User talk:PatW

Request for Arbitration
You have been named as a party at Requests_for_arbitration ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat
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, 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, Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

just a note...
Hey where are all the flames on this page? I expected there to more here! :) Anyways, I just wanted to say, regardless of it's acceptability/appropriateness/whatever on the PR discussion page, that as a historian I found your related experiences that you recently posted to be quite interesting and somewhat enlightening. Generally speaking, I see problems with any group who uses secrecy as a primary tool against scrutiny. Thanks again.--  Mael e fique  (t a lk)|undefined 15:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom case
You have linked the wrong archive for my comments about formal mediation. The evidence should point to Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive_25. Vassyana (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been noticeably yet tolerably uncivil at the Prem Rawat case pages, but this comment in particular is manifestly inappropriate. I have blocked you from editing for 24 hours; if after that time you continue to be unable to state your case without resorting to such comments then you will be blocked again. --bainer (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Resources on former MPs
There's a welter of easily available information on former Members of Parliament. You will find basic information on their career in most large reference libraries. All MPs have been included in "Who's Who", and on their death are removed to "Who Was Who" with a note of the date of their passing. If they do not have the print version, then there is an online database to which libraries subscribe. In addition, M. Stenton and S. Lees published in 1979-81 a four volume set called "Who's Who of British MPs" which is compiled from entries in the specialist "Dod's Parliamentary Companion". Your grandfather's entry in this book goes like this:


 * CLARKE, Frank Edward. Canmore, 33 Park Crescent, Erith, Kent. St. Andrew's. S. of Herbert William Clarke, Esq., of Erith, Kent, Merchant and Accountant. B. 21 November 1886; m. 18 April 1914, Hilda Mary, d. of Harold Strickland, Esq., of Dartford. Educ. at Dartford Grammar School, and at the University of London. An Industrialist. Managing Director of Herbert W. Clarke and Sons (Erith) Limited; a Freeman of the Port of London; J.P., and County Councillor for Kent, Alderman 1938; Chairman of Erith Urban District Council Finance Committee. Commissioner of Boy Scout Movement for 21 years. Commodore of Erith Yacht Club. A Unionist. Elected for the Dartford division of Kent in October 1931 and again in November 1935. Sat until his death on 12 July 1938.

For more interesting information on the Parliamentary career of MPs, The Times Digital Archive is a very valuable resource. Most public libraries have a subscription, and some allow their members off-site access. The Times covered all Parliamentary proceedings in this era, often including lengthy summaries of speeches. A search of "Clarke Dartford" brings up some interesting references and his Times obituary (13 July 1938). The full record of Parliamentary proceedings, Hansard, is only in the very biggest libraries (it's on open shelves in the Social Sciences part of the British Library) but is the place to go for the full monty. You need a reader's ticket to get in so this is not always practical.

Hansard is in the process of digitising its records but there is an experimental site which has a patchy online record of what has been done so far. It's here; I wasn't able to find anything on Frank Clarke in it but more information may be added later. Other sources to try, if you can get access to them, are the published diaries of active politicians of the period. As Frank Clarke was a Unionist, you might try 'Chips' Channon. Local newspapers from Dartford and Erith will be in the British Library's Newspaper Library at Colindale in North London, and probably in local history departments in Bexley as well; they will have reported on the activities of their MP. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette
Like any group, Wikipedia has norms of behavior. One of these is to "comment on the edit, not the editor". It's OK to say "that was a stupid edit", it's not OK to say "you are stupid for making that edit". I'd like to say that Wikipedia values terseness in talk page comments, but that's not always the case. However I can say that long comments often don't get read fully. Lastly, remember that the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss improvements to the articles. It's not to discuss the other editors, and it's not even to disucs the subject of the article. It's OK to say, "We need to add more material to this article about the Belgian sneak attacks", it's not OK to say, "I think the Belgians like sneak attacks" unless that's part of a comment about improving the article.

Being a successful editor on Wikipedia means working with an arcane and constantly shifting set of rules. More than that, it requires patience. This is a long-term project. It's more important to stick around and keep being a productive contributor than to win one heated battle and then retire or get banned. This style of editing isn't for everyone, but I hope you'll make more of an effort to comply with the standards here because if you don't then you may find yourself banned. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Will. I'll be more careful to comply with standards. Not exactly sure what particular comments inspired your feedback but I'm guessing I'm a little too 'long' and a little too 'strong' over on Talk Prem Rawat again.PatW (talk) 07:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I see Jossi put you up to this latest criticism of me. PatW (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat
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) 15:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Warning
Personal attacks of this type are inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a battleground. If you want to contribute in a collegial manner then you are welcome but not if you engage in personal attacks on other editors. You have received warnings before, including from me. The ArbCom decision calls on editors who are disruptive to be banned from editing certain articles. Because you reverted yourself promptly I am not requesting enforcement now. I will do so the next time I see a similar remark. Consider this a final warning. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Even this kind of edit is unhelpful:. If your comment isn't about the article or edits to the article, then it's better if you don't post it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting quite a collection of 'final warnings'! I guess there's some wisdom in not 'rising to the bait'. Ruminton himself makes his best stab at a personal attack but you're only reprimanding me (the recipient) for taking him up on it. OK. It would appear you support Ruminton's accusation that 'The record shows you have contributed nothing of value to the article and have constantly sniped at those trying to improve it.'  I think that's a shame and not a little insulting but you're entitled to your opinions.PatW (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Both of you need to stop it. I only learned of your posting because Rumiton drew my attention to it, and I hadn't noticed Rumiton's posting until you pointed it out. I'm not reviewing everything anyone writes about this topic - I've got 10,000 other pages on my watchlist. When I see, or am told about, inappropriate behavior I do what I can to get it to change. If requests and warnings aren't successful in preventing disruption then the community has to take action. I hope that requests and warnings are sufficient. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted
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.

Jossi's pages
PatW, please leave Jossi's userpage and talk page alone. Your edits are, at best, unhelpful. Thank you. Risker (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I find it highly ironic that Jossi, after years of reprimanding me for using my userpage as a place to expound my views now leaves some kind of 'Self-Epitaph' (on which he clearly still philosophises from beyond the grave as it were). It's also quite scary to observe his ghost arise from the grave to, yet still, desperately erase 'disrespectful' graffiti from its own headstone.PatW (talk) 03:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, but I am not here to talk about Jossi's behaviour, I am here to point out that your behaviour is problematic. Jossi has said that he is leaving, and I will take him at his word for it. I trust you will stay off his user and user talk pages; it would be far more charming if you were not to refer to them as his grave and his headstone, but I suppose that is a matter of taste. Risker (talk) 03:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes - poor taste. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  03:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I echo Pat's sentiments very strongly. I wouldn't bother to waste my time to post anything on Jossi's precious userpage, but before you wag your fingers at PatW, you ought to familiarize yourself with the vast history of Jossi's NPAs over four years against everyone he has ever considered his opponent and enemy on Wikipedia, particularly on the Prem Rawat articles.  Of course, there are no official "NPA" warnings, because Jossi has always gotten away with them -- for four years!  Like when he's called PatW, many others, and myself "hate group" members, trolls, and worse, without any whisper of concern or warning from Wikipedians, much less a formal warning to Jossi about his behavior, while he's changed Wikipedia policies in order to favor his own personal goals here on the Prem Rawat articles.  It's a very, very good thing that Jossi is "retiring" in my opinion and it's long overdue.  Btw, I noticed you didn't admonish Jossi for calling PatW a troll and an ax-grinder in his edit summary.  How typical.  That's what Jossi has been doing all along -- getting away with name-calling, stalking people around Wikipedia to intimidate them (he did it to me many times), and he's always gotten away with it.  What is it with your double-standard, favoritism mentality, as well as your need to censor people on Wikipedia?  Sorry if I'm not being "helpful," (boohoo) But I've had more than enough of Wikipedian favoritism for Jossi and his very bad behavior, which has hurt many people, including PatW.  !!!  Sylviecyn (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Folks who label other editors working in good faith as "trolls and axe-grinders" tell us more about themselves than about the other editors. It's not necessary to make a fuss about it. Anyway, "retirements" from Wikipedia tend to be temporary. I'd be surprised if this one outlasts the ArbCom case by more than a month or two. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This would be a much better encyclopedia if everyone who ever announced they were 'retiring' actually did so... too bad we don't have some sort of one-way exit that won't let folks back in... Dlabtot (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne and Risker. Why can't you let Jossi's opponents have their say?
In response to those paragons of good taste who frown on my bad behaviour I have this to say:
 * You don't understand because you weren't victims of either Jossi or Prem Rawat. Some of us feel very strongly that Jossi is simply Rawat's representative on Wikipedia and have long objected to this conflict of interest. We have been treated very unfairly as Sylviecyn has pointed out.
 * "I trust you will stay off his user and user talk pages" Sorry but I'm not inspired to change my behaviour because someone completely unknown to me simply finds it 'problematic'. Why is it 'problematic'?
 * I just posted there to see if Jossi really had retired. As I quickly discovered he wasn't quite so 'retired' as I'd suspected. In fact he took the bait and instantly leapt into life to crossly erase my cynical snipe. And you can't even see the joke. I personally find it a correct analogy: Jossi playing dead when it suits him but unable to remain unreactionary to taunts that really touch a nerve. I think that's rather funny. But then I have no taste.
 * Some of us who have been victims of his 'Wikilawering' and double standards are entitled to express some pleasure and yet some cynicism at Jossi's supposed 'retirement'. Jossi's Userpage now is only decorated with tearful messages of regret.  "So sorry to see you leave" etc. Not all of us feel that way. Can we say so, to redress the little love fest going on there? No, it's "tasteless". Do you think someone might be permitted equally to express their not inconsiderable pleasure that he has retired? Why not for goodness sake? Because some think it bad taste?  I have been opposing Jossi in arguments for years and felt he played dirty and was kind of a bully. In fact I haven't been here for over 6 months partly because I found his behaviour so utterly tiresome and Wikipedias tolerance of him bad taste.
 * What about Jossi's latest 'new agey' justification for breaking rules and being on the 'Infinite Team'? Is that in good taste under the circumstances? It so badly deserves to be objected to as the ironic faulty, unsociable philosophy it is.PatW (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If Jossi's opponents they can well do so, just not on Jossi's pages. WP:USER points out that while all pages are the property of the community, user pages and user talk pages are viewed as the responsibility of that user first and foremost and their approach, if within guidelines, needs to be honored. That includes keeping them blank, and it includes (with only rare exception, this not being one of them) removing comments and messages, unanswered, whether the commentor likes it or not... Please don't contravene that or you may find yourself unable to edit until the matter is resolved. ++Lar: t/c 04:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see what there is to contravene. What you seem to be saying is simply that Jossi has the right to remove comments. Anyone has the right to comment but has to accept it if Jossi removes what anyone says. Right? Jossi himself by the way was the first to comment on my userpage and continued to do so a lot from then on. I'll take a look at the Wiki guides but I doubt they say that opponents can't comment on user pages which is what you apparently think. Jossi has not written anything to request that his page is left blank (at least last time I looked) PatW (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Pat, this is not worth arguing over. Even in his so-called retirement people are coming to Jossi's defense when they have absolutely idea of the depth and breath of the Rawat cult members' backlash and retaliation towards former followers who are critical of their Lord of the Universe.  (Oh gosh!  Now someone's going to accuse me of religious discrimination when Rawat's cult isn't a religion but a legal church.)  :) :)  From my vantage point, there have been fewer than five people over nearly five years of us having to put up with Jossi's bullshit, along with his friends' bullshit, who have ever really gotten the strangeness of the behavior or the MO of their actions.  Besides, Jossi's regular habit has always been to delete posts on his talk page from people he obviously doesn't like (and call them trolls), but he always found it useful to complain about others on their talk pages and then lecture us when we deleted his comments, or change policies to prevent us from doing so, or just making threats.  Btw, I have no doubt in my mind right now that Jossi is not really, really retiring and I'm quite sure he'll be returning to edit the Prem Rawat articles with more zeal than ever before.  The question is when and under what handle.   Btw, if I were you, I'd delete this whole section and the one above it.  Besides, what's good for the goose... :)  Happy Holidays to you and yours, Pat!!! Bests, Cynthia  Sylviecyn (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Think of it this way: if Jossi were still active in the Wikipedia, do you think for the briefest of moments that he would allow your attack-oriented posts to remain on his page? You are allowed to have your opinion, but seeing as the object of your clear displeasure has retired, it seems like you are swinging at someone who isn't there to defend themselves, and - in the real world anyway - that would inspire a dentistry-related reprisal. Here, its simply discouraged and reinforced with blocks if necessary. So you don't like Jossi - message received. Now, shuffle on and edit something, willya? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  15:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Blah, blah, blah. You don't know what you're talking about, so please, just shut the fuck up stop before you make a total fool out of yourself.  What you say here makes no sense, especially because you have no idea what we're talking about concerning Jossi's years-long abusiveness towards PatW and myself, his history of abusing the Wikipedia policies, such as BLP, NPA (not just recently but years ago) and COI, his financial COI, and the absurd lack of action by anyone on Wikipedia to put it to a stop.  Your threats of blocking PatW are ridiculous.  Go ahead, big boy/girl and a warning on my page -- see how fast I delete it.  Believe that.  Hey, Happy Holidays on your way shuffling off Pat's page!! :) Sylviecyn (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

A few words
This has gone on a bit longer than expected, so perhaps what's needed are a few words from the person who wrote up the evidence. Obviously I am no apologist for Jossi. For a year and a half I was in a very difficult position between two prolific Wikipedians, and it took a long time to figure out who was shooting straight and who wasn't. Getting things settled has been no small chore; obviously you've dealt with a lot of frustration. Going over to Jossi's user talk the way you did is an understandable human impulse. Still, it wasn't the best choice. It's prompted sympathy for Jossi in a way that few actions could because it goes over as poor sportsmanship. Wouldn't it be better, at the time when things are being set right, to be gracious about it?

We're a collaborative encyclopedia, not a battleground. We're also a volunteer organization. Now and then a problem slips through the cracks for longer than it should. It's tough to be on the short end of that as a not very well known editor; walked many miles in those moccasins too. Think of it this way if you will: nearly everyone who's coming to this page saying there's a better path has been in situations where it was very tempting to leave a post something like the one you left. The particular circumstances were different for each of us; the impulse was the same. If you like what I've done this week then please pause a moment, lean against a tree, and shake the stone out of your shoe. It'll feel better. Durova Charge! 05:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok Durova, thanks..here goes I'll give that shoe a good shake!
 * My situation is quite simple. I passionately feel that Jossi was behaving in an unethical manner over the Prem Rawat/Guru Maharaji article and that there was an amazing amount of coverup, airbrushing, rewriting of Prem Rawat's history going on there. Collaborating with people of all POV's to improve an article is fine but that's not what was happening. Although I for a long time gave him the benefit of the doubt I, like you, grew to see that he was not 'shooting straight' although he had all the right words. I object to the fact that Jossi worked for Prem Rawat and clearly was a part of the latter's promotional campaign and would exploit all loopholes to achieve his ends. I also was drawn into this because I didn't like the way I observed Prem Rawat's emissaries sleazy approach to silencing critics and blackening their names and indeed rewriting Prem Rawat's and my shared past! I have observed this happening both away from Wikipedia and on it. The so-called 'ex-premies' were by no means the 'Hate Group' Jossi sought to tar them as here; and even if they were, their criticisms are valid and should not be so paranoidly suppressed.


 * Last summer Arbcom failed to see through Jossi's 'good points' which have covered up the conflict of interest. Trust in him remained. I and other editors felt we were wasting our time raising the same old objections and left. Further, I couldn't enjoin here because I nearly died. Since then I've had 2 major surgeries (the final 2 weeks ago). Returning home to a laptop gave me the chance to tune in here and see what's developed. Hence my comment. My impulses are at present unrestrained. There is no malice just the reinvigorated intention to (in my own small way) right wrongs in this world which I nearly left in July.


 * I have met and known Jossi and like him as a fellow man presumably seeking truth as I do. I don't mince my words with him and have always tried to draw him and other 'premies' out to examine the hypocrisies that I think they've fallen prey to. I feel qualified for this job as I was a very sincere and dedicated student of Rawat for many years.


 *  If you like what I've done this week then please pause a moment, lean against a tree, and shake the stone out of your shoe. It'll feel better.


 * I don't really know what to say to this. 'Thanks for the nice thought' maybe?
 * Are you suggesting I drop my objections?
 * I suppose the truth is that when people feel abused - like really abused not just 'sour grapes' - it can seem a little unsympathetic to tell them to go chill out. I can tell you that major surgery is a good way off shaking off all the petty obsessions and minor gripes one has in life. So what remains is in fact a deeper understanding of what is worth challenging or leaving alone. And I definitely am 100% comfortable about my belief that people like Prem Rawat and Jossi should be challenged. Why? Because they will do anything to avoid being challenged on issues they feel uncomfortable about! Also they feel, like all religious zealots, that they are on the 'Infinite Team' and anything (however unconscionable) they do is justified, and that the 'truths' they spread are the only thing worth talking about. The rest is just'sour grapes' from non-believers, 'trolls and ax-grinders'. What is the extreme example of people who think like this? Jihadists for one. Do I 'like what I have done this week' still? Well, I am not ashamed to have said what I felt but, to be honest, I don't particularly like having to raise objections all the time. It is more or less a moral obligation.


 * if Jossi were still active in the Wikipedia, do you think for the briefest of moments that he would allow your attack-oriented posts to remain on his page? You are allowed to have your opinion, but seeing as the object of your clear displeasure has retired, it seems like you are swinging at someone who isn't there to defend themselves, and - in the real world anyway - that would inspire a dentistry-related reprisal. Here, its simply discouraged and reinforced with blocks if necessary. So you don't like Jossi - message received. Now, shuffle on and edit something, willya?


 * Well, let's look at what I wrote for a moment- is it really such a big deal?:


 * All most fascinating. Just one observation though. I can't help noticing that these 'Infinite Team' players are often the most arrogant cheats in the game. The 'Finite' guys seem like embodiments of virtue in comparison. The 'Infinite Team' captain must be a real saint...well.. a God really I suppose! (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2008 


 * Know what, I never erased people's comments however sarcastic from my page. If I was him I'd have left it there - or taken the whole userpage down. Here in the UK intelligent people welcome sarcasm even if it is the lowest form of wit. Besides, he hasn't retired from removing or accepting comments on his userpage. Let him remove them if he doesn't like them. And since when did Jossi ever defend himself other than to avoid intelligently discussing comments like this? Also Jossi doesn't need to defend himself. His admirers are doing a great job of that on his behalf.


 * Some people here seem to nurse an exaggerated revulsion towards folk who come to Wikipedia (like me) with a passionate or single-purpose but who don't have the wiles or need to disguise it. Whilst I appreciate that it's good to show willing and 'shuffle off' to edit maybe another subject I know a lot about - (in my case that I can think of a few) I simply have not had the time or inclination yet. Maybe I would have if Jossi and his team of premies didn't require such protracted opposition to make a few simple changes to the Prem Rawat article. What of course is so very ironic is that you fail to see the determined single-purpose of more sinister cabals where people like Jossi (who are in the employ of the subjects they seek to influence) work pretty much full-time on Wikipeida editing articles, demonstrating good faith etc. with one clear purpose: to change the rules to suit themselves. I put it to you that Jossi's temporary  'Epitaph' is in fact  clear proof of the thinking behind his Wiki-life in this 'rule-changing' respect, and that my comment on his Userpage was not in the least an inappropriate repsonse. Is the community really so dazzled by Jossi's 'good works' that they just turn a blind eye to his misguided ulterior motives? I think they should be exposed rather than overlooked. I guess it's amazing how society judges people. We love Frank Sinatra because of his singing talents so we overlook his faults and involvement with the Mafia etc.PatW (talk) 12:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Durova! That feels better already! Now I'll go get my long overdue breakfast!PatW (talk) 12:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Mediation
I have asked the Mediation Cabal to facilitate mediation on the subject of the disputed sentence in the lead and named you as an interested party. Momento (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Prem Rawat page comments
I'm aware of the irony of saying this, given your comment regarding Wikipedia becoming a 'civility competition', however I think it would be preferable if you focussed your talk page comments on article improvement, and not on other editors. PhilKnight (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, one would at first rightly think that was a preferable focus but I don't believe it is always the appropriate one. Of course it was my original preference to simply help improve the article. That was indeed my stated intention when I arrived here - along with large dollops of goodwill towards Prem Rawats followers. However the 'other editors' on the Prem Rawat article (at least the ones who frustrated my efforts at editing to the point where I gave up in dismay along with everybody else) were either employed by Prem Rawat or were faceless followers with a dogged mission to prevent any editing that they didn't approve. The goodwill quickly vaporised when faced with their increasingly underhand and partisan behaviour. Now perhaps you might agree that, under the circumstances it was the more effective option (not the preferable one) to concentrate on raising objection to their behaviour. I emphasise the focus of my objections and comments has been on their methods not on 'them' per se. However that necessarily drew into question their ethics to some degree and of course them to some degree. How could the Prem Rawat article be edited fairly when the administrator guarding the article was a follower/employee of the subject of the article?  Also I am not stupid enough to waste my time getting tangled up in the nonsensical arguments and bluster spun to frustrate the inclusion of stuff Prem Rawat followers don't want included. Have you ever tried to argue with a) someone with a religious conviction b) someone with a truly absurd yet immovable religious conviction? The phrase 'arguing black into white' comes to mind. That way lies madness...and poverty. Now if you doubt my words I would simply challenge you to try to include some properly sourced, relevant and interesting but non-flattering material into the Prem Rawat article. There's plenty of it btw if you care to look around. If after arguing with a Rawat follower about it ad nauseam you haven't been introduced to new depths of meaning of the word 'exasperation' then I'll eat my hat.PatW (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'm not saying there aren't user conduct problems - there have been ArbCom cases, and there may well be further cases. I was more saying the article talk page should be kept for discussing article improvement, and problem behaviour reported to WP:AE. PhilKnight (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course you must realise I am well aware of this. I am somewhat inured to having regular complaints raised against me by Prem Rawat's followers and the subsequent stream of people they've bleated to popping in here with a perfunctory response. Thanks though! :-)PatW (talk) 10:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation of Prem Rawat
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   11:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected
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) (This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Asking for a block
I am giving you notice that if you attack me again I will ask for you to be blocked.Momento (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 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 who are 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)

Rawat's claimed lineage
Hey, guess what you helped to dredge up? http://web.archive.org/web/19991012111809/maharaji.org/masters/masters.htm I'll leave you the satisfaction of informing whoever it was who cast doubt on the source! Revera (talk) 10:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * PS - a further look reveals a once familiar name: http://web.archive.org/web/19991117033256/maharaji.org/credits/webconversion.htm Revera (talk) 10:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Regards from PremieLover
Hello, I tried to explain something about ex-premies websites in the discussion page of Prem Rawat, giving you my opinion, but I made a mistake, I did not know. So I want to tell you here what is wrong with those ex-premies who say they “gave” money or anything to Prem Rawat or his organizations and did not get back what they expected in return. I quote from The Bhagavad Gita, by Juan Mascaró, Penguin Classics, one of my two favourite versions, the other is by Paramahansa Yogananda.

The one by Juan Mascaró has 78 pages, you can read it on a weekend. The one by Yogananda with comments is over 1200 pages, but I like it better, it taught me more. Chapter 17, page 113:

20) A gift is pure when it is given from the heart to the right person at the right time and at the right place, and when we expect nothing in teturn.

21) But when it is given expecting something in return, or for the sake of a future reward, or when it is given unwillingly, the gift is of Rajas, impure.

22) And a gift given to the wrong person at the wrong time and the wrong place, or a gift which comes not from the heart, and is given with proud comtempt, is a gift of darkness.

Prem Rawat has said the same with other words: if you give something expecting something in return, that is not giving, that is trade.

So now you know, it only looks like giving, but it is not, just like the light of the moon is not the light of the moon, it only seems to be, or the sun seems to turn around the earth. Things often seem to be something but with deeper analysis we see they are not. These premies never gave anything, they only tried to buy something that is not sold.

Best regards --PremieLover (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Best regards to you PremieLover. I also have the Penguin classic The Bhagavad Gita, by Juan Mascaró. Your viewpoint smacks of religious fundamentalism with the usual 'scriptural' supportive quotes to boot. The world needs love and understanding not medieval fear-mongering Indian dogmatism. Read here http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/truth_and_reconciliation/ Your apparent lack of empathy or understanding towards ex-premies and indeed your over-the-top demonisation of them shows you have not understood the simple Christian ethics expounded by Tutu (and which I happen to agree with and aspire towards). Why don't you have the courage of your convictions and move this discussion to the ex-premie forum instead of 'telling me what is wrong with them"? Can you do that? I don't think they would agree that that their dedications were insincere.  PatW (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

just a suggestion...
Hi Pat, I would just like to start by saying that lately, I have found most of your comments on the PR talk pages to be very helpful, particularly those that help find policy and source material that help maintain article NPOV which, as we both know is a constant struggle, so thanks for that. But (ya, you knew there had to be one of those, didn't ya? :) ) I also think that sometimes when you rail against PR it does a little damage to your credibility. I fully appreciate what I understand to be your views and relationship to PR to be, and I'm not for one moment telling you to change anything about what you write, I'm just making a suggestion. If your goal is to continually remind ppl about what you feel PR is doing/has done, then, comments like your recent one that Rainer responded to, will work, until someone attempts to get you topic-banned for some reason that may or may not stick (probably by escalating into a giant talk page argument that gets at *least* one person banned). If your goal is to continue to help ensure that the PR articles here don't get skewed because only those with a pro-PR bias are writing it, then those types of comments are much less helpful. Again, I have at the very least, a surface understanding of your frustration, I've been on this article long enough to know most of the basics. I just thought I'd give you a little reminder to think about what your goal here is (I don't know which it is, I'm just saying... :) ). -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 15:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I'll try not to rail against PR :-)  Goal probably is simply to ensure my past is not falsely rewritten by these clowns. But I'll think about it and let you know.  PatW (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Well I've thought about it and I think it's fairly conclusive that I've run out of patience with aforementioned clowns and so, since nobody appreciates my expressions of disgust and I can't help myself - I should abandon reading here.PatW (talk)

Case Closure - Prem Rawat 6
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 11:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Note
Let me start by saying I sympathize with some of your frustrations on the Prem Rawat article. Any contentious article is going to have a lot of problems, and this one seems worse than most. That said, you have to be more tactful in your approach. I came very close to banning you from the topic, but I've decided I should give you at least one personal note to alert you to the fact that you're on my radar screen. I largely agree with a lot of what you've said on Jimbo's talkpage, and I would urge you to start an AE thread on Momento if for no other reason than to gain some attention; I'd handle it myself, but I think input from a couple other admins would bolster the legitimacy of any sanctions we'd impose. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 03:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I posted on Jimbo's talkpage to draw attention generally to the unopposed success Momento and Rainer are having excising criticism from the Rawat article. That action can be taken as a measure of me having essentially reached the end of my tether with them (again). I don't have time for an in depth deconstruction of the problem at present. This is mostly due to business commitments at this time, however I don't mind enjoining some discussions in a necessarily limited capacity. I am particularly wary that, considering my obvious problems remaining tactful with Momento, I would be a potential distraction. Momento will undoubtedly try to make this about me and my oft-expressed scorn for him. So perhaps it would be best for you to handle the AE thread?  (not sure what an AE thread is anyway, although I imagine it to be something to do with admins). I agree that the more admins involved the better. Does this make sense? PatW (talk) 10:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that does make sense. AE stands for arbitration enforcement, which is where users bring editors violating arbitration decisions to the attention of administrators.  Unlike most other places, there we're very good at filtering out irrelevant noise and accusations, so if people start attacking others it's very easy to resolve.  Again, I pretty much agree with what you've said on Jimbo's talkpage, but experience has taught me that unilaterally banning someone creates a lot of drama, so I encourage people to use the correct venues (in this case, AE) to get more eyes on the situation.  I'm one of the regular admins at AE, so if you want to go that way I'll see it and comment.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 11:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'd be grateful.PatW (talk) 13:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Blade - it seems that all that has happened is that an admin called OliveBranch has popped in and, obviously knowing insufficient of the history of the article or the actual subject, is just further encouraging even more Prem Rawat followers (a third Rumiton has chimed in) to enjoin their whitewashing-fest unhindered.  Is this really the kind of result you were hoping for when you invited admins to look into this? From your response on Jimbos Talkpage it's clearly not addressing the problem of SPA's or followers tag-teaming to exert their POV into articles they have a vested interest in promoting. PatW (talk) 10:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

What I popped in to do on Prem Rawat was to discourage incivility and per my proposals to expand the lead to include more of what is in the article including the pejorative. Clearly the lead does not summarize the totality of the the article. However, PatW's incivility and accusations are somewhat beyond the pale. What he has done in the discussion, I am in at least, is attack, so I'll leave him to it. If he thinks that method will bring in uninvolved editors he might want to think again. Further, while I am not a Prem Rawat expert I do understand policy and also contentious articles, and have watched that article for years including the arbitrations connected to it. (olive (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC))


 * Olive, please don't take my comments as an attack on you or your motives. I welcome your attention to the article with some reservations. What I am wary of is simply that I have seen many uninvolved admins come and go, and it is not the personal attacks that have driven then away so much as their unwillingness to devote requisite time to research the complex points that are being relentlessly argued by people like Momento. Quite right too. I would find the prospect of researching this subject anew tiresome beyond belief. As I say, only Will Beback, in my opinion, took on the time-commitment of acquainting himself with the books, articles etc enough to counter the misuse of these reference books etc by followers who are adept at the art of cherry-picking and flattering less-informed editors to get their POV accepted. I think you will find that I, by the way, have had nothing to do with 'driving off' editors like Will Beback or Maelefique for that matter. Maelefique left in my absence for reasons unknown to me.  As I've pointed out to the contrary, I was asked to remain despite my lack of tact, when I was in fact desperate to leave this article in more neutral hands. Finally, I'm afraid that my making loud tactless comments attacking the motives of biased editors undoubtedly did help expose people who were subsequently banned, and did get neutral attention drawn to the article when other methods failed. So, although I'd rather be civil, sailing rather too close to the wind for my personal comfort seems to me to have got the better results. PatW (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Geaves
You said "Since this book (PIP) has been recognised by editors as essentially a 'Vanity Press' publication (verging on being a Primary Souce) there was historically, consensus here amongst the editors to only use it as a RS for uncontentious material and then with extreme care and discussion. (And) The same view was taken regarding Geaves' academic papers on Rawat". That is not true, therefore "PatW is incorrect about Geaves. He is a professor of religion, published by numerous academic publishers and a reliable source for this and any other article".Momento (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I remember the conversations about both 'Peace Is Possible' and Ron Geaves. There have been many arguments over the years and there was general agreement to use them with care. Whilst most editors agreed with this approach I guess you didn't. So I maintain my statement is correct with the possible slight revision of saying 'amongst most editors'. Come to think of it - maybe you were banned when the more recent conversations took place which involved Will Beback more or less playing the neutral moderator. (yes i know you don't think he was neutral but he was)PatW (talk) 07:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Geaves is a RS on Prem Rawat and other articles.Momento (talk) 08:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I know. I never said he wasn't. You keep saying that. If you have a valid point to make - a question or something enlightening to say or maybe just want a nice chat...then go ahead...I'm all ears :-)

Recent comment on Prem Rawat
Pat I don't like being attacked, don't appreciate it at all. I am in no way a moderator for any article. Wikipedia doesn't have moderators. I have no interest in the Prem Rawat article, but I have a big interest in civility and in peaceful talk pages. As I mentioned on that talk page I was going to be moving on and said I'd be happy to look in as relatively uninvolved, if editors thought I could be useful. The talk page has been peaceful and I haven't seen anything that makes me think the editors there are acting in a way inappropriate with Wikipedia policy. I do keep it watch listed now. I'd add that I am not naive about what goes on on contentious articles. My advice to you is to look at the changes being made, look at the sources, and if they are not appropriate contest them. If you still have serious misgivings take the issue to a NB or DR/B. Attacking other editors out of hand whatever the history on that article will only bring you problems.(olive (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC))


 * I'm not attacking you. I'm just telling you that I think the effect you have had is to encourage two or three highly active editors who also happen to be followers of Prem Rawat and to discourage the only remaining people who have the stomach to take them to task. I don't believe the article was suffering primarily from incivility. That's just a red herring. It just seems to me that you have missed who are the real perpetrators of huge passive aggression here. The article has historically suffered from Jossi Fresco (Rawat's webmaster) helped at the time by Momento,  both who were scrupulously polite, conducting however, a campaign of calculated revisionism and pro-Rawat editing with appalling passive aggression. Fortunately there were some people - like the reporters from [The Register] who could see what a ludicrous scam these people were perpetuating. Will Beback aside, (he was very useful in aggressively challenging adherents of cults and NRM's from dominating articles IMHO) this article still needs aggressive challengers to  the current editors who have a huge vested interest in creating a biased article. No-one can match their dedication and time commitment. I think you've set the article back years. If you think that's a personal attack then I would beg to disagree. It's an objection to you being so quick to criticise the opponents of Pro Rawat editors (and their inevitable vocal frustration) whilst not looking deeply enough into the subject and actively condoning the followers tag-team efforts to remove information and insert promotional material. You will see that is where it's going.  Sorry but I really don't have time for this any longer. I am not going to argue with these people any more. It's enough to try the patience of a saint...which is why there are almost NO Rawat critics left here when once there were dozens. Best wishes PatW (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you Pat, except I wouldn't put much blame on Littleoliveoil. She's only trying to understand the dynamics of the editors, learn the subject, and I don't believe she has any interest other than to try and help.  It's an extremely difficult and contentious article, with complex subjects and controversial issues and sources (which the current editors are arbitrarily removing do to their POV.  The current editors are clearly moving too fast.  I'm concerned about the renewed efforts of Rawat adherents -- a couple of whom had until recently been banned from editing the article at all! Those editors have clear conflicts of interest which they refuse to declare, as I have done, specifying that I will only discuss issues on the talk age and I don't edit.  I also know that the current editors ignore anything I say and do what they want without challenges.  These new edits are undoing years and years of work, arbitration, and struggle to keep the article stable.


 * I also miss Will Bebeck a lot. (Frankly, I think that whoever banned him had their head up their arses and have no understanding of the dynamics of cults/NRM articles, and how difficult it is to write those articles when confronted with NRM and cult members.)  These Prem Rawat adherent/editors are clearly whitewashing the article now fast, making it a hagiography, puff piece, and free advertisement for Prem Rawat.  I don't have the time to keep up with these swift edits.  The articles are being designed to read like press releases, pamphlets, and advertisements.  There, I said that twice!  It's unfortunate -- it's a shame -- that this shameless editing is going on now without any intervention from the powers that be on Wikipedia.  They should know better by now and by "they" I mean Jimbo Wales.  I've thrown my arms up in the air in frustration because I know I'm persona non grata on the talk page.  I've also been ill, under the weather due to some chronic pain issues and a recent intestinal bout, so I haven't had the energy to participate.  I've been involved with this article since it's inception.  Sigh...  Pat, I so hope you and yours are well. Life goes on and is wonderful! We're having a brilliant autumn here in Vermont.  The colors are fantastic and indescribable.  Much love to you and yours...Cynthia  :) :) Sylviecyn (talk) 00:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I surprised to find that I have such kind of impact on a talk page and that requests for editors  to edit in a neutral way has set an article back years. That's pretty impressive, and no I don't buy it at all. The article was suffering from incivility and personal attacks  for which  Blade of the Northern Lights issued a warning. I asked for civility and at no time did I take a position for or against either Rawat his followers or his detractors. You haven't argued content at all, all you've done is make sweeping generalizations about other editors and about where the article is going. You fail to notice that I was no longer dealing with the article, am not in charge of moderating it or owning it in anyway, and have left the article to its experienced editors. Pat I am  not responsible, for setting the article back, that's ludicrous and if you and others feel there are issues get in there and deal with them with out personal comments. The chill on the article may well be  because an admin who will make hard blocks saw what was going on and made it clear he will block. You seem tied up in the past which I can understand, but blaming an uninvolved editor who came in for a short time and supported a few innocuous edits like making sure a translation was accurate is not destroying an article  or setting it back. If you care about the topic and the article I suggest you deal with the content of the article and edit the article. I will  not be editing further but if editors ask for an relatively uninvolved editor to comment or look in I will. What I am encouraging is fairness, civility, and neutrality and I will stand by my comments I made on that talk page in any forum.(olive (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC))


 * OliveOil - as Sylviecyn says you are probably trying to help. I don't doubt your good intentions. When I came to this article what..7 years ago? I was full of noble aspirations and intentions of wanting to encourage 'fairness, civility and neutrality' ...that's the easy bit. What I didn't realise (and what you have possibly realised in good time) was that is that it's another job altogether properly 'arguing content' in this article. Of course I felt qualified and in some ways ethically responsible thereby to do so.  Maybe you're wise not to edit further, maybe that's why you're out.  But I will also stand by my comments that you seem to have encouraged the contentious editing habits of Momento et al. albeit inadvertently on your part. After all, to him "your comments are cool zephyrs of frangipani." To me they rung a number of very loud alarm bells.PatW (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sylviecyn - I agree. I wrote on Jimbo Wales page to try to draw attention to the sorry state of affairs. I (maybe wrongly) assumed LittleOlive and BladeofNL would not to rush to judgement, and would investigate, with some of the thoroughness Will Beback took upon himself, the fuller facts of these arguments. Shame that all these visiting 'neutral people'  do is preach the virtues of neutrality without doing the work to see what is actually neutral and fair, and who are the bad guys. I suppose it's easier to slap a few wrists, issue a ban or two and then say - oh sorry no time to argue the content - I've no interest in that! Thanks for the good wishes - mine to you too.  01:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * OliveOil - didn't mean to suggest you haven't made any attempt to inform yourself of some facts. Reading the Talk Page impresses one that you have done so at first and perhaps increasingly realised you were out of your depth and backed off. Momento clearly took advantage of your removal of the text about Geaves - he was not about to point out that Geaves is mentioned in RS as a prominent follower (even though he knew that perfectly well) and seized the opportunity to argue for that omission - even going so far as to bluster that he didn't 'carry the book with him' when asked for the source. Rumiton seems to have more conscience. This is Momento's typical ploy..and it is unethical and passive aggressive... He won't supply info that doesn't support his POV unless he has to. That is not neutral behaviour...and he's been doing it for 7 years! Letting some criticism in for appearences but all the while toning it down and omitting whenever he can get away with it. And we are supposed to argue the content in the face of such reluctance and sneakiness. There are plenty of examples where I have presented a good argument and he has simply ignored it completely..stopped talking! No way. I'm following your example - I'm out too. The chill on the article isn't because anyone is scared of being blocked - er.. it's busier than ever BTW....the lack of argument is because all those who would do so have realised with dawning horror, the total futility and failure of Wikipedia itself to address the problem of adherents driving away would-be critics. Put simply - quite soon there will probably be no-one arguing there. It will just be 'premies' discussing the changes.PatW (talk) 02:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Pat, there are no bad guys nor did I ever say there were. There are only editors who must figure out on all sides where the neutral points are in putting together this article. And making assumption after assumption as you have done can only lead to mistakes. I'll say again if you want to impact the article involve yourself. What I wanted to do on that article is to try to help settle the environment so calm discussion and editing could take place. That's what is happening. I don't take credit for that just trying to help. Who decides to involve themselves is not my business. Blade however has made it his business to make sure the page is peaceful. An article can be written without editors attacking each other even if they come from different ends of an editing spectrum. What you are looking for is a meeting point where all can agree. And dealing with the past won't help you in this future. And for the record I backed off because I don't have the time to deal with all of the elements that come to play in contentious articles. I know very well what time it takes, and believe me I have already put in a fair amount of time. There are bad feelings on all sides on that article, hurt, and anger and distrust. You aren't the only one who feels that way.

If you present an argument and another editor does not respond, you can assume after a good period of time that editor is not interested. Prolonged silence on Wikipedia equals I am not involved in this, and I don't care. I suggest again to all on that article to use the Notice Boards which will bring in uninvolved editors. You all need fresh eyes on what you are doing.(olive (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC))

I'd add as a thought. This article is a BLP and great care must be taken to not harm any living person whatever an editor may think of them. At no time is it appropriate to paint a picture that damages anyone using sources. Its easy to take sources and string content  together from them in a way that damages, because the new article content acts to magnify the individual sources. What has to be worked out on that article is how the mainstream sources view Rawat, how they write about him, and then here, editors cannot in any way, extend that in either direction, most especially in a way that is more damaging than the sum of the sources. (olive (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC))

This is ridiculous. Do you think we all are unaware of that? Well if you do you are quite wrong. What is happening is that Momento is doing EXACTLY the opposite of what you are suggesting. His latest edit of the Halley incident is unconscionable.Your comments sound like thinly-disguised accusations (which to me sound quite 'preachy'). Perhaps you could instead Google 'Pat Halley Fakiranand beating' and see for yourself what a hugely one-sided pro Rawat picture Momento is 'stringing together'? I am not prepared to be accused of being someone who is trying to 'harm a living person' through insinuation and word twisting when actually that has never been the case and actually what is happening (as you would see if you looked into it further) is that Momento is gaily omitting valid criticism and well-sourced facts (that indeed may reflect badly on Rawat) and promoting a completely unbalanced story. You talk of fairness and neutrality but it seems you're supporting those who speak flatteringly to you and dismissing others just because they are appalled and angry. A rather superfical stance. I might add that if Mr Blade would like to ban me for being too 'uncivil' he will be silencing one of the very few remaining people with enough interest to take on these determined Rawat supporters. And I am rapidly losing, not interest, but the will to do that, since the WP community is evidently not interested enough in the subject of Rawat to support people like Sylviecyn and I who have been trying to add much needed balance for seven years. PatW (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Olive, don't you agree that at the very least Momento and Rumiton should add (to their apologia regarding Rawat and the Halley beating incident) at least something to reflect the controversy that the incident engendered in the press at the time and the general perception that there were murky goings on and criticism of the way Rawat handled it? I've looked into this (as I hope you will- it's not difficult) and it's clear to me that Momento's summary is misleading. Surely this is not a question of taking care to protect a living person from harm. It's all there in black and white in publications from the time. Rawat, or Guru Maharaji was publicly received with massive criticism and controversy which is being played down too much. This is not a private individual who needs protection from salacious scandal (as Momento is trying to suggest). This is a man whose main claim to fame (in terms of the mass of press coverage, films and media from the time - including Primary Sources) was that he was the Lord Of the Universe. A claim which earned him massive ridicule and bad reception. This is being played down in an attempt to promote his new image. PatW (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)PatW (talk) 09:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Olive if you want to see the Halley beating incident press coverage, look [here]. As you will see there is the suggestion that the report Momento is using, as the only source to describe the incident, was based on a DIvine Light Mission press release. That would in itself be rather one-sided don't you think? PatW (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And how do like the way Rumiton addressed me (now edited)? - "PatW there certainly is something around here that can make people "physically sick," and it is the stench from your putrescent attitude. You spend your time on a forum where any personal attack against the subject of this article, no matter how unfounded or unfair, will be applauded, and the attacker congratulated for his "courage in speaking the truth", and you have been trying for years to turn Wikipedia into an extension of that. Your obnoxious claims have been refuted by the facts time and again, but you persist in them, sounding increasingly desperate. You have been warned by administrators whom you ignored. You have threatened to boycott WP in protest many times, but you never do. Regarding this case, what could Prem Rawat and his officials have done differently? They, not the police, found out who the alleged criminals were and held them for the police to arrest. They waited, but the police never showed up. What would you have done then? Tied them up in the basement and tortured them? And (this is my OR) Fakiranand sent a letter to the international DLM offices urging everyone to leave Prem Rawat, claiming that a "true spiritual master" would have been grateful for his actions in defending him and would have protected him. Do you agree with him?"PatW (talk) 11:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

You have insulted me from the moment I stepped on the PR page. I have no interest in debating anything about PR, or the other editors only in dealing with sources and content I'm truly sorry you find people being nice to other people on a talk page so offensive I removed myself from the PR article, but you continue to attack me as if the article and its problems are my fault. I have considered extending some of the content on the academic/ scholarly work on Prem Rwat Teachings and PR article but won't continue to work on a page where I am consistently attacked. Life is too short. And why would you think I would continue to engage with you on the article when you have behaved as you have and treated me as you have. Best Wishes.(olive (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC))PatW (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Lets be clear.

I'm sorry if you interpret my criticisms about your dealings over the Rawat article as insults. Being genuinely nice to people is not offensive to me. Obsequious flattery to get people on-side repulses me. Surprised you can't see through that. PatW (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * And I mean obsequiousness  towards you, not by you. Lest you think I'm insulting you :-)  Best Wishes PatW (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And to answer your question - "And why would you think I would continue to engage with you on the article when you have behaved as you have and treated me as you have." My honest answer would be that I would indeed answer you if you had said what I have said. So I would've expected you to do as I would and formulate a sensible reply to my questions. Still, if you you are unwilling then that's a shame in my view. BTW do you really have no interest in the PR article? Of course I don't blame you for it's problems. I simply think you wrongly saw no problem with Momento's edits and proposals and that in itself of couse I see as a problem. PatW (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Pat, I don't have time to deal with attacks. I am here to write an encyclopedia not to defend myself against  aggressive comments. Its always a surprise to me that when people treat other people with disrespect, they then expect those people to continue the conversation. As for the PR article, I have no interest in the article topic at all, and until I came to the page knew nothing about the topic, as I've said. I have an interest in a talk page that had deteriorated into incivility, a situation which does not support editing in a collaborative project. I have an interest in incivility and collaborative projects and have commented multiple times on the topic in other conversations on Wikipedia. I believe there are other like minded editors including arbs who have the same sense.(olive (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC))


 * You seem intent on dividing the editors on this article into followers and others. Let me clarify my position. When an editor makes a suggestion I look at the suggestion and judge its merits. I don't care about supposed motives, and I'm not adding up supposed past transgressions. This is the only way I can, in a neutral way judge that single suggestion on its own merits. So making the assumption and generalization that I support all, of any editor's proposals is not born out by any evidence and is far from the truth. There are Wikipedia editors whom I have the greatest respect for and still would never support carte blanche everything they suggested. I do  not deal with the editor, I am dealing with the edits as they occur and come up for discussion. (olive (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC))


 * Great. Then I hope you will deal with the edits (or not if that's your wish). I'm all ears. Sorry, but I thought it's worth informing that the editors are divided into 3 categories. I thought it also worth complaining that one category (for obvious reasons) is far more committed to make edits than the other two, and they want to assert a pro Rawat POV. That is not by any definition going to be encyclopaedic and it's naive not to be attentive to the fact that less Rawat-involved editors are massively outgunned - which is why I flagged it on Jimmy Wales' Talk Page. I want to bring more 'non-involved' people like you to the article. If those 'more people' fail to engage the subject in depth then I'll simply give up. I cannot argue here without support from people who are prepared to investigate the subject. How else can one counter the sort of ad-nauseam in depth analysis Momento demands? I've got better things to do. Also I do not agree that useful or intelligent people are put off by being aggressively challenged. I don't call that attacking I call it being direct and honest. I have been long surrounded by flatterers who now annoy me intensely. Give me any day a harsh critic for a friend. Funnily enough Prem Rawat thinks he should not have to to defend himselfagainst critics. Can you imagine any responsible or powerful person saying that they should not have to answer criticism? How about the president? If he did that no-one would take him seriously. A healthy society relies on 'responsible' people being just that - 'answerable'. Anyway thanks for at least continuing the conversation. No disrespect there :-)  PatW (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you may have misunderstood. I won't be editing on that article, and I disagree with your definitions. Its just not for me. I don't need to be attacked and I don't need to fight over content on an article especially when the environment is unpleasant. You seem to have had a unpleasant time with Rawat. I can't judge that in any way and am sorry if this was the case. It seems others have had an opposite experience. I can't judge that either. All I can say, is that as simplistic as it may sound, none of that can enter into the work on the article. I wish all editors on that article best wishes(olive (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC))

Add a suggestion: For all of the editors. If you are at an impasse, go to a Notice Board including the DR Notice board which will bring in other editors.(olive (talk) 23:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC))

OK Thanks. Bye now. PatW (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration
You could go one of two routes with this. One, you could put in a request at arbitration enforcement, which will get my attention as well as a few other admins. Alternatively, if you think a full new case is necessary, you can file for that; at this point, I think it could still be fixed with an AE request. If you want to write maybe a paragraph about the editor(s) in question, get diffs in a raw format, and briefly detail what's problematic with them, then I can put them into the right formatting and post it (getting it properly formatted usually takes a lot longer than the process of getting things together). The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 16:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for the advice and offer to help. I just need the time to do this.. I am working almost 48 hours a week at the mo. and am low on brain power. Off the bat I'm not sure best approach but no doubt my subconscious will be mulling over when I'm asleep... I've never done anything like request an enforcement before so I'd need to do it properly methinks. Otherwise could be major fail. Yes good idea .... cheers PatW (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Formal notice
Consider this a formal notice that I have asked for you to be topic banned for your continued incivility towards me. Rumiton was indefinitely banned for being "uncivil" for saying an editor's behaviour was "extremely stupid". "Stupid" broadly means "lacking intelligence or common sense". You have gone further by describing me as being "ridiculous". "Ridiculous" broadly means "deserving or inviting derision or mockery; absurd". Momento (talk) 07:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That is not an ad hominem comment. I never said you were ridiculous. I said you were being ridiculous in the context of your argument. PatW (talk) 09:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Gosh, that was exactly my defense, that I was describing the actions of an editor, not the editor him/herself. Didn't work for me. Rumiton (talk) 11:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's rather easy to ban people for incivility. In my view people should be banned who demonstrate consistent disruptive editing.. and this whole incivility stuff is a bit of a red herring here. I can't exactly remember why you were banned but I would not attempt to get anyone here banned for incivility. IMHO we are all grown ups and the banter here simply fluctuates from acceptable to bit ad hominem. That's almost unavoidable considering the strength of feeling surrounding the topic and the conflicting interests of editors. We usually make up and have a cuddle. To be honest I'm mystified how Olive interpreted my criticisms as a personal attack, but there you go. My view is that Momento wants me banned because he's losing the argument.   :-) PatW (talk)

Guy's proposal
Me and my big mouth! Shame on my head, Pat. Somehow I was not aware that Guy's proposal was already operational. Seems my judgement was impaired, must have been something in the midnight oil... Things look different in daylight sometimes. Especially I feel ashamed after attacking you for a similar behaviour, so please accept my apology. I have deleted my comment, first thing this morning.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Rainer. I am heartened that you see the merits of giving uninvolved editors some space to discuss uninterrupted for a while. We can put our case later maybe.PatW (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Rainer and I have have both deleted our comments from the latest thread in the spirit of leaving to uninvolved editors. That leaves just Momento at this stage. Of course it is not a formal arrangement and editors can do as they see fit. PatW PatW (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban
I would have done this a couple of weeks ago, but other forces prevented me from doing it then. I'm exercising the nuclear option on Prem Rawat; under the discretionary sanctions on that page, I'm indefinitely topic banning you from all articles and discussions related to Prem Rawat for persistent battleground behavior I've observed over the last several months. This is not an indictment of your overall editing, only your editing within the topic area. I won't put a time limit on when you can appeal the ban, though from your comments at Jimbo's talkpage it doesn't look like you'd be interested in doing so anyways. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 16:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks. PatW (talk) 22:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Book on Wikipedia
Hi. As you will see from my edit trail, I am completing a book on Wikipedia. Part of the book is about 'edit wars' and the dynamics of the struggles between one side and another. I'm interested in the history of the Prem Rawat article, and also about the dynamics of the current dispute. Let me know if you prefer email. Hestiaea (talk) 07:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I would be happy to share with you my impressions of the history of the article. Email would be preferable please. PatW (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocked
I have blocked you for deliberately attempting to link a Wikipedia editor to his real life identity, resulting in the need to suppress multiple edits. This is not acceptable practice on this site. Risker (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * When I first arrived at Wikipedia in 2006, I made this statement on my User Page 

"My name is Patrick Wilson. I am a family man and keen music composer from England. I am now 49. However, unlike many current students of Prem Rawat, I have some criticisms and questions I'd like him to answer.  I was disturbed to see that long-time students of Prem Rawat like myself who voice criticism are lumped altogether without fair distinction and dismissed on Wikipedia and elsewhere, as a Hate Group.   I feel this description is grossly misleading, based on fear and against the spirit of Wikipedia.  My initial observation on the article about Prem Rawat was that it had become a place where over-zealous students of Rawat subtely promoted their simplistic demonisation of critics whilst heavily promoting Prem Rawat.  I felt enough conscientious objection to this to devote some time to edit the article to give it a more neutral tone. I felt that as critic who actually embraces some of Rawat's teachings I would possibly be a more neutral voice amongst the editors of more polarised views, who tend to be the ones, in practice, motivated to fight these editorial battles. Also I aspire to fairness and neutrality and this seems a pretty good place to exercise those virtues." I would like someone to tell Jimbo Wales that I shan't be able to keep him updated on the Prem Rawat article as I've been blocked for explaining on his Talk Page how one might actually find a Google search helpful in discovering more about Momento's motivations. You might also tell him that it's quite hard for ethical people, who value being fully accountable to appreciate the need for the editors of their children's much used encyclopaedia, to be anonymous. PatW (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Can somebody tell me how to appeal this block? It seems wrong since I never mentioned Momento's real name. I just suggested googling him. It seemed appropriate under the circumstances. Notwithstanding I'd just had private email asking me essentially if I knew who he was. I didn't so I googled him with surprising results.PatW (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You may appeal the block by following the steps at Guide to appealing blocks. Risker (talk) 03:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

FAO OliveOil and DeCausa

 * Somebody needs to to point out to OliveOil that the 'Peace Is Possible' book (that Momento recommended her to read) is a paid-for Vanity press book and has long been considered an unreliable source and effectively a 'Primary Source'. There have been many discussions about this over the years resulting in the decision to use with extreme caution and only after consensus on the Talk Page. Also, she apparently wants to cut out the reference to Rawat being mentioned as a 'cult leader' in sources (as was recently reinstated by Jimbo Wales). The sources just need to be re-done. There's a ton of better ones - and Momento only got away with broaching the subject as the existing sources were not so good. Of course he made no attempt to correct that. So OliveOil needs to know that scholars have written about Rawat as a cult leader as well as myriad press reports.  J. Gordon Melton's book (which everyone accepts as a reliable source) is actually called 'Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America' for a start! PatW (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Since I didn't see the Cagan book in the sources I suspected it had been left out deliberately. It may or may not be vanity press. I did use it however to use the least controversial content to summarize the multiple sources which describe Rawat in a positive light. Would the editors who quickly reverted my work, like content from other sources better?  Pat you are again speaking out of turn. I did not suggest moving the cult leader content, I suggested adding balance. Please do not mischaracterize me, The cult leader content is now redundant with the addition of the paragraph I added which provides balance, but I don't see anyone removing it. What i see is a concerted effort to keep the cult-leader content in the first paragraph of the lead unopposed. I won't speak to motivation, I don't know what it is, but I also don't see protection of a BLP article. Jimbo Wales is an editor when he edits on Wikipedia.(olive (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC))
 * You have no idea of the pain this man has caused people. What you are doing is highly objectionable to those that he has abused. You are completely wrong in all your assumptions about what he is. I think you should exercise more integrity and look at both sides of his story but you have no interest do you? However you do have enough interest to make 'bold' pro-Rawat edits. You're the one whose motives are questionable.. PatW (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Pat your comment is a clear indication of lack of neutrality in this topic area. Wikipedia is not the forum to make Rawat pay for his abuses real or not. I have looked at both sides and wish to include both sides in this article. Not doing so in an encyclopedia is a disservice to Wikipedia and to the man. I cannot and will not slant an article to reflect my own opinions. You don't know what my assumptions are I have never stated them and my editing does not reflect them.(olive (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC))


 * I'm not here to make Rawat pay, I came to stop bad and biased editing. Right there is another wrong assumption from you. I always have been TOTALLY up-front about NOT being neutral, stated that I was interested in adding proper balance as result of the attacks on Rawat critics, and that is why I restricted my activities to the Talk Page, except when invited to make one or two edits in maybe 6 years of facing relentless 'Premie' editing. Do you think you might afford me some of the noble virtuous motivation and attitude you liberally accord yourself?
 * And talking of 'lack of neutrality' can I ask you a theoretical question? - whose position would you judge as more honest? Someone who has been the head of Rawat's organisation who does not declare that here and who tirelessly makes pro-Rawat edits here - or someone who, from the get-go uses their own name, is totally honest about their past involvement with Rawat and who makes no attempts to edit but simply to raise objection to the edits and attacks on ex-followers made by the former? Can you give a simple answer please?
 * Re 'Peace Is Possible' - Allegedly, Cagan was paid $60,000 to write the book, never interviewed Rawat and basically was fed the information by followers. This fits with my experience. Here's an example - There was a magazine called 'Leaders' who ran a so-called 'interview' with Rawat. It was much vaunted by the premies who wanted to cite it here as a reliable source. Being curious, I simply picked up the phone and called the magazine and was put directly through to the CEO. He said that a junior had accepted a pre-written article, scripted by premies and that it was essentially a supplied advertorial. No real interview there. The CEO was fuming that the reputation of his magazine had been jeopardised by the publication of a paid advert posing as a genuine article. I think heads may have rolled. He told me that mine was not the only call he'd received about this.
 * Finally, you keep saying you're not going to edit the article as you've no stomach etc. you always come back though. I see this repeated over on that NB you made. I hope you're not just saying this to put off having to answer the issues you keep raising and people keep tackling you on. That would be cowardly. You HAVE made some remarkably wrong assumptions by the way. One being that Cagan wasn't likely paid for the book. I hope you have the good grace to admit that is a very unlikely scenario given the reasons somebody immediately very sensibly answered you. Can you admit you were wrong about that?  It's easy to keep saying 'Oh I don't like this topic - I have a headache - I'm being attacked I don't need it or whatever. Perhaps you DO need it and should stick around to put your money where your mouth is (as it were). Just don't think that you can expect non-neutral people who yes, would (and quite rightly too) like to see Rawat pay for his abuses, out of the discussion. Especially since those who support him have been the majority influence in discussions and you welcome with open arms. I would imagine you can at least grasp the justice of this. At least I really hope so or you are on very thin ice ethically despite your claims of virtue. PatW (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Request to be Unblocked

 * Please would administrators removing my block which Risker imposed 2 years ago. I understand and respect the reasons for the block and will not make the same mistake again. I would like to be able to contribute to, not just the Prem Rawat related articles, but also other articles on Wikipedia.PatW (talk) 10:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I will bring this up on WP:ANI in a few moments. --Yamla (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Much obliged :-) PatW (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat: Contentious topic designation removed
Hello ,

As a very late update to the Prem Rawat arbitration case, the contentious topic designation, previously "discretionary sanctions", originally "article probation", has been removed following a successful request for amendment.

Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic designation remain in force and are governed by the contentious topics procedure.

This notification may be mostly unnecessary, but as you had been a party to the original case, I thought you might be interested in hearing that after about 15 years, this remnant has been removed. Until today, it was listed at.

Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)