User talk:Rainer P.

Welcome to Wikipedia
Welcome, !

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:

Also, here are some pointers to learn more about this project:
 * First, take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial, and perhaps dabble a bit in the test area.
 * When you have some free time, take a look at the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines. They can come in very handy!
 * If you need any help, feel free to post a question at the Help Desk
 * Wikipedia has a vibrant community of editors. The village pump is a great place to see the goings on.
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!


 * Five pillars
 * Policy trifecta
 * Brilliant prose
 * Be bold in updating pages
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page.

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: PrimeBOT (talk) 23:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC).

Best of luck, and have fun editing! &asymp; jossi &asymp; t • @ 15:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your question about an order by Rawat (or DLM leadership?) to destroy publications, I read that this was a verbal order. I think you can should check the archives of the ex-premie forum 8 for details. I had asked a question there about it. Andries 01:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rainer P. Would you mind offering some input on the rewrite of the lead (topmost) section of the article Prem Rawat. I see you've already made a recent edit. I'd really appreciate it if you could find the time to comment further on that part of the article in the talk page Talk:Prem Rawat Thanks. Mael-Num 10:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of External Links
There is no consensus to either keep or remove the External Links to critics of Prem Rawat. From what I can see Momento and Jossi want to remove the links while the rest want to keep them or don't care. If you want them removed I think you should write so in the talk page and give motivation, not just remove them. If you want to keep or don't care, I think you should at least undo your removal of them. Epiteo (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Prem Rawat
I think it's o.k. to leave it like this. Again: "swear off tobacco, alcohol, cut their hair short etc." has nothing to do with following Prem Rawat's teachings, and he himself is a perfect example for that. I remember him saying: I'm not an ashram premie. Also, living in an ashram was never part of the teachings. To follow monastic rules in a monastic situation has other connotations. If you own a gas-station, you should prohibit smoking there, for evident reasons. That does not imply that you yourself have to quit smoking, or that your employees or customers have to become non-smokers. They just should not smoke there. Monastic rules have a considerable history and rationale. But they are solely contingent to the monastic condition, and that is/was not part of Prem Rawat's teachings. The law prohibits drinking while driving, for safety reasons - not for moral. That does not imply that the secretary of justice has to be an anti-alcoholic. So it is misleading and a bit sensationalistic to editorialize contemporary traditional general monastic rules into the lead section of an article in such a way that supports a misconception concerning the actual teachings - which have, again, nothing to do with lifestyle. Does that not make sense? Maybe after sleeping.--Rainer P. 12:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)--194.25.103.127 12:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha! Yes, your response makes perfect sense.  I think I may still want to take a nap, though. Mael-Num 13:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

'''Rainer says:- "Also, living in an ashram was never part of the teachings." "Following Prem Rawat was never a matter of lifestyle"'''

This is untrue, utterly sinister and misleading nonsense I'm afraid. No doubt on Wikipedia there are pages where Holocaust deniers attempt to promulgate their revisionsim. Well I'm not going to let Rainers equally unconscionable, although considerably less serious, lies pass unchallenged. I was there and his lies make a mockery of those who sincerely gave their lives to Rawat as per his teachings.

Let it be known that the ashram 'way of life' was, during the seventies, a major part of Rawat's teachings, albeit rather less 'obligatory' than 'Meditation, Satsang, Service' etc. He certainly convinced me and plenty of others that it was virtually an 'obligatory' way of life if you were single, sincere and commited to doing the best possible thing with your young life at that time. Rawat's teachings do not just constitute his current so-called Knowledge gift but can also be described by the words that came out of his own mouth during his speeches. His very words constitue his practical teachings over the years. Furthermore, even if Rawat's current teachings do not involve recommending a particular lifestyle to followers, that is no reason to omit the historic fact that for a considerable period of time he taught that to surrender one's life in his ashram was the greatest commitment and sacrifice a follower could make in their lives- and it was a 'lifetime opportunity' that was a gift from him and not to be missed. In short he actively taught that the ashram way of life, as offered by him, was an EXTREMELY important part of Knowledge and he ranted on about it at endless meetings where presumably we could be rightly described, as well as anytime, as to have been directly subject to his teachings. This is the truth...and there are many printed examples of his own words that testify to this.

I am certain that I am not alone in finding Rainer's misrepresentation personally offensive, since I followed Rawats teachings throughout the seventies with absolute sincerity and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that he taught me that I should 'surrender my life' to him personally in this very specific way that he wanted. Personally I did not want to live in an ashram in the least...he persuaded me in his speeches that it was something I should rightly do. I suppose that following Rawat's teachings so completely ironcally accelerated the process of seeing the whole set-up for what it was...abusive and dysfunctional. Does Rainer understand how someone like myself could find what he says offensive I wonder? If you'd asked any one of the sincere premies at the time whether they were sitting glued to Rawat's words for mere entertainment, or to derive some wisdom from his 'teachings' - nobody would have denied that they were being taught. Some people actually took him at his word and took his 'teachings' seriously unlike Rainer who apparently did not get the gist. Ironically I suspect he flatters himself now as someone who did though.

I moved into in Rawat's ashram because I personally heard him many times teach, in the late seventies, that if you were a sincere, single 'Premie' that to move into his ashram was really your only 'genuine' course of action. It was a HUGE part of his agenda that people should 'dedicate their lives'. It wasn't just the innocent little 'personal choice ' option which Rainer suggests was somehow separate from his teachings. Rawat was insistent about the ashram being the best place and way of life to 'practice Knowledge'. Again the way of life was inseparable from his teachings- it was a serious option for all premies -single or otherwise. I personally saw couples breaking up and many, many people giving up careers to follow Rawats adamant recommendation, often to their eventual bitter regret and almost always with a lot of attendant angst at the time. I even witnessed Rawat saying in a meeting with us 'ashram premies' that we were the really privileged ones compared to those 'out there in the main hall'. The clear implication was that he was giving us a Great Opportunity to surrender our lives which made others commitment to him and understanding of his teachings insignificant by comparison. Thus he divided and conquered us. I suggest that Rainer is prepared to make 'lies of omission' because he wants to present a whitewashed picture of his Master where his 'teachings' now and,' always were', just what suits his agenda ie. an innocent little meditation with occasional inspirational from his speeches or something completely uncontroversial. My assertion that Rawat used fear to dominate his followers and make them give up their lives to him is no doubt something followers will tirelessly deny. But that remains my experience.

Of course now his 'teachings' are not the same. Why not just explain the truth of how they've changed? But the point is that Rainer is quite innappropriately and unashamedly obfuscating the FACT that Rawat once very heavily promoted (= taught..right?)  the ashram lifestyle. Maybe he is shy to mention that Rawat backtracked and closed them when he realised that they weren't working and that it was damaging him and all those inmates he'd played the bossy 'Pied Piper' to. Also Rainer paints the incorrect picture that Rawat didn't moralise about the 'evils' of those things he denied people who lived in his ashrams. And he maybe does not like the fact that some people (to him an 'insignificantly small number of critics I suppose) today feel Rawat was indeed hypocritical for HIDING his personal penchant for things he forbade others. But some do judge Rawat as hypocritical, and for some rather good reasons. He publically denigrated people for being into relationships or sex and basically anything to do with the 'World', yet he was as keen to savour the delights of the flesh, ambition, power and money as anyone. In Kissimee he mocked premies for being into sex like 'Jack Rabbits' etc. He was massively into guilt-tripping people about personal ambitions, desires etc. Furthermore he unleashed his 'initiators' (most fanatical followers) whom he'd personally verbally beaten into submission in intensive Malibu private meetings, with his specific instructions to go and apply pressure on premies within commumities around the world to 'surrender their lives to Him' in 'His Ashrams'. Most revealingly he had an elaborate system of sworn secrecy (X-rating of close followers) specifically so as people would not learn of his own personal behaviour and find it 'confusing'. Once in the eighties, before I was permitted to Rawat's residence where I would be in close proximity to him, I was myself asked to not divulge such information myself for that very reason! (some people "might find his private behaviour 'confusing' I was told by his envoy). Clearly Rawat even then acknowledged that people might be put off by observing his private life.  People who are embarrassed about their private behaviour or want to portray a different public persona are often anxious about being perceived as a hypocrites.

I've thought about this a lot. Rawat put huge demands of 'giving up' wordly ambitions and pleasures onto young, impressionable, sincere people like myself who trusted him implicitly and he, and current followers, are still somewhat forlornly trying to divert from, or make a virtue out of the fact that neither he nor many of his less sincere followers could ever make such sacrifices themselves. They even blame the victims of this 'teaching' (which now might well be described, in these more enlightened times, as religious indoctrination.) Can anyone who knows Rawat imagine him allowing David Smith or some such bullying henchman to 'inspire' (guilt-trip) a member of his own family, a son or daughter, into giving up all their money, relationships, their own family to live as a celibate monk or nun for the rest of their lives ? Never in a million years!! (Maybe premies consider that Rawat and his family were 'renunciates' in a previous life or that he's 'above it all' by  some Karmic escape clause). Don't forget Rawat actually mocked ashram premies who just wanted to see their families at Christmas "The only remaining tie you have with your families is the one they gave you for Christmas". It  is hypocritical for someone to exert such huge pressure onto people into surrendering their lives in such a total and devastating way when they themselves wouldn't have a hope in hell of mustering that kind of commitment! Please accept that I, as someone who was once absolutely commited to Rawat and his teachings, have drawn my own conclusions and by rights, and my conscience I must express my objection to what I 've read here.PatW


 * Sorry, Pat, I cannot believe I'm more of a liar than you are. I was there, too, and it seems I had a very different experience and a very different developement after the ashram episode - which I remember as an exquisitely beautiful time. Maybe I don't lie. Maybe I am just a different person. BTW, especially being German, I have a hard time to understand what makes you conjure up the holocaust in this context - purpose? Think I'm Adolf Eichmann? Wherever you are, come back to earth.--Rainer P. 16:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello PatW. Long time no hear, hope you are well.. Please move these comments to your talk page or to Rainer P's page. These pages are to discuss the article and not to discuss our personal experiences or opinions on the subject. Thank you for your understanding. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jossi. Rainer's argument for ashrams not being part of his teachings is also comprised of opinions and personal experiences ie:-

''"I remember him saying: I'm not an ashram premie. Also, living in an ashram was never part of the teachings. To follow monastic rules in a monastic situation has other connotations. If you own a gas-station, you should prohibit smoking there, for evident reasons. etc.............s a misconception concerning the actual teachings - which have, again, nothing to do with lifestyle." ''

Should he move those opinions too? There is a clear danger here of your opinions of what should be moved being selective according to your bias. I think I have shown that I was sincere in attemting to improve the article in the past and I feel I have a right to strongly argue to expose weak or unreasonably biased arguments here that will make this article worse by omitting relevant information.

I admit my response also contains some personal experience...I maintain that is not entirely innappropriate... but otherwise it is largely an attempt to reason why the ashram lifestyle WAS clearly a part of Rawat's teachings. My intention was to establish some consensus about this so that the article might reflect this understanding. Also Rainers logic is infuriatingly biased, missing the point about hypocrisy, and it completely begs the kind of response I've made this time. For example his argument about the non-hypocrisy of a gas-station owner not having to be a non-smoker is a highly simplistic comparison for a number of reasons. The fact is that Rawat as 'Satguru' was perceived and portrayed in premie documentation as being 'Divine' and beyond these desires and yet, apparently was not, and yet he told other people to give up all that stuff. But that's just a smokescreen from the real point which is that Rainer totally omits the fact that, as I've clarified, Rawat is documented as advocating the ashram lifestyle as being a a wonderful opportunity, his gift, of being able to surrender one's life to Guru Maharaji in this lifetime. So that is why living in an ashram was absolutely a very important part of his teaching. Tell me Jossi, do you think the Ashram way of life was a part of teachings? Hope you're well too. I'm fine..very busy but fine. PatW 18:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Prem Rawat's teachings are his words, past, present and future. The fact is that Rawat told premies that the only way to live their lives if they were single, was to join the ashrams. It's also true that DLM Int'l headquarters in Miami Beach during 1979 processed many divorces for married premies so they would be free to work at the DECA project.  How do I know this?  Becasue I worked with the attorney at DLM processing those divorces.  This was after I was finished at DECA, where I had worked everyday directly for the two directors of DECA, who reported directly to Maharaji. i saw Maharaji every single day, up close and personal.  It beggars belief that anyone could say (with a straight face) that Maharaji didn't dictate a lifestyle in the 1979s.  In the Rawat article the word DECA is mentioned, although very briefly, as if no one ever existed there who was a devotee of Rawat.  The hundreds of DECA premies that were transferred to Miami from ashrams around the world, were there to work at DECA for no wages (ashram premies) to provide him with his first jet aircraft, the B707.  The Broadripple Hotel, that used to be adjacent to the Fountainbleau Hotel on Collins Ave. was where we lived -- it was the one of the official DLM ashrams in Miami, because that's also where all of the DLM full-timers and the many of the initiators lived.  I lived there.  All of the initiators/instructors were mandated to be ashram premies during the 70s.  And people wonder why the Rawat article gets so contentious, with this kind of rubbish being thrown about surrounding our lived as premies.   Cynthia Gracie Sylviecyn 20:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * These views may be true and accurate, and for my part I totally agree with your opinions on the reason for including this hypocrisy. However, it's kind of a sticky point because we would need a fairly clear citation to a reliable source that shows an "acceptable" critic saying specifically, "This is wrong because Rawat is being a hypocrite".  Without that, opposition to such criticism can Wikilawyer such a statement into oblivion with claims of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV and whatever else their imaginations lead them to.  It's the name of the game: cite your work.  I'll look for what I can to this end, but I'm a neophyte when it comes to the subject.  If you think this sort of addition is important, find a good citation and use it! Mael-Num 22:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And off the top of my head, Jan van der Lans appears to be saying something like this in the cited section on him. I don't speak Dutch, nor do I have the original cited material.  Andries is, I believe, the source for this critic.  We might do well to ask for his assistance. Mael-Num 22:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I appreciate your comments. The idea of embarking on an arduous Wiki politically-correct attempt to improve this article fills me with abject horror. It is my impression that tons and tons of such fairly referenced critical info has been posted on these articles about Rawat in the past years and virtually ALL of it has been systematically (almost robotically) removed. I simply doubt that anyone in their right mind has the patience or time to try to do this again in the face of such doggedly determinated followers. In my opinion the only way forward is to draw attention to the woeful way these articles can turn into a partisan commentary when such a determined party put all their resources into the long-term transformation of an article. All this Wiki- law has been enforced (rightly or wrongly) by Jossi and the result speaks for itself.PatW 23:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I totally understand your horror. I cannot believe the partisanship I've confronted in editing this article.  The opposition doesn't even try to keep up appearances of objectivity.  You are right, I'm afraid.  The only way forward is to throw some light on this dank little corner Jossi has built.  I've started that with the most mild of approaches, a WP:RFC.  There are additional steps I know of and am willing to take it to.  I'm confident that I can present a strong case and a clear representation of what's going on here.  I'm trying to patiently wait to see if reinforcements arrive through the RFC first.  All I can say is, try to stay tuned.  Things may get better. Mael-Num 08:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Mael-Num, but I'm not trying to edit the Rawat article, anymore. I appreciate your efforts.  I've been around the block with Jossi/Momento so many times it makes me have a pain in my tummy thinking about trying to do it again here.  Pat's correct in saying that virtually all of the criticism, including the entire article "Criticism of..." has been expunged from Wikipedia by Jossi and Momento. Although John Brauns, who owns EPO, agreed with merging it with the main article I disagree.  It was the ideal opening for the cult members to pounce on the article and remove all the history of Rawat's life that he doesn't want the public to know anymore. They've worked arduously to whitewash Prem Rawat's life including rewriting Wiki guidelines and policies in order to suit their needs to push former members out of the editing process and to justify removing criticism.  I know what the truth is, but I'm also aware that my personal experiences in the cult would be considered original research. Btw, the Elan Vital error Jossi/Momento keeps pointing out to you (without explaining it -- weird, eh?)  should probably read that Rawat founded Divine Light Mission, not Elan Vital.  There wasn't the name change to EV until 1983 in Colorado (the non-profit corp.'s home state) and 1986 (I think) in California, which is the state they do business in.


 * The fact is that the only thing that makes Prem Rawat notable is his notoriety. He's really an unknown person except to his followers and the only people that remember him among the general public are those who remember that chubby, boy guru from the 70s. All of the press coverage he's ever received has been negative, and rightly so, because he's a cult leader.  That's why he never, ever talks to the mainstream press one-on-one -- he does indeed have a past.  Also, the new book that Jossi/Momento have been touting is really a vanity press thing.  It was published byMighty River Press which is owned by a premie from Philadelphia. It's the only book that the publishing house has ever put out. They like to keep it in the "family.' I don't know if Cagan is also a premie, but the only people buying that book are mostly premies, I can guarantee you that.  In other words, I'd be very surprised if it made the NYT best seller's list! lol.  Best Wishes.  cynthia Gracie Sylviecyn 03:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Rotary comment
Hi Rainer. Jossi found the quote about TPRF on their own page. Here it is: Rotary International describes the foundation as being established by Prem Rawat to "to improve the quality of life for the disadvantaged."

(from The Prem Rawat Foundation )

Cheers, Rumiton 14:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Here it is including the source from Rotary:
 * Rotary International describes the foundation as being established by Prem Rawat to "to improve the quality of life for the disadvantaged."
 * ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Assume good faith
Rainer, not only is "assume good faith" a Wikipedia policy, but it is a particualr requirement for this topic per the ArbCom's probation notice. This is not the first time you've made such a statement calling my good faith into quesiton. Please remove your most recent comment or I will request enforcement of the probation.  Will Beback   talk    21:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for removing the commment. I look forward to continue working with you in an atmosphere of respect.    Will Beback    talk    07:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Jossi/Pergamino
I think the matter was handled discretely to avoid embarrassing Jossi and to preserve his privacy. The notice on his talk page says that it was a mix of on-wiki and checkuser evidence. Checkuser is a tool that allows a select few editors to see the IP, etc., that an editor is using. That evidence is virtually irrefutable, and is always kept secret. The ArbCom apparently reviewed the matter, so that's about the best decision-making we can expect on Wikipedia. As for Pergamino expressing views different from Jossi's, that was presumably an effort to disguise himself. He wasn't banned from editing, and could have edited under his own name after first resolving some issues with the ArbCom. I can only guess why he took this course of action.  Will Beback   talk    19:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

so it's coincidence?
"Personally I don't actually believe that current or former employees are active here."

I'll take that bet! -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 16:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, delayed response as it got lost in all the cafuffle, you asked what that comment above was supposed to be about, I stumbled across this where Rumiton says he works (or at least has worked) for several years at Amaroo. Now I guess we can also add TerryMacro to that list too, and then take him off again, as he says he's going to retire here. Anyways, just an FYI as I didn't get back to you earlier. --Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 18:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Prem Rawat mediation
Steve Crossin requested that privilege be extended to participants in this mediation. The Mediation Committee has agreed with this and is willing to accept the mediation as a Mediation Committee case. I have agreed to assist Steve with the mediation. The Mediation Committee case page has been set up at Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 4. Would you be willing to sign in there? Sunray (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Rainer, we have received eight opening statements now. We are still awaiting yours and one other. How long do you think it will be before we have yours? It would be nice to get them all in the next two or three days. Would you be able let me know if you need more time than that? Sunray (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If it helps at all, opening statements go here. Best, Steve Crossin    The clock is ticking.... 08:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy note
As a courtesy, I am letting you know that I have started a thread on Geaves on RS/N. However, I would ask you to refrain from commenting until uninvolved editors have had a chance to comment. I have linked to our recent discussions of the topic, so outside editors can see what we have been talking about, and what our respective arguments are; there is no need to duplicate these arguments at RS/N. Thank you. -- JN 466  17:10, 5 November 2009 (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) 00:59, 23 May 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.)

Prem Rawat / Geaves
Over at the Prem Rawat article I have proposed an edit based on Geaves' work on Rawat's lineage. I would appreciate your thoughts as whether we can use Geaves as a source in this respect. PatW (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not ok.
Why did you change my submission to the RFC page, here? This is never ok. I do not understand why you would do this. It is deceptive,a violation of wikipedia policy, and completely uncalled for. Do not do that again please. -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 05:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am really sorry, Maelefique, this has happened purely accidentally. The change was actually supposed to go to MY edit further below, where you can find the same words in a space after "God". I remember making a change and not finding it afterwards, so I repeated it, this time correctly. I was not aware that it did take place in your edit. I would not do such a thing on purpose, as I agree with you completely that this is not o.k. Must have happened in a moment of inattentiveness about the curser's position, and I beg your pardon.--Rainer P. (talk) 06:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

--87.167.177.125 (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)== WP:DRN ==

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Prem Rawat". Thank you. -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 06:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

From the DRN page, at the top of Momento's first edit there, "Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.". Your comment does not seem to be focused on the issue at hand, if you feel it does, you should leave it there. -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 16:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it is calm, it is brief, and improvement of neutrality is always an issue in this article --Rainer P. (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

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 11:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Thanks! PatW (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In January 1979 the Los Angeles Times reported that Rawat was maintaining his Malibu following despite a rising mistrust of cults. Bob Mishler and Robert Hand, a former vice president of the movement, complained that money was increasingly diverted to Rawat's personal use, warning that a situation like the recent Jonestown incident could occur with the followers of Rawat. Mishler complained that the ideals of the group had become impossible to fulfill, but his charges found little support and did not affect the progress of the Mission.
 * It is indeed debatable, to colport such a news item - and a news item it definitely was - in this article, for BLP reasons. I certainly have an opinion, but I would much prefer to hear an uninvolved editor or two.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Then what a shame you joined in that discussion when all involved editors have had the decency to stay out of it. And regarding your jumping on me in the thread above. I was just clarifying for the newcomers what the issues were that I had brought to the DNR since Steve Zhang had closed that discussion. When you start a DN you have to state what you object to and why - since that had been removed it was PERFECTLY reasonable for me to restate my case. As you failed to notice I haven't said anything further. If you want to delete your comments I will do the same and we can leave it to them. Otherwise I will have no choice but to reluctantly rejoin the debate - and I will make it absolutely clear why I am doing so. PatW (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

(I posted this on Pat's user page: 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) 09:04, 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. - You and I have both deleted our comments that leaves just Momento at this stage. Of course it is not a formal arrangement and editors can do as they see fit. I have re-stated my current intentions to continue to distance myself. PatW (talk) 10:33, 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. I won't put a time limit on when you can appeal this ban, but I will suggest that it's unlikely you will get it overturned for at least 6 months. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 19:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Appeal
Greetings Rainer. I have submitted your appeal. You should add the page to your watch list. M

Arbitration motion regarding Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat and Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2
Resolved by motion at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that: 1) Standard Discretionary sanctions are authorised with immediate effect for all pages relating to Prem Rawat, broadly construed; this supersedes the existing Article Probation remedy. 2) Any current non-expired Article Probation sanctions are hereby vacated and replaced with standard Discretionary Sanctions in the same terms and durations as the vacated sanctions. If appropriate, these may be appealed at Arbitration Enforcement. 3) The Logs of blocks, bans, and restrictions at the Prem Rawat 2 case page is to be merged into the original Prem Rawat log at Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat, which is to be used for all future recording of warnings and sanctions.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Discuss this

Appeal
Happy New Year. I'd like to take your case to Arbitration Enforcement, if you don't mind. I think it's a terrible reflection on Wikipedia that an editor can be punished when they're so clearly innocent.Momento (talk) 08:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I will gladly go with you, after kind of really enjoying my longest Wiki-break ever. So please do proceed, I was quite pleased with what happened at ArbCom, except for the weak outcome...
 * I have appealed against my banning at Arbitration Enforcement. Rumiton (talk) 05:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The six month, that seems to be the polite period to wait, is up. Rainer would you like me to start your appeal. MOMENTO 08:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, thank you!--Rainer P. (talk) 08:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Greetings Rainer and Happy New Year. Hopefully the Christian spirit of forgiveness is alive and well in Wikipedia, I am ready to re-submit your appeal; if you'd like. MOMENTO (talk) 09:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, go ahead, thank you! For certain the spirit of detachement on my side is alive and well...--217.235.205.14 (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Appeal draft
Greetings Rainer. I have cleaned up the formatting as best I can. The next step is for you to select "Edit this page" (the whole of your talk page) and then cut and paste the whole section below to the bottom of the Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement page, linked here. And inform Botnl that you have lodged it. Best of luck, although the fact that you have to appeal this ban proves that Wikipedia has bias against NRMs. MOMENTO (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Rainer P.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Sanction being appealed

 * Indefinite topic ban since November 16th 2012 from all articles and discussions related to Prem Rawat for persistent battleground behaviour

Statement by Rainer P.

 * I have been indefinitely topic-banned by The Blade of the Northern Lights, for “persistent battleground behaviour” but he provides no evidence or diffs to support that charge.


 * I have never engaged in “battleground behavior”. I regard my influence there as neutral, moderate and conciliatory. About the only comment about me on Prem Rawat talk notes “Rainer's attempt to pull this discussion back on track seems a move in a positive direction”.


 * I have edited the Prem Rawat article less than 10 times in three years. I have made edits only with full consent from all editors after previous discussion on the talk page. My last edit to the article before being banned for “battleground behaviour” on November 16th 2012 was on October 19th 2012.. My previous edit to the article was December 29th, 2011 to correct punctuation.


 * Most of my edits have been to the Talk Page because I have extensive knowledge of the subject and want to help the article editors. In the three weeks prior to being banned I made 10 edits to the talk page, most discussing choosing a picture for the article.


 * It is true that Prem Rawat articles sometimes resemble a battleground but I have not been involved in it. The main reason for that situation is the behaviour of one editor, Pat W, who has been warned for incivility and battleground behaviour nineteen times on his talk page. Not to mention the countless times he has been asked to stop on the PR talk pages. It is PatW who should be banned not an innocent bystander.


 * I have never been warned or criticised in over three years of editing.


 * I have never been part of an Arbitration action. And so, as per Discretionary Sanctions, I should have received a warning before banning.


 * I have never been banned or blocked or otherwise been subject to disciplinary actions.


 * I have looked at all my edits and I cannot see what I have done wrong.


 * Blade of the Northern Lights says the reason for the ban is “although Rainer P. didn't himself initiate many proposals on the talk page, I saw that he was showing up to support the other two with an extremely high level of frequency”. I have made 500 edits in 18 months, hardly “an extremely high level of frequency” and an inspection of my edits show very few involved supporting one view or another. Silk Tork reviewed my edits and concluded “I've looked back at the contributions of Rainer P. (which are mainly to the talkpage of Prem Rawat) and I cannot find any problematic edits”. Another independent editor said “Rainer was always mild mannered, polite, and conciliatory in his positions”.


 * SUMMARY: I have an exemplary record at Wikipedia. I have never been blocked, banned or sanctioned in any way. No evidence was presented that shows me involved in “battleground behaviour” or incivility. No evidence was presented that show me editing in a POV or inappropriate way. In fact, no evidence of any sort justifies the ban. Please lift it.


 * PS: Are topic banned editors allowed to comment on this appeal?

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Rainer P.
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary.

Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Result of the appeal by Rainer P.

 * This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Hi Rainer
I would like to encourage you to go ahead with this appeal. Unless specifically invited, other involved editors (like me) cannot comment, but you seem to have stated your case very competently. Good luck! Rumiton (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC) BTW, I can receive but not send e-mails at the moment. The tech comes tomorrow. Rumiton (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Rumiton! BTW, do you know of a way to retrieve the complete last appeal from December 2012?--Rainer P. (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Rainer P., please notify the sanctioning admin of the appeal and link to this notification in the appeal. Normally, discussion only begins after the sanctioning admin has made a statement.  Sandstein  17:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Done.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this is the final version of the 2012 appeal. Rumiton (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you!--Rainer P. (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Your appeal from the Prem Rawat topic ban is successful
Hello Rainer P. Your appeal is successful and your ban from the topic of Prem Rawat is lifted, per [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=591911601&oldid=591773056 the result of this thread at AE]. You are also being notified of the discretionary sanctions under Prem Rawat to clarify your status. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of the discretionary sanctions under the Prem Rawat Arbcom case
– EdJohnston (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Millennium '73 because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Materialscientist (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

ad hominem
Re. — the type of ad hominem that should be avoided everywhere, but even more explicitly on Rawat-related pages (per the established sensitivity of the matter). See this as an official warning: any further disturbance on such pages, and this should be taken to the appropriate arbcom enforcement page, per the remedies of two Rawat Arbcom cases. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies accepted
 * Re. my motivation: my motivation lies with a high quality of the encyclopedia.
 * Re. "Take it as a sign of skill-deficit in WP-matters, ..." — every once and awhile (maybe somewhat often) I point to policies and guidelines with a link or some explanation: I think that is needed, indeed, to become more acquainted with the do's and don'ts of Wikipedia editing.
 * In general I would encourage you also to take up editing (again) in other areas than Rawat, which should give plenty of experience on how things work around here (especially when reading of guidance would be experienced as weary). --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)