been discussed and is sourced, neither of which is true. [99] [100] I remove "LOTU". [101] And I remove "Balyogeshwar" because it is not a current pseudonym or title. [102] Then on Feb 1 Jayen finds a new authoritative source which said Rawat was known as "Balyogeshwar (born lord of yogis) by the Indian public on account of his young age and precocious spirituality (i.e. a title from his childhood) and later Guru Maharaj Ji by his students" and adds it as a source. [103] [104] [105] FS reverts it because he claims it got a date wrong. [106] I add "in India" as per new source. [107] FS reverts claiming OR. [108] WB suggests text for the "Childhood" section and says he'll add it. [109] [110] I relocate "Balyogeshwar" into "Childhood" section as per talk. [111] WB asks if anyone objects to putting "Balyogeshwar" back into the lead? [112] I say "Yes, I object". [113] WB dismisses the only reply he received to his question, my objection, and say he's going to insert it anyway. [114] I tell him to wait for the mediation. [115] WB says he's going to put it in. [116] Once again I say to wait for the mediation. [117] WB says the mediation is on hold, so he inserts "Balyogeshwar" into the lead. [118] [119] My final plea is for WB to revert, he doesn't. [120]

Edit war?

WillBeBack once again claims my "previous edit having spawned an edit war" when, as I hope we have all noted, it was Cla68 who started Will's "edit war" as we can clearly see here [121] and Will's admission here. [122] How many times can WillBeBack state I caused "an edit war" while admitting it isn't true? Momento ( talk) 03:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Momento ( talk · contribs) and Rumiton ( talk · contribs) are banned from editing Prem Rawat or any related article (including talk pages) for one year. The Prem Rawat article and all related articles are subject to revert limitations for one year. Several users are admonished for their conduct in the case and all parties and other interested editors are encouraged to restart mediation in relation to Prem Rawat. Also, should Jossi ( talk · contribs) return to Wikipedia to edit Prem Rawat articles, he is required to contact the Arbitration Committee beforehand. These remedies are in addition to, and do not replace, the remedies passed in RFAR/Prem Rawat.

For the Committee. MBisanz ^talk 02:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Discuss this

Following three complaints made against me in a fortnight by anti-Rawat editors (one by Nik Wright2 who was topic banned for a month [123] and two by Francis Schonken, in which his behavior was described by an involved admin as "problematic, and is indeed approaching harassment" [124], [125] ), no findings were made against me. Durova suggested ArbCom investigate and I was looking forward to having an impartial hearing about this blatant harassment. I presented the following evidence against Francis Schonken [126] and evidence against WillBeback [127]. Imagine my surprise when Bainer ignored the evidence against Francis Schonken and WillBeback by me and others and only presented this flimsy evidence against me [128] and the other pro-Rawat editor Rumiton. Despite my objections and providing detailed comparisons of how Francis Schonken [129] and WillBeback's editing was far worse than mine and Rumiton's [130], they were simply "admonished" [131] and we were topic banned for a year. Momento ( talk) 06:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Millennium '73, to which you made significant contributions, has now been promoted to WP:Featured article status. Thank you for your help.   Will Beback  talk  20:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Momento, could you please resubmit your request using the proper template? The template appears when you follow this link [132]. Using the proper template creates additional spaces for discussion, etc.   Will Beback  talk  04:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Momento, as a result of your frivolous request for arbitration enforcement, you are banned from discussions related to Prem Rawat under the authority of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat#Article probation. That is, you are banned from initiating or otherwise participating in any discussions related to Prem Rawat in all Wikipedia discussion pages and other fora, including article and user talk pages, WP:AE, WP:AN, WP:ANI and their talk pages, except to the extent necessary to make responses to any requests for administrative action against you. This topic ban shall last as long as your ban from editing articles about the same topic (i.e., currently until 20 April 2010 per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2#Momento topic banned).  Sandstein  08:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Prem Rawat mediation

I note your request to join this mediation. Please discuss this issue here. Sunray ( talk) 17:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Please ensure that your edits to WT:BLP are acceptable in terms of your ban from discussions of Prem Rawat. Note that the ban is from all discussions of Prem Rawat on all pages of Wikipedia. Thanks, Prodego ^talk 01:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks, although looks like you're getting yourself into too much trouble with ArbCom -- taken my advice, don't edit war, and don't go to ArbCom, because from what I can see, all judgements come out the same way, i.e. everyone is punished. Alex Harvey ( talk) 13:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Richard Lindzen, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 12:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Momento, would you be so kind as to send me a private email to let me know who the editors are who ganged up against you Prem Rawat case? It's quite conceivable, as you said, that some of them would like to see you permanently banned and it'd be nice to know who they are so that I can be wary should they turn up at the Lindzen page. I can be found at alexharv074 at gmail dot com. Many thanks. Alex Harvey ( talk) 04:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I've left questions for you at Talk:Prem Rawat#Lede and Talk:Prem Rawat#Lede not representative of article. Have you missed them? Please respond so we can resolve this matter.   Will Beback  talk  14:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Though he originally aspired to bring about world peace, the idea being that peace would come to the world as individuals experienced inner peace, he now places his attention on helping individuals, which according to him takes priority over societal aims. ^{[4] [5]}

Saw your message on my talk page and have added my 2 cents worth. -- Zanthorp ( talk) 08:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply

In response to your message, I have posted a restatement of my reccomendation on the PR talk page. Ronk01 ( talk) 23:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply

A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Prem Rawat was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page.

Thank you, AGK 11:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC) reply

The Request for mediation concerning Prem Rawat 5, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 23:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

You're priceless. It's your behaviour and arguments that I've criticised not you. What makes you premies think you can use Wikipedia as promotional space for your master and not be attacked for it? Your entire Wikipedia history is one of aggressive and misleading pro-Prem Rawat editing which, as a former follower myself, I find particularly nauseating. Even if you do succeed in blocking me (which I'm sure would accord you enormous glee and horrify many Wikipedians to boot that 'another Rawat follower seeks to silence opposition') someone else will rightly see through and continue to resist your interminable revisionist editing habits. (as they are plainly doing now!) I look forward to challenging you at every opportunity as long as you try to twist the article away from the truth. PatW ( talk) 01:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC) PS. Do you still want to argue that Prem Rawat never claimed he was God? I'd love to see you try and pull that one on the current editors over at the Prem Rawat article! Know what- I am DELIGHTED that since you've returned from being banned yourself, your blundering attempts at revising the article in a Pro-Rawat way are being quite excellently thwarted - and not by me but by others who are more impartial and now wise to your tricks. I would happily retire now (or be banned eternally) from Wikipedia confident that no-one is actually going to put up with you or other premies trying to whitewash that article. Hooray! PatW ( talk) 01:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC) But don't worry..I've been thinking about this a lot and I've decided that these issues are not worth getting angry about any more..so if you a feel under attack it won't be from me. PatW ( talk) 16:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Please stop editing or deleting comments from other users. WP:TPG.   Will Beback  talk  23:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC) reply

WP:TPG allows removal of material that contravenes - "Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context". Perhaps you should be cautioning PatW about misrepresenting me. As I have told you any times it is a form of harassment. Momento ( talk) 00:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC) reply

If the record is incorrect then correct it by adding material. WP:TPG does not authorize deleting incorrect material. If you delete it again I will file an edit warring complaint.   Will Beback  talk  00:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm not going to waste my time correcting PatW's fabrications. Momento ( talk) 00:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC) reply

PatW claimed that "I'm glad that you (Momento) now don't deny that the article's current text was distorting the words of Björkqvist". As can be clearly seen by reading the section concerned at no point did I "deny the article's current text was distorting the words of Björkqvist". In fact I made no comment about about whether the article did or didn't distort Björkqvist.

And WP:TPG says Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism". And "Behavior that is unacceptable Please note that some of the following are of sufficient importance to be official Wikipedia policy. Violations (and especially repeated violations) may lead to the offender being blocked or banned from editing Wikipedia. Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context". Momento ( talk) 00:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC) reply

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Momento reported by User:Will Beback (Result: )   Will Beback  talk  01:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC) reply

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring at Talk:Prem Rawat in violation of talk page guidelines. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{ unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tiptoety ^talk 01:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC) reply

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Momento ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))

---

Request reason:

Not given any time to respond. The sentence removed was a deliberate fabrication that claims "I'm glad that you (Momento) now don't deny that the article's current text was distorting the words of Björkqvist" . [133] It is clear from the section concerned that haven't made any comment, pro or con regarding, "distorting the words of Björkqvist" and PatW has claimed it to make it look like a) I have falsely claimed the article didn't distort Björkqvist and b) that I later changed my mind. I removed the deliberate fabrication as per WP:TPG which says - "Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed" Because there is some "Behavior that is unacceptable" and that is "Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context".

Decline reason:

By removing another user's comments, you caused the visible record to not reflect the conversation. That phrase does not give you liscence to remove other people's comments merely because you believe them to be wrong or inaccurate. In fact, it forbids you from removing comments for that reason, because in removing comments, it interupts the context of the discussion and changes the meaning of it. You were told to, instead of removing the comments, to refute them. You chose not to do so. This block is perfectly valid given your staunch refusal to correct the problem even when told how to do it the right way. Jayron 32 04:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC) reply

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I have filed a request for enforcement in regard to your editing. [134]   Will Beback  talk  23:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I received your email. Please use my talk page to contact me unless you are blocked. Stifle ( talk) 09:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Per this AE thread, and under the authority of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat#Article probation, you are hereby topic banned from Prem Rawat and all related articles and discussions for one year. Timotheus Canens ( talk) 01:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

And here's how it happened.

After two weeks of no edits to the Prem Rawat article, Will Beback adds "and Perfect Master" to the article without consensus and creates this sentence - "At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) and as the new Satguru and Perfect Master to millions of Indian followers". This creates an error that Rawat succeeded to TWO positions on his father's death, "Satguru and Perfect Master". [135]

I remove "Satguru" since it is not sourced and WP:BLP says "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussionn". And leave "Perfect Master" which has two sources and corrects the TWO position error Will Beback created. [136]

Will Beback re-adds the unsourced "Satguru" to the sentence despite the fact that WP:BLP says "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material" and re-creates the TWO position error. [137]

I revert back to the original long standing sentence that existed before Will Beback's first edit as a least it removes the TWO position error and continue the discussion on the talk page. But "Satguru" is still unsourced. [138]

Will Beback adds 4 false sources and one ambiguous one to back up "Satguru" and re-creates the TWO position error again. [139]

Since "Perfect Master" is back in, I remove false sources once again and the poorly sourced "Satguru", leaving the well sourced "Perfect Master". [140]

Will Beback adds back the poorly sourced Satguru" plus an unsourced and incorrect translation of "Satguru". He claims " Satguru (English: Perfect Master)" but the source he gives says "Satguru: True dispeller of darkness and revealer of light". [141]

I remove the still poorly sourced "Satguru" and the incorrect and unsourced translation. Leaving the well sourced and accurate sentence containing "...he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj ... as the new Perfect Master to millions of Indian followers". [142]

PatW reverts the accurate, well sourced sentence and reinstates the poorly sourced "Satguru" and the the incorrect and unsourced translation. [143]

I remove the still poorly sourced "Satguru" and the incorrect and unsourced translation, leaving in the well sourced "Perfect Master". [144]

Conclusion Will Beback added the unsourced "Satguru" twice and the unsourced and incorrect translation twice. PatW added the now poorly sourced "Satguru" and the unsourced and incorrect translation. Result I am banned for a year for removing the unsourced material. If you can't see how bizarre this is read it again. Momento ( talk) 04:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Read [ [145]] for a list of some sources for the term "Satguru". Surely you can see that "unsourced" is not really a true description of the term, is it, Momento? Now you've received your second annual blocking from the article, perhaps you'll start to acquire a bit more insight into your own contribution to this state of affairs? I sincerely hope you can. Revera ( talk) 08:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Of course there are many sources the say "Rawat was a Satguru" but not that Rawat "succeeded his father as the new Satguru" and there was certainly no inline citation that said Satguru", therefore, according to Wiki policy, "Satguru" was "unsourced" and that is why I was right to take it out. I'm following WP:BLP to the letter and no one's noticing. Momento ( talk) 08:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Here’s Rawat speaking as a youngster:

"I didn't want to be Satguru. I didn't understand why it is me. I would have been satisfied to be the humblest servant of the Satguru and not to be one myself. It was not my desire. But my father sent his love to his oldest three sons and complete prostrations to his youngest. So they crowned me with the crown of Rama and Krishna and put the tilak on my forehead, and again the voice came: '& You are he. You must take this Knowledge out to the world."' from "Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji" - Pages 12-13. Looks like a succession, sounds like a succession. If Momento says it wasn't one, then Momento needs to find a source that says it wasn't one. Revera ( talk) 15:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC) reply

It's unbelievable but you still don't get it! If the sources provided in the inline citations say "Rawat succeeded his father as Perfect Master", the sentence must say "Rawat succeeded his father as Perfect Master"", not ""Rawat succeeded his father as Satguru", not ""Rawat succeeded his father as Teacher', not "Rawat succeeded his father as Motivational Speaker" etc etc. And since the only sources provided said "Rawat succeeded his father as Perfect Master" anything else is incorrect and should be removed. Momento ( talk) 19:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Who doesn't 'get it'? Here's one of those sources (Downton, 'Sacred Journeys', p4): "Premies prostrated to them (his family) as they did to Guru Maharaj Ji, even though in India and the United States he was the only one spoken of as "satguru", the Indian term for Perfect Master". Got it now? Revera ( talk) 05:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Still no cigar. Can you see the word "Satguru" in either of the two sources quoted for the succession? Downton Page 3 = "... he was elevated to his father's position as Perfect Master at the age of eight". Or Lewis= "When Hans Maharaj died (1966), he was succeeded by his youngest son, Prem Pal Singh Rawat ... who was recognized as the new "Perfect Master". They were the sources given for the succession and they say "Perfect Master". It doesn't matter that a million sources say "Perfect Master" equals "Satguru" or that Rawat was called "Balyogeshwar" we are talking about the succession and in particular what the two sources quoted say about the succession. Momento ( talk) 06:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks, but I don't smoke any more. You say "It doesn't matter that a million sources say "Perfect Master" equals "Satguru"" It doesn't? Care to say why those sources (not that there's a million of them, but that doesn't affect your argument) should be ignored? Revera ( talk) 12:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Because they are not in the article as per WP:RS "The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception, and in particular to biographies of living persons", Momento ( talk) 13:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC) reply

I understand that you are probably disappointed with the topic ban which you probably perceive as unfair. But you are still free to edit millions of other articles in Wikipedia. There must be subjects among them that interest you. I would rather have had somebody else given you this message, because our relationship has not always been good. Andries ( talk) 20:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• Per this AE thread, and under the authority of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat#Article probation, you are hereby topic banned from Prem Rawat and all related articles and discussions for one year. Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:35, 29 August 2010

Momento, your topic ban includes discussions. Even those on User talk:Jimbo Wales.   Will Beback  talk  01:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Momento. Due to your recent violations of your topic ban, I've requested a site ban to run concurrently.   Will Beback  talk  05:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC) reply

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for violating your Prem Rawat topic ban. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block.  Sandstein  09:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC) reply

---

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

Additionally, your one year topic ban from Prem Rawat is reset to begin anew as of now.  Sandstein  09:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC) reply

What it be over now? Momento ( talk) 11:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC) reply

I am trying to edit PR article in GF but within days of starting I am being obstructed and lied about.

Balyogeshwar

1. Point out chronological error in article . WB falsely claims I put the sentence in the wrong order in 2009, I find evidence that proves I put the sentence in the correct order and WB wrong. No apology. [146]
2. WB comes on my talk page and now claims that he didn't say the words "(Momento) put the sentence in the wrong order". Correct he didn't say those words. What he said was "Momento added the material in question (and) it is now described by the same editor as an error'". I did not say "the material" was an error, the error is that Rumiton relocated it to an inappropriate order. [147] Still no apology, just further harassment. Momento ( talk) 03:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC) reply
3. WB falsely claims below that I have "returned immediately to the same dispute, which had been dormant since (my) departure". Another lie. The chronology error has never been disputed until I picked it up.
4. WB claims below that I am "creating controversy". The only controversy is that WB has blamed me for Rumiton's error and refuses to apologise for it. Momento ( talk) 03:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC) reply

PEP

1. Want to use new info reported in both the University of Texas at San Antonio webzine and Univision TV news. WB and M both resist. Have to go to RS noticeboard for support that UTSA and Univision, the largest Spanish language TV network in the US are "reliable". [148]

Momento ( talk) 02:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Please Momento, I never said you put the sentence in the wrong order. I said you added it in the first place.

As for returning to controversy, may I remind you that you were banned due to your contentiousness over the "Balyogeshwar" name? You returned within hours of your ban expiring and returned immediately to the same dispute, which had been dormant since your departure. I suggest you take things a bit more slowly and to try to work towards consensus rather then creating controversy.   Will Beback  talk  02:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Spanish translation

Hi, I've watched the clip now and the translation looks credible to me. Have to admit though that I'm a long way off native Spanish, so I could be missing some nuances. Thanks for asking me, anyway.

Beth Holmes 1 ( talk) 13:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Just listened to it again to check. I'm pretty sure it really is exact. I think you're just hearing it as longer because speaking is so much slower than reading. You can see what I mean if you look at how long they take to speak the English segments, compared to the couple of lines the exact words take up on the page.

Beth Holmes 1 ( talk) 17:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC) reply

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Momento ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))

---

Request reason:

I have been using the same IP address for years

Decline reason:

Doesn't address the issue above. As this is an AE block, you'd need to appeal to WP:BASC to get it overturned anyways. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 06:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC) reply

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{{ admin help}} I have been using the same IP address and account for years.

-- Momento ( talk) 06:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Problem fixed. Momento ( talk) 06:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Momento. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Prem Rawat". Thank you. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 06:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Sunday Mirror, November 1972 Guru, 14, takes all By Jill Robertson Shinding by jet for a fat-faced 'God' TONIGHT 350 British disciples of a fourteen-year-old Indian "god," Guru Maharaj Ji, leave London on an astonishing jet age pilgrimage to Delhi. On Friday a similar load left by BOAC jumbo jet to join the shindig for this fat-faced youth whose followers believe he is an incarnation of God on earth. I have seen British teenagers prostrate themselves in the wake of the guru and kiss the silk cushion where his feet have rested.

Guru Ji Superstar

THE STREETS of Delhi have seen some strange religious processions lately. Some 3,000 Europeans and Americans have been testifying to their faith in God on earth. He is a fourteen-year-old Indian boy, known to his followers as Guru Maharaj Ji, head of the Divine Light Mission, which has had a startling success in only six years. It now has follower, in America, Australia, Britain France, Japan and five other European countries.

"Nothing tatty" for boy Guru The "boy god" leader of the Divine Light Mission bought a 20,000 pound new car yesterday but was not shy about being photographed in it.

Why a God kept me waiting

By the Rev. John Lambert Vicar of Cuffley, Herts. WHEN THIS poor parson went to meet God he tried to bunk out of the back door.

The Guru Business by Kushwant Singh Kushwant Singh is the editor of the Illustrated Weekly of India BOMBAY. The Delhi headquarters of the Divine Light Mission is like a fortress: an 8-foot-high wall with an iron-grilled gate encloses a courtyard and a complex of buildings consisting of offices, reception rooms, kitchen, refectory, dormitories, a temple and the residential Suite of Balyogeshwar, the Child God. - The New York Times, April 8, 1973

The 'boy god' with a taste for ice cream... and the good things of life Back in Britain today - the guru with some questions to answer about his wealth... and a smuggling riddle Daily Mail, Thursday, July 12, 1973 - Page 21

Page 11 GREAT BEND TRIBUNE, Great Bend, Kansas Sunday, September 23, 1973 Guru Keeps Track Of Subjects With Computer EDITOR's NOTE: To a swelling number of followers, Guru Maharaj Ji is the "Perfect Master". Some even call him God. But to others, he is a pudgy, 15-year-old business titan who processes his disciples through a personnel department and keeps track of them with a computer. Here is a look at the guru and his mushrooming missionary corporation.

Page A 6 THE STARS AND STRIPES Sunday, November 4, 1973 THE GURU WHO MINDS HIS MOTHER By MALCOLM N. CARTER Associated Press THEN CAME the guru with a promised path to inner serenity and an answer to life's great questions. To his fervid followers, he is God himself.

The 
Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Prem Rawat 6". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. 
Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the 
request page, the 
formal mediation policy, and the 
guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 27 April 2012.

The 
request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Prem Rawat 6, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the 
Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, 
Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 6, so please 
add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its 
Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the 
Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal 
Procedures of the Committee.

Momento,

I have sent you an email response, replying to your inquiry regarding the formal mediation of Prem Rawat 6.

For the Mediation Committee, Lord Roem ( talk) 19:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Based on the advice of the Mediation Committee, this case will close. The mediation broke down after a party demanded a change in mediator, alleging that the mediator had misinterpreted content policy [he might equivocate with WP:OR] mistakenly and then maliciously. The committee did not agree that such a change was warranted. As a result MedCom is considering referring the case to ArbCom.

For the Mediation Committee

Seddon ^talk| ^WikimediaUK 11:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Millenium '73 had been nominated for FAR at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Millennium '73/archive1 PumpkinSky talk 02:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi please would you comment here where I have invited discussion on your recent removal of the following sourced sentence (in bold) from the Prem Rawat article?

• In January 1979 the Los Angeles Times reported that Rawat was maintaining his Malibu following despite a rising mistrust of cults. ^[6] Bob Mishler and Robert Hand, a former vice president of the movement, complained that money was increasingly diverted to Rawat's personal use, ^[7] warning that a situation like the recent Jonestown incident could occur with the followers of Rawat. ^[8] Mishler complained that the ideals of the group had become impossible to fulfill, but his charges found little support and did not affect the progress of the Mission. ^[7]
  

Thanks! PatW ( talk) 14:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Rainer and I have have both deleted our comments from the latest thread in the spirit of leaving to uninvolved editors. That leaves just you at this stage. Of course it is not a formal arrangement and you can do as you see fit. PatW ( talk) 10:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply

I guess nothing is lost if we watch for a defined period, how uninvolved editors handle the article, and we are not exposing ourselves to accusations of uncooperativeness, and if progress can be achieved - who knows, life is full of surprise - it will be easier to defend.-- Rainer P. ( talk) 16:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply

There is an old story about a meeting between a politician and the teamster's union. It ends with the teamster's president saying "OK, we will do whatever we can to get you elected. Do you want us to announce that we support you or that we oppose you?"

Funny but true. They'll probably fast track you and Steve to admins Momento ( talk) 07:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Greetings back! I suspect there's off-wiki Email, too, but no matter. I don't think I've had any direct w/ Zhang, but if he barnstared the two individuals you named, w/o exceptional extenuating, that is serious red flag. I've often wondered what Support !voters at the RfAs for some of these admins (e.g. Blade) would think now upon examining said admins' actions today (perhaps "Don't tell me, a donna wanna know!"). It's really unbelievable to me how admin is assigned for life ... I think that fosters apathy, abuse, corruption. (Like a dictator holding power for life. Are the people under them usually any much happy?) Desysop is rare here. Jimbo would like to see it changed "Easier to get the bit, easier to lose the bit." He's right of course. The big thing at WP is neatly bound up in one word: hypocrisy. WP principles are overridden by politics & corruption, personal & institutional. (For example, the editor in question, the most abusive & uncivil editor I've had chance to come across in my Wiki experience, a lauded mediator?! What planet is this? The fact this editor is emboldened & hasn't already been blocked and indef'd, is proof to me there is something very wrong. Intelligent & independent editors who express their thoughts, Malleus, Joefromrandb, Epipelagic, Intothatdarkness, Stillstanding-247 (former), and others, are really a source of inspiration & motivation for me in my small role as contributor, to improve my editorship & contributions. Else this place would be dreary indeed, and my motivation would follow. The lovefest at said Nomination was 180 degrees in conflict with my own known experience with that editor, it is amazing to me seeing that it is all so transparent record for anyone to see. (As though thick blinders were passed out. "No, thank you!") Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 10:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply

I know the feeling. Momento ( talk) 10:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply

In fact, any editor who votes to promote said candidate, will go down in my little black book as lacking good judgement. The candidate is so uncivil, he created several WP page links for his own use, which were offensive because they conveyed implicit and inherent personal attack: WP:UNEDUCABLE, and WP:IWON'TLISTEN, assigning motive for not seeming to hear an argument, as though the creating editor has mind-reading capacities which qualify him to ascribe motives ABF. Amazing. He tried to prejudice me against you ("warn" me about you) at my Talk, even though I have asked him at least 4 or 5 times in the past to please never post at my User talk, that he was not welcome there. I could give a ripped monkey's ass if said editor is promoted, you know why? Because there will be plenty of complaints down the line as a result, and the !voters will be forced to sleep in the beds they made. What a comical enterprise. (I'm supposed to have respect for same?) Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 05:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Moment, can you believe it?! Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 08:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply

What shocks me is that still no Committee Member has opposed the nomination. Expect someone to say "OPPOSE. Sorry I didn't respond earlier but I've been away". Momento ( talk) 10:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Well, it's the middle of the night my time, when he opened the ANI. Amazing, isn't it? (But I think also unexpectedly pathetic/sad at this point. I almost feel sorry about it. But the decision to nominate was ill-considered IMO. I imagine those who voted support will just sit. [Cringing?!]) Is this comical, or as to me, more sad/pathetic? One critical party got apology from Macon, hey, I guess we're less than deserving. (Funny!) And how does a serious claim like harrassment get churned out of decision to snoop into between-editor chit-chat!? (Abuse of process, and a mediator doesn't see that?! Could be his nom got just too stressful, and this is the result. Again, sad.) Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 10:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Agree.There's no way back from where he's gone. And he may take MED COM with him if they don't wake up soon. Momento ( talk) 11:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Well, it's happened. Never my objective to derail anything; I only couldn't take the lovefest, when my experiences have been 180 degrees opposite. I've also seen this mediator conduct absurd dispute resolution, for example complaining when a disputant wasn't indenting his comments properly, and refusing to go further, claiming if the user wouldn't adhere to proper indenting, it proved the disputant's refusal to abide by WP policies in general, and said mediator would not see any point to continue the dispute resolution. (So, two disputants in the content dispute, got this volunteer mediator, and all of the discussion on content came to a halt based on an obsession over indenting, and the perposterous deduction that a user who couldn't learn/agree to indent properly, was tantamount to being counter to WP policies in general! [Can you imagine it? The disputants hot in debate with one another about some content, only to be lectured about indenting, and the debate stop because of it, according to this mediator's involvement?] I don't remember what happened. [I think, said mediator withdrew on that basis, and the disputants went on debating, without his "assistance".]) What a charade! Are we supposed to take this stuff serious?! Ditto the ANI?! Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 04:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply

I appreciate the character of Lord Roem and Transporterman for being able to change their position as GM revealed himself. It would not have been easy for them. Best wishes to you. Momento ( talk) 05:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Right. But the experience has left a bitter taste in my mouth, particularly the conduct of Zheng, accusing me without basis of "aggressive attack" on him, asserting to others his post on my Talk was addressed to me not you, an Administrator asserting you & I should both be blocked for "battleground, personal attacks, canvassing", the nom's bogus charges at ANI of "planning coordinated attacks", "campaign of harrassment", ... where does the shit end at this place?! And to think this crap comes out of mouths of an Admin, and (two) dispute resolution mediators! What a dismal sucky experience, fabricated mud-slinging, condescension, distortion, ... you & I have received personal attacks to our characters, and this is conveniently ignored and not admonished. (What did I say about hypocrisy at WP?) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 05:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply

There's little doubt you or I will hear from some editor in the future: "(remember how) you were dragged to ANI because of battleground, personal attacks, canvassing, harrassment? And you were 'saved' by editor (so-and-so) ..." (I already heard the "dragging" thing from Blade once, and the "saved" thing from Elen. The false presumption, just like having had a block, is that you are a bad, bad editor. [Even did you notice, how Macon at the ANI, distinctly excluded User:Codename Lisa from it, and the way he did it?: "Please note that Codename Lisa, [...] is a good editor who is not involved in this or any other questionable behavior." Implying the other editors, those involved, you & I, are *not* "good editors", i.e., we are "bad editors". And no one thinks that's not a fucking insult and unwarranted personal attack?? And the bogusness of the ANI claims go unadmonished? And the sudden use of ANI as venue, preached continually as a venue of last resort, isn't even challenged?!] Lovely, isn't it?) Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 05:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Possible harassment. Thank you. — Guy Macon ( talk) 06:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello Momento. I have no problems with being criticised, but I ask that when you are doing so when speaking to others, to please present facts accurately. Please see the comments I have made here. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 22:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply

You are correct Steve and I apologise to you for my mistake which I have corrected. Momento ( talk) 02:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Thank you :-) I appreciate it. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 21:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply

You don't want to do this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Canvassing.3F. You were dragged to ANI last week, Magog threw out a comment but it got no traction. I suggested a quick close, another editor agreed, and no one unclosed it (which can happen sometimes). With the high activity level and turnover on ANI, I'm sure pretty much everyone has forgotten about it.

You went to Magog's talk page after another editor had been making repetitive posts about his comment, and Magog had pretty much answered and indicated they didn't want to discuss it any more. And he doesn't have to because WP:ADMINACCT applies to admin actions (like blocking), not to commenting on ANI, which any editor can do.

To blunt: nobody cares. Not nobody cares like nobody cares about you and your work here on Wikipedia -- we do care about that. Nobody cares that Magog said something last week on ANI that no one supported or acted upon. The best option is to read what they said with an open mind -- if any of it makes sense to you, consider it as you move forward with editing Wikipedia; if it doesn't, blow it off.

My advice to you is to go back to ANI and just delete the entire post (if no one else has commented by the time you read this). The three most highly outcomes are:

• it will be ignored and the bot will archive it
• someone will re-close it with "no admin action required" or something like that
• someone will accuse you of creating drama and call for WP:BOOMERANGs. Nobody Ent 12:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Thank you Nobody Ent. I was pleasantly surprised when Magog's comment was ignored and you and Pass a Method closed Guy Macon's action. I assumed that ANI was a safe place to tell the truth and ensure that WP policies and guidelines were followed. I don't feel comfortable deleting what is a sincere and appropriate post but I will bow to your greater experience in this matter and I thank you for your consideration. Best wishes to you and Pass a Method. Momento ( talk) 20:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply