User:Msalt/test

Overview
While factions clearly exist, the real problem on [Prem Rawat] is a small number of edit warriors, in particular [Rumiton] and [Momento] (both long-time and current devotees of Prem Rawat), and [Francis Schonken] (an embittered ex-devotee of a different religious leader). All three have been repeatedly blocked and warned for edit warring and disruption on these pages, and are inevitably found in various conflicts.

Momento is by far the most disruptive editor, showing a longtime pattern of disruptive editing and bad faith arguments. I will try to detail this with diffs, but it is hard to capture in words -- a combination of [WP:GAME]-y arguments on the talk page with edit warring and constant small changes to main article, which should be stable. Many good, neutral editors have been driven off this page in frustration -- John Broughton, sarcasticidealist, David P., Pax Arcane, relata refero, Vassyana, and Jim62sch, to name a few. I encourage the Arbcom to contact any random one of these editors and ask their opinion of Momento’s editing.

Momento rejects consensus and collaboration
1) "There aren't two sides to the truth. It's either true or it isn't. So a compromise isn't a compromise, it's a failure."

2) He repeatedly deleted an image during its Image For Deletion process, edit warring without comment against consensus     even after a neutral editor warned that BLP does not justify removal.

3) After making very picky complaints such as "Hunt doesn't say 'critics alleged', Hunt says 'critics have focused on'" Momento announced that "I am not going to spend my time repairing other editors distorted and inappropriate edits. I'm going to delete them.” and he did, line 68.

4) Momento continues to fight against having Prem Rawat’s alternate name Balyogeshwar (a redirect to [Prem Rawat]) in the lede even after RfC results strongly opposed him and after Will BeBack worked out compromise language agreed to by every other editor, including Momento’s closest allies, Jayen466  and Rumiton .  Momento still persists in a clear case of [WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]: “consensus doesn't eliminate the need for truth.”  He insists that the RfC was "dishonestly framed" .

Note that there is not even a claim of BLP to justify this edit warring; outside reviewer [Abcedare] said "I really don't see why this issue is at all controversial. As I said above "Balyogeshwar" is a term of respect, and not an insult of any form."  Momento admits that "I know Rawat was called Balyogeshwar and Mangalwadi provides a reliable and verifiable source." 

His motivation is pure POV pushing; supporting the strategic decision of Rawat's Divine Light Mission church (and its successor, Elan Vital) to minimize Rawat's Indian and religious associations.  Momento acknowledges this in his response to Abcedare: "Rawat dropped the title "Guru" and all Hindu aspects of his teachings in the early 80s in order to remove any cultural barriers to his message. ... The lead should reflect the article and Rawat moving away from Indian traditions is a major part of his story.". Since 2008, Momento has -- without support -- removed Balyogeshwar entirely at least 6 times (with misleading edit summaries on the first 5),   and has added softening language another four times.    

Momento's disrespectful and sarcastic replies to warnings, blocks and refused unblocks from admins
To Sandstein (edit summary: Where's the good faith?)

to Shell_Kinney

to PhilKnight & Shell_Kinney ("What a disgrace!")

to Durova (with edit summary "do your job")

to Vassyana

to Vassyana

to Lawrence

to B

to Will Beback

In Noticeboard discussions, he has accused described Will Beback's statements as lying , "relentless ... harassment" , and "falsifying the editing".

Editing while blocked
Momento openly bragged about how “hilarious” it was that he was "editing while blocked” (his section heading) soon after 12 article edits by “Janice Rowe” in 45 minutes. Janice Rowe hadn’t edited in over 2 years, and hasn’t again since March 2008. . 

Earlier, Momento was blocked for sockpuppetry by BetaCommand, who lifted the block despite strong evidence solely because Momento’s ally Jossi (a respected admin who has since resigned from Wikipedia under a cloud) vouched for him. 

Wikilawyering
Momento et. al. aggressively uses Wikipedia policies such as Biographies of Living Persons, Exceptional Claims and Sockpuppets of Zoe Croydon ) to justify edit-warring with exemption from the 3-Revert rule. He stretches logic severely to reach these havens  e.g. "It is clear that in reducing two articles in the LA Times to two sentences Will Beback has made 'a conjectural interpretation of a source'."

When it selectively suits his POV goals, Momento frequently makes absurd arguments, e.g. argues against using any news media sources at all and aggressively deletes edits that don't match his/her standards, claiming BLP protection from 3RR.  Momento’s intransigence has forced dispute resolution just to be able to use the Los Angeles Times, New York Times and Rolling Stone Magazine as sources. 

[WP:POINT] Violation
Upset by the creation of an article titled "Criticism of Prem Rawat", Momento twice created the article "Criticism of Jimbo Wales" solely to make a point and was insolent in response to many cautions and warnings that followed. See, after the first paragraph. (It was deleted both times, as criticism is folded into the main Jimbo Wales article.)

Momento was heavily involved in the edit wars causing the 3 Prem Rawat page protections
Here is an excellent and current example of the bad faith arguments that Momento frequently makes on noticeboards and Talk pages. In this very arbitration, and the AE discussion that led to it, Momento accuses Will BeBack of harassment in the form of false accusations. “WillBeBack writes ‘It was protected at least three times in 2008, in each case due to edit conflicts of which Momento was a part’. And note that I was not involved in two of them and had a very minor part in one. So that's a lie isn't it.”  Also

Will BeBack assumed good faith and apologized if he had gotten his facts wrong , but he needn’t have. Momento was in the thick of the edit wars each time and his aggressive defense is inaccurate and misleading. He tried to pick precise time periods that excluded his edits, to make his point, but he was mistaken there too. Specifically:

First Protection: 15:33, 26 February 2008
Momento: “Before the first protection from 26 Feb to 4 March there were 34 edits in the previous two days - 12 by FrancisSchonken, 4 by Jayen, 3 each by Momento, Janice Rowe, NikWright2, Andries and 2 by WillBeBack and Cirt.”

Momento was blocked on February 9th (for disruption on Prem Rawat) and February 14th (for edit warring on the page). He made 3 edits the day of the first protection:  reverting new, reliably sourced information about Rawat’s house   and making two unilateral, highly POV edits in the four hours before protection. In the days leading up to this first page protection, Momento was repeatedly edit warring: over the page’s POV tag, his deletions of a picture of Rawat’s house (despite an ongoing IfD review) , his deletions of an external link to a website critical of Rawat   , and once again, the name “Balyogeshwar.”

Second Protection: 18:28, March 16, 2008
Momento: "Before the second protection there were 21 edits the previous day... I took no part."  Momento actually edited 9 times on March 15th between 21:50 and 23:20, and each edit pushes his POV contentiously except the last one in this list:         . He may have meant to say that he didn’t edit the day of the protection – which is technically true since he stopped at 23:20 the night before - but his precise parsing is wrong both literally and in the bigger picture.

Third protection: 14:58, 27 May 2008
Momento writes: “Before the third protection 27 May to 10 June there were 12 edits in the two previous days - 3 by WillBeBack, 3 by Mukadderat, 2 by Rumiton and Anons and 1 each for MaelNum and Jossi, I took no part.”

Momento was blocked for edit warring on May 18th and May 26th, the day before the third protection.  It’s technically true that he didn’t edit in the 48 hours before protection – because he was blocked for edit warring half of that time. But Momento did make 7 of the last 32 edits before the third block.  The first of these, removing the subheading "criticism,"  started the edit war that was the final straw before protection.   

As for the rest of those last 32 edits before protection, most of the remaining 18 edits by other editors were minor and/or non-controversial. 5 of Momento’s 7 edits were contentious, pushing POV without support, and made at a highly charged time. For example, the article read "Critical former followers became known as "ex-premies"; Momento added "and some have undertaken illegal activities against Rawat and his followers" with a highly disputed source. His other edits:

Note: While these events took place last year, Momento has been warned for edit-warring and modifying others' comments as recently as January 24, 2009.