Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by Will Beback
Personal note: I am not a current or former follower of Prem Rawat, nor of any similar spiritual teacher. Neither do I adhere to any belief system opposed to Prem Rawat. Nor do I know anyone personally who is current or former member, or who has a strong opinion about the topic. Though I recall reading about him in the newspaper a long time ago, I had no other knowledge of him before editing Wikipedia.

Noticeboards, mediation, and RfCs since 2008

 * Moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2/Evidence

Tendentious editing and edit warring
Momento has been blocked repeatedly for edit warring:
 * February 9, 2008 24 hours (Disruption: Prem Rawat)
 * February 14, 2008 24 hours (Edit warring)
 * See also 1RR_on_Prem_Rawat March 14, 2008
 * May 18, 2008 72 hours [unblocked after 8 hours]
 * May 26, 2008 72 hours (Arbitration enforcement: )

Deletes sourced information without cause:

Keeps removing material that has been discussed at length, and for which sources are well-known.

He adds text and then complains about it as an example of my "POV editing".

In one edit he adds more material, strongly insisting it's necessary for NPOV. Another edit, he removes the same material as incompatible with NPOV.

Sourcing issues

 * The source is reality.

Makes repeated claims that mainstream newspapers and news sources aren't reliable sources, despite input from WP:RSN
 * Claims that NY Times is not a reliable source.
 * Claims that LA Times is not a reliable source. Calls material taken straight from it "extremely poorly sourced"
 * Claims that Rolling Stone is not a reliable source.
 * Says that Saturday Review and Current Biography are "two pathetic sources".
 * Argues that UPI is an unsuitable source.
 * Says that assertions reported in multiple sources are just repeating each other.
 * Claims that scholars are wrong, or that multiple sources are simply copying each other.
 * Asserts that a spokesman is not a suitable source.

Removes sourced material, claiming WP:REDFLAG:  Changes sourced material to say the opposite:

Says, "Please do not remove sourced material without discussion." Removes sourced material, saying, "removed unsourced material".

Removing sourced material:

Keeps adding quotes from a single source ("...more Levine...", "added more Levine", "added more", "added more ...", "added more...", "added more Levine") and then complains about overuse of the source.("...most encyclopedias would use sources such as Levine's ...sparingly but it is the major source for this article with more than 50 quotes.")

Insists Cagan is "no problem" despite ongoing questions. Insists that Cagan is the most reliable source no matter how many other sources, scholarly or journalistic, contradict her. After a thorough investigation which showed how unreliable Cagan is as a source, Momento continues to suggest using the book as a source for self-serving material.

Adds more citations to Cagan, some of which contradict a more reliable source:

Argues that a disputed affidavit is a reliable source:

Argues for limiting or eliminating individual scholars as sources.

Argues against using Christian scholars."It is not just that these scholars are Christian, most of them are agents of the Church." (old but relevant:)

Argues for deleting material from scholars who disagree with each other.

Deletes foreign language scholars. (old but relevant: )

Makes pointy, incorrect attribution:

Complains about splitting material from a single source, does the same himself.

Says he is moving material from one section to another, removes sourced material in the process without any notice:

Refusing to acknowledge a consensus
The 14,000 word discussion about Balyogeshwar is an example of how Momento refuses to acknowledge a consensus of involved editors, or even input from uninvolved editors.

He keeps removing the material:
 * 20:17, February 17, 2008 (Inappropriate for lede, not mentioned in article)
 * 22:08, February 18, 2008
 * 10:19, February 19, 2008 (Don't not post uncited material)
 * 10:44, January 26, 2009 (focusing on the present as per Cla88)
 * 01:27, February 7, 2009 (Balyogeshwar removed to childhood section as per talk)

Insists that material didn't have consensus even though it had been in the article for a year and had been thoroughly discussed at the time of addition.

Comes up with excuses for ignoring results of an RfC, saying it was "dishonestly framed", and for why a consensus of editors isn't valid.

Makes essentially the same proposal year after year:
 * "Prem Rawat (b. Prem Pal Singh Rawat, 10 December 1957 in Haridwar, India), also known as Maharaji (formerly Guru Maharaj Ji) and called Balyogeshwar in India,.... 2008
 * "Prem Pal Singh Rawat ... (born December 10, 1957), also known as Maharaji (formerly Guru Maharaj Ji) and Balyogeshwar in India, ...." 2009

Assuming bad faith and making uncivil comments

 * The trouble with giving one millimeter of leeway in this article is that someone will drive a truck through it. 
 * Will, I've assumed, maybe incorrectly, that English is your first language. But since you think "maybe" and "probably" are almost synonymous, it probably isn't. If so, you'll have to accept that people with a greater grasp of English words, grammar and usage and an extensive knowledge of Rawat will see that this article is very biased both in structure and source selection....
 * It's just another case of trawling through newspaper articles until you can find "fortress" "marble" "chandeliers" and sticking them in to promote a POV. ...
 * ..Cagan did a lot of research. For example, she reveals that the three leaders of the Australian anti-Rawat group have all been found guilty of illegal behavior by Australian courts... This is why some people will make a huge effort to try and discredit her.
 * "..And that of course is the major problem with this article and your POV. What Rawat says or does is not nearly as important to you as what some crazy follower does."
 * ...This article was written by and according to WillBeback's anti-Rawat POV and everyone else has been playing catchup ever since....
 * .. Intelligent and NPOV mediating with Prem Rawat articles which still annoys the anti Rawat crew.

Over-reaching BLP claims
Deleting text from other editors' talk page comments: "removed according to BLP" But the comments weren't such a violation that he can't quote them a half hour later in a complaint.

Though he portrays himself as a defender of BLP, he has repeatedly inserted poorly sourced negative material about living persons such as ex-followers and estranged family members. The latter includes a source, Cagan, that editors had previously agreed to use only for non-contentious assertion and which was later found to be outright questionable.

Other spurious deletions on BLP grounds: 

Other problematic behaviors
Forum shopping: When no one would block me at WP:AE, he posts to another page trying to get me blocked.


 * Interferes with Millennium '73 FAC.
 * In addition to objecting strenuously to the existence and contents of the article, Momento made edits contrary to the suggestions of FA reviewers. They suggested having fewer quotations, and yet he kept adding more, more, and more quotes,  even redundant ones.

Obstructionist:

Unhelpful editing practices
Momento repeatedly transcribes blocks of text from sources into articles without marking them as quotations, sometimes making a few small changes in the text, which is a form of plagiarism.

He delete text while leaving sources, effectively moving the citations to other sentences and thereby scrambling the referencing. Even claiming that it's unsourced. And changed the source for a quotation while leaving the old citation. Splits assertions from their citations. Adds unsourced quotation.

Ex-Premie-Org dispute
One of the long running disputes has been over linking to, or even mentioning, Ex-Premie.Org (EPO). The dispute also involved other websites, both pro and con, some of which contained derogatory materials about ex-followers. To avoid this dispute I suggested, and several editors agreed, to limit the article to a single external link to the subject's personal website. I have personally removed many links, including those to EPO, to maintain that compromise. Because EPO hosts a large number of "convenience copies" of copyrighted materials, it probably should not be linked according to WP:EL. However I do not believe that linking to it would violate WP:BLP, and therefore deleting the link should not be exempt from 3RR.

Momento deletes even properly sourced references to it on BLP grounds.

January EPO deletions     

Earlier EPO deletions:

Discussion and consensus about adding text referring to the website:

Single purpose editor with a conflict of interest and a strong POV
Since he started editing in 2005, Momento has made 1996 main space edits, at least 1855 of them to Rawat-related articles. Since the close of the ArbCom case in May 2008, Momento has made about 1500 total edits, less than a dozen of which have been to pages unrelated to Prem Rawat-related topics. 

Momento responds to any insertion of negative material about Prem Rawat by calling it POV pushing. He is quick to call even the most minor edits as a "POV edit". He has repeatedly deleted sourced, neutrally-presented information that is in any way negative.(long discussion of the material before Momento deleted it.)

There is also evidence that Momento has an undisclosed conflict of interest. He has added material that he wrote without identifying himself to other editors as the author. He has added material written by a close associate that he knew was self-published. When another user called him by his real first name, he spread complaints and demands that the editors be punished, but didn't seek to have the information oversighted. I have sent evidence about these matters to the ArbCom privately.

Tag teaming
Shows up on a talk page to support Jossi and Jayen466 on a dispute over Jason Scott case, purporting to be an independent editor.

Summary
Momento is a tendentious, single purpose editor who pushes a POV on a topic with which he has a very strong connection. He picks fights rather than seeking consensus, ignores consensus when one forms, and assumes bad faith on the part of other editors. He deletes properly sourced and neutrally presented material, and even edit wars, using BLP as an excuse. He engages in poor editing practices, including making biased appraisals of the reliability of sources, mixing up citations, and plagiarising quotations. I do not believe that this editor can function in a neutral or objective manner on this topic.

Makes negative personal remarks
Rumiton was topic banned for one week in August 2008 due to personal attacks.

(NikWright2 has a more comprehenisve list at below).


 * A disingenuous argument, it seems to me.  (disingenous: adj., lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere)


 * The actual meaning of the name DOES really matter, as not all Wikipedia readers are as wilfully ignorant of foreign languages as some editors here. (Did you get my little joke?) (UTC)


 * A reliable (scholarly) secondary source would... include this kind of context... A Wikipedia editor with an ax to grind probably would not.


 * This seems to be the age-old problem of intelligent editing.

Remarks about a living person: Complains in December that mentioning Wavy Gravy is a part of a "repellant hodge-podge of ill-informed opinions". A month later he takes a different position about Wavy Gravy: "I never heard of this guy and assumed he was just another unregenerate old 70s wanker..."

Asserts his opinion or knowledge outweighs sources
Deletes information cited to prominent Indian journalist Khushwant Singh.
 * This guy is yet another sensationalist secular journalist. By calling his weekly column "With malice towards one and all" he forfeits the right to be taken seriously. Apart from that, I was at the Delhi ashram and his claims are outrageously exaggerated. ... My OR, but still the truth. If he said that stuff (feeding thousands) about the new Mehrauli ashram (and left out the nonsense about chandeliers etc) he would be closer to the mark.

Says he'll delete a study whose finding he thinks is unreasonable. Adds "philanthropist" to lead with no sources or prior discussion. Later says he added it because the subject's activity "qualifies him". ("Philanthropist" was first added the same day by Momento to replace other sourced and discussed material ("Balyogeshwar", etc.).)

Deletes "Lord of the Universe" from lead, which has numerous sources and was discussed extensively. (discussions: User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal4, Talk:Millennium '73/Archive 1, Lord of the Universe 31 May 2008)

Complains about using a scholar in a peer-reviewed journals as a source. Talk:Millennium '73/Archive 1

Complains about using sociologists as sources.

Complains about scholars being too hard to understand.

Argues against using foreign language sources. (old but relevant: )

Argues against using Christian scholars. (old but relevant:)

Complains about sources that don't have "first-hand experience of the subject".

Argues against following guidelines and research. Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 40 and Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive_39.

Describes about one unsympathetic source as "hysteria", even though it was written by a leading Indian journalist, and published by both India's largest weekly magazine and a leading textbook publisher. In the case of a sympathetic source, he says that it is the reputation of the publisher alone that determines reliability.

Keeps changing sourced quotations because he believes they contain typos. Says that we should delete it if we can't re-write it to fit his perception of what it should say.

Reinserts material sourced only to a primary source (U.S. Patent Office):

Deletes or alters significant sourced material without giving proper summary or reason:

Overreaching BLP claims
Asserts that any article linked to a BLP is part of a BLP.
 * Not if it remains linked from the Prem Rawat article. It is still part of a BLP.

Restores material against consensus
Reinserts citation to Cagan for positive material, even after substantial questions to the accuracy of that source. This material makes a contentious claim about a living person, Prem Rawat's brother and rival.

Summary
Rumiton gave this good advice about an unrelated topic back in 2007. If that had been followed on this topic we wouldn't be here now.
 * One thing to consider when writing is "How might a competitor or a disgruntled ex-employee respond to this article?" Remember they will have the same editing rights that you have. If you write with meticulous neutrality and respect for sources you might, among other things, save yourself a time consuming and harrowing edit war down the line.

Ignoring external input

 * WP:RSN#Los Angeles Times as reference for Prem Rawat
 * Received many responses from a variety of uninvolved editors.
 * Momento aapparently asserts that since there are peer-reviewed articles about Prem Rawat or his movement that anything they don't address shouldn't be included in article, even if in reliable newspapers, etc.
 * Momento continues to assert that the L.A. Times is not a reliable source.


 * WP:RSN#James Randi
 * Received responses from five uninvolved editors. The general agreement among them was that James Randi was a notable commentator and a reliable source.
 * Rumiton says: " It is libellous garbage and sensationalist, tabloidal gossip, written contemptuously towards both Prem Rawat and his students. "
 * Rumiton denies that the noticeboard input was that Randi is a reliable source:
 * Rumiton says: "Randi is not a reputable source. Out it comes. " Then deletes the material:
 * Momento says: "Randi is completely unsuitable as a source. "


 * WP:RFC#Balyogeshwar RfC
 * RfC received several responses from two uninvolved editors who appeared to support inclusion of the sobriquet.
 * Momento continues to argue against it and to remove it from the article.

Reply to Rumiton
Rumiton claims that I have "tried to lower the tone of this article, to make it parrot the views and tone of the tabloid press." As evidence of me parroting the views of the "tabloid press" he cites edits in which I added factual material from the Associated Press, Harper's, and The New Republic. It is incorrect, to say the least, to label those sources "tabloid press". Rumiton even complimented one of the sources, saying "it's an elegantly worded portrait of the Maharaji I knew and still know." This is a spurious complaint.

Rumiton also complains that I didn't promptly remove a (non) link to Ex-Premie.Org added by another editor on January 20 even though I was in the middle of an announced vacation. Claiming that I am at fault for failing to revert an edit while on vacation seems like another spurious complaint. For the record, I've repeatedly removed links from the article to enforce the one-link compromise agreed upon in early 2008. Whether the link is a "radical violation of BLP" is a matter in dispute and may need to be decided by the ArbCom.

Reply to Momento
Momento calls me a "fiercely anti-Rawat editor", but provides no evidence whatsoever. I've never made any disparaging comments about Prem Rawat, his teachings, organizations, or followers, IIRC.

Momento has made at least a dozen accusations of harassment since October 2008. I've never seen another editor agreeing with him that my behavior has been harassing or otherwise inappropriate. No one has warned me publicly or privately that I've stepped over the line. I have always stayed civil, I've tried to keep personal issues off of article talk pages, and have remained focused on improving the project.

Momento seems to forget what he's written, then accuses me of misrepresenting him. Even though I apologized for the "error", Momento insisted that my error was the main topic of article talk page.

Momento's "Example 1" repeats an exchange from May 2008. There had been a dispute over whether a memoir by a former member, Sophia Collier, was a reliable source, and how it should be used. Momento had argued that some assertions in it could not be used. Later, in an unrelated matter, he deleted an assertion from a signed AP article with a conflicting assertion cited to Collier, writing "Eye witness trumps all". I questioned him on this. By the end of the discussion, Jossi, Jayen and I all agreed that Collier was not a suitable source for that material, so my point was valid and Momento was making an incorrect policy call. The fact that I questioned his editing choice he now calls harassment. Momento has used this exchange over and over again to attack me or to change the subject.

Momento has made similar accusations of harassment against user:Maelefique, user:Revera, user:Francis Schonken

Addendum: Momento has added an accusation of edit warring due to some edits back in October 2008. While he says my edits were "done with no discussion", in fact the material I added was taken from the mediation pages where they had had extensive disussion. The proposed intro had gone through 22 drafts and generated 16,000 words of discussion. The "lifestyle" section went through 14 drafts and over 41,000 words of discussion, which followed a 22,000-word discussion. Despite all of those drafts and tens of thousands of words of discussion, we were not able to achieve consensus in informal mediation and as a result I requested that we move to formal mediation, which didn't work out. Rather than lose all of the effort that we'd put into drafting those sections, I added them to the article. In the subsequent discussions on the article talk page, we worked out our differences and achieved consensus. The deletions of sourced, neutrally presented material by editors is characteristic of the problems with this topic.

Momento claims that I "vigorously supported" supported Francis' AE submissions, but in fact I asked Francis to withdraw his latest complaint because we were already seeking mediation. Momento complains that I wrote an article, Millennium '73, in a sandbox. That article has now passed Good Article review with relatively few significant changes (though much thrashing), so the complaint seems spurious. He also says that my first edit to the topic was to revert to a version from a year earlier. I was actually restoring a version from twenty minutes earlier, which Janice Rowe had reverted with no explanation except, "better".

Momento asserts that "a major feature" of this topic is the participation of editors who post on "the anti-Rawat forum". But the editors he lists have made few edits to the Prem Rawat article in the past year. (Since April 1, 2008: John Brauns: 5, Sylviecyn: 2, Wowest: 1, PatW: 0, Andries:0) While some have been more active on talk pages, blaming them for the problems with this topic appears misplaced.

Reply to Jayen466
Jayen may have forgotten, but the initial draft at User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal7 was the outcome of a lengthy discussion at User_talk:Steve_Crossin/Mediation/Prem_Rawat/Archive1. Before we did that work, the issue was almost entirely omitted from the article despite being part of the subject's notability and, in the words of one scholar, a topic of "considerable controversy"; see Talk:Prem Rawat/Lifestyle. Jayen calls the discussions of this material "mostly amicable and productive", but he perhaps forgets the charges of bias and bad faith, and the repeated objections by Momento to even considering the matter. Jayen forgets Momento's insistence on using a poor quality source, even when that source contradicted a scholar and mainstream newspapers, or his insistence that his personal knowledge proved scholars and news sources were incorrect. Jayen also forgets Rumiton's disruptive and undiscussed deletion of material that had been stable in the article for months, and which had been the product of another legnthy discussion, in order to prove a point. Jayen calls it productive, but we never achieved final consensus during the mediation on any version, despite writing 64,000 words over two months discussing it. This another example of stonewalling by some editors to keep negative material out of the article, no matter how well-sourced and or how much a part of the mainstream view of the subject it may be.

Jayen notes that some of the diffs provided by me or other editors here cover older edits. Two points: first, some of the problem behaviors have been going on for a while, and so older diffs are necessary to show the pattern. Second, by my count 68 out of 107 diffs provided by Momento are for edits in February 2008. Obviously, that was an important month for the topic as it was when the Register article came out that brought new editors to the topic.

Jayne has added evidecne about Alan Watts. Watts was a pre-eminent scholar of eastern religions and, as Jayen points out, a supporter of Prem Rawat. Why his comment on the philosophical basis for the belief system should be excluded is still unclear to me. Other editors insisted that it be left out because they didn't know the context in which the remark was made. I don't think it's a negative characterization, - "sacred ignorance" isn't an impeachment and is consistent with other scholar's assessments of the belief system. As for the vases incident, it is also consistent with other actions by the subject and has a perfectly reliable source. When Jayen objected I removed it. There are many other things included in the article that have only one source, so I don't see the reason for making that complaint. If the issue is "cherry picking", there have been plenty of times when other editors have added even more thinly-sourced anecdotes that portray the subject favorably.

Regarding Jayen's just-added "The Balyogeshwar edit war, again" section, Jayen seems to be ignoring the sources presented on the article talk page. "Balyogeshwar" is a sobriquet by which Rawat is still commonly referred to in India and elsewhere. See Balyogeshwar - still in use? for several citations, including a scholarly book from 2006 and a popular reference from 2007. While the name/title may translate as "boy guru" or "child god", there's no rule in this world that our names or titles have to be literally true, or that the names we gain in childhood are automatically dropped later in life. "Maharaji", the subject's current title of choice, is very common in India so it's understandable that another term is used to refer to Rawat there.

Replying to Jayen's reply: As I posted on the article talk page, the name/title Balyogeshwar continues to be used in India, per these links:. Jayen adds a source which doesn't mention Rawat's most famous title, "Guru Maharaj Ji", nor does it mention "Balyogeshwar", but it does mention yet another title used by the subject, "Maharaji". Clearly, like Osho, Prem Rawat has been known by a variety of names. As is typical of bios, including that of Osho and Muhammed Ali, the most prominent alternate names should be included in the lead. If Momento wanted to make it clearer that "Balyogeshwar" isn't a current name, he could have added "formerly" himself, rather than deleting the name wholesale and then fighting over its restoration for a month. This after the same editors had already discussed the name at length in 2008 and had a version which had been stable for months. The issue here isn't the content, it's the behavior.

Evidence presented by Momento
Francis Schonken, Will Beback and Msalt deny having an anti-Rawat bias but they and Nik Wright2, routinely ignore consensus, tag team, edit war and make fraudulent complaints to advance their anti-Rawat POV and try and drive me away from Wikipedia. They never object to each other's POV, edit warring, tendentious editing and incivility. This RfA is a microcosm of editing the PR articles; caused by NW2 and FS filing unwarranted complaints against me, supported by WB and Ms regardless of their merits and now, all trying to find provable evidence against pro-Rawat editors whilst ignoring the most disruptive editor of all, Francis Schonken.

History
A major feature of editing the PR articles is the number of anti-Rawat editors it attracts. In addition to the above four, the following editors also posted on the anti-Rawat forum - Andries, John_Brauns (the EPO webmaster who threatened Wiki editors with "I have information about many current followers that I have refrained from making public"),, PatW, Sylviecyn and Wowest. As well as many anon and retired editors such as Mael-Num. You can generally be assured that Rumiton and I are outnumbered three or four to one. And the only way I can survive is to follow the policies and guidelines as closely as possible knowing that if I make a mistake there will be no mercy and FS, WB, Ms and NikW ready to file a complaint. The three recent AEs are a testament to that sorry state of affairs. A history of the PR article leading up to the 2008 RfA is available here.

Francis Schonken
Francis Schonken has an extraordinary history of consensus breaking, edit warring. His first Rawat edit of 2008 on Feb 8 inserted 30,000 bytes of contentious material into the article without discussion or consensus. Despite objections he inserted it again.

On Feb 12, Francis Schonken inserted 26,000 bytes of material without discussion.

On Feb 13, after discussion WillBeback removed all links except for one  where upon Francis Schonken kept reinserting sites whenever they were removed. ,,

On Feb 17, FS inserted "Balyogeshwar" into the lead without discussion or consensus. And despite objections on the talk page  FS inserted "Balyogeshwar" 5 times without consensus. 

As soon as protection ended FS is at it again, removing important sourced material and the source that supports it, saying "sloppy editing". FS removes again and again.  No comment from WB or Ms about FS's editing. Fortunately FS has been editing less.

Despite FS's own edit history he has filed six complaints against me in 12 months with only one two negative results. The last two are totally fraudulent. The first AE complaint was vigorously supported by WB. In order to make this complaint FS had to ignore that WB had reverted twice before I made my second edit. The whole sequence is set out in Example 3 below in the WB szection. FS's complaint is rebutted here. PhilKnight concludes "I've read this discussion, and looked at the article history, and to be perfectly honest, I can't see anything block worthy. Yes, the assertion that you [Momento] were edit warring is, at best, an exaggeration. However, beyond indicating that Francis's should avoid making spurious reports in future, I don't believe that I could justify any further action."

Nevertheless FS makes a second complaint, also vigorously supported by WB and Ms. Which is rebutted here. PhilKnight says "Francis, to be perfectly honest, I'm considering whether I should give you a short block for making so many reports against Momento that it approaches harassment". And later "My assessment is that Francis's behavior is problematic, and is indeed approaching harassment. Your role  (WillBeback) appears to be that of unquestioningly supporting Francis". A full sequence of "Balyogeshwar" edits is available here. The important point is that I made my edit on the basis of a new source as explained here.

No findings were made against me. The fact that FS chose to ignore WB's 2 reverts to complain about my two edits in the first AE is evidence enough that he is not acting for the benefit of the article or Wikipedia, it is done solely to drive me away from Wikipedia. The fact that WB, Ms and NW2 have provided no criticism of FS's editing for this RfA and have supported 3 fraudulent AE's in a month gives an indication of how strong their anti-Rawat bias is. As far as these four editors are concerned, if you're anti-Rawat you do what you like but if you're pro-Rawat you have to dot every "i" and cross every "t".

Will Beback
Will Beback has exhibited a strong anti-Rawat POV since his very first edit when he reverted the consensus version of the PR article to FS's undiscused version. Since then he and Francis Schonken have broken consensus and POV edited on a massive scale while hounding me for every infraction. His own editing history rivals FS. But by far the most damaging behavior to the PR articles and Wikipedia is WB's constant dishonesty. Call it lack of Good Faith, lack of Civility or harassment but hardly a week goes past without him misrepresenting me in some form or another. I need only go back one month to provide 5 examples of where he has fabricated evidence against me or made false claims about me. So I say once again, read the diffs Will provides carefully, they seldom match what he says they prove.

Ownership
In Sept 2008 he avoided collaboration and consensus by creating a new Prem Rawat related article of 71,000 bytes without the knowledge or involvement of other editors and two days after displaying it, with numerous errors, asks for a "peer review" when that is intended for articles "that have already undergone extensive work. Having created a whole article without consensus, WB then reverted a change he didn't like by claiming "no consensus!".

Rejects consensus & tendentious editing
WB has provided diffs to substantiate his claims that I reject consensus, edit tendentiously, edit war etc. (see Jayen's excellent rebuttal )  Rather than provide you with a hundreds diffs of WB rejecting consensus and tendentious editing, here are some examples where WB undid or made literally hundreds of edits against consensus with one edit. Will Beback used his first ever PR edit, to revert the consensus version of the Prem Rawat article to an unapproved, undiscussed year old version of FS. WB deleted 12 months of collaborative editing despite clear opposition on the talk page. He now claims he was "restoring a version from twenty minutes earlier" but neglects to inform that the version he was restoring was another version of FS's undiscussed, consensus breaking 30,000 byte edit.

Since last year's RfA WB's problematic editing continued.

On October 6, 2008, without discussion or consensus, WB added a new "Lifestyle" section of 5,000 bytes of contested material to the PRa. And when removed, adds it back again and again. Editor removes and repairs "Lifestyle" edit. WB reverts claiming the reverts were "unintended". Editor re-instates his edit.

UPDATE: In this RfA WB claims about the "Lifestyle" section he added - "Rather than lose all of the effort that we'd put into drafting those sections, I added them to the article". FALSE: WB didn't save "all of the effort ... and add them to the article"; there were 14 different, rejected drafts, WB only added ONE rejected and superseded draft to the article, the one that suited his POV.

On October 6, 2008, without discussion or consensus, WB replaced the lead.

On Nov 12, 2008, despite repeated objections on the talk page, WB replaced the entire Millennium article with his new version.   When reverted  FS re-inserted it because it "looked OK to him".

On Nov 25, 2008, without discussion or consensus, WB reverted a month of edits. And yet he is still happy to revert other editor's material for "lack of discussion".

Distorting RfC
WB wrote in the recent "Balyogeshwar" RfC - "Balyogeshwar"... means "born Lord of the Yogis". It was primarily used in the subject's youth, at a time when he achieved great fame in the West as a child-guru.

It was NOT used at the time "when he achieved great fame in the West as a child-guru". At the time "when he achieved great fame in the West" he was known exclusively as "Guru Maharaj JI" until 1983 and Maharaji thereafter. "Balyogeshwar" was only used in India by the India public (non followers) to identify Rawat from other "Guru Maharaj Jis". It is NOT a name or title used by Rawat or his followers. WB gave "Balyogeshwar" far more importance than it deserved to encourage support for his opinion that it should be in the lead

Harassment by making misleading statements
Following the 2008 RfA WB began a misinformation campaign to harass and discredit me. Here he harasses me by asking me the same question three times - "Is Collier the most reliable source available?". I say "No" three times. But he still misleads another editor by falsely claiming "Momento asserts that Collier is the most reliable source available".

The recent AEs produce a flurry of lies and double standards from WB, deliberately done to undermine my credibility and mislead arbitrators in order to produce a negative verdict. This is a far more serious issue than "sourcing" and "editing", If this were a court case, WB would be guilty of perjury.

Example 1: In AE1, WB claims my removal of links that broke our long standing consensus is an "edit war". But when WB removes the the same link twice in 24 hours in Sept, it is "per agreement on talk page". And in Jan when WB removed the same links twice in 24 hours it was "as per consensus" and saying "I will remove any links that don't have a consensus".

Example 2: In AE1 WB claims I've "been blocked 4 times in the past year for edit warring on this same topic". In fact, I was blocked twice, but the first one was unblocked after 8 hours to consider further evidence which resulted in the block being re-instated.

Example 3: In the AE2 WillBeBack tells two lies in two sentences. WillBeBack writes "Momento bears blame in this matter in that he instigated changes to material that had already been discussed, was sourced, and was stable. And then he proceeded to edit war over it". A check of the history shows that Cla68 is the editor who "instigated changes to material that had already been discussed, was sourced, and was stable" and shows that WillBeBack and Cla68 were "edit warring" before I make my second edit.

Cla68 inserts undiscussed material

Rumiton reverts

Cla68 inserts an undiscussed and unsourced title "Lord of the Universe" into the lead

I remove it

WillBeBack reinserts the undiscussed and unsourced addition

Rumiton removes it

WillBeBack reinserts the undiscussed and unsourced addition.

Pongostick removes it

Surdas reinserts it

I remove it

FS files his complaint.

Apart from the fact the WB makes two reverts before I do, he claims "Momento bears blame in that he instigated changes etc." I provide the evidence but WB refuses to retract his claim but admits to Cla68 that "you started it" and suggests Cla68 be punished with "50 lashes with a wet noodle. Never the less he repeats that I am to blame a week later..

Example 4: WB claims in AE3 the "Prem Rawat article was protected at least three times in 2008, in each case due to edit conflicts of which Momento was a part".

On the contrary, the first was caused when anti-Rawat editor Nik Wright2 started an edit war by adding 12,000 bytes of undiscussed, contested material and reinserting it when it was reverted.  The second followed FS breaking the 1RR with these two reverts as per Lawrence Cohen's request. And the third followed Talk page consensus as the edit summary clearly states. I was not the cause but WB continues to claim that I was responsible. 

Example 5: WB continues his campaign on this RfA's talk page. He claims "Momento has added other links, so his claim of enforcing the "one-link" consensus seems divorced from reality". Divorced from reality? I asked for evidence in vain because I didn't add links, WB just made it up to undermine my credibility. UPDATE- Nearly a month later WB concedes " My mistake: it was other editors.

POV editing
WB makes dozens of selective edits to suit his anti-Rawat POV. For convenience I'll confine myself to five examples from the Millennium article. Remember WB wrote this whole article on his own in a sandbox, but not under his own account, so I won't be able to supply individual diffs in most cases.

Example 1: Rennie Davis interview exchange according to source - 'A woman reporter is demanding. 'Who does your goddamn cooking? Many men do the cooking in ashrams,' Rennie answers gently, 'but that's so irrelevant….' 'Whadda you mean it's irrelevant? After you've received Knowledge attachment to your man or woman role is transcended, we transcend our sex after Knowledge, we really do.'

In the article this is summarized as "In a press conference with Davis one female reporter demanded, "Who does your goddamn cooking?

WB changes it to - " In a press conference, Davis shrugged off as "irrelevant" a female reporter's "demanding" question about who cooked in the ashrams."

Example 2: WB writes "Seats were set aside for ETs within the stadium along with a corner of the parking lot for their ship". But doesn't include "As a joke someone put up a sign that said "Mars" around an empty section of seats". Or the obvious hoax - "One reporter was told  "Just be in the northeast corner of parking lot G. The Venusians are landing. You will get the first interviews." And then removes them when added.

Example 3: Levine is WB's major source. He uses Levine to say "volunteers hurried to clear the field of the stage and carpeting in time for a football game the following day between the Cleveland Browns and the Houston Oilers". But couldn't bring himself to complete Levine's description - "They work smoothly, efficiently, happily into the early morning hours, without a word of complaint or a note of friction". 

Example 4: WB uses Levine to write about the WPC but omits what Levine says about the main volunteer group, the Rainbow Brigade - "They are supportive of each other, much given to massaging one another's backs-cheerful, kind, loving; they seem in fact model human beings, perhaps even on their way to becoming the "new evolutionary species" that they claim will establish heaven on earth". 

Example 5: WB uses Levine to talk about UFO's and comets at Millennium but omits Levine's prologue which mentioned that the entire US was talking about "UFO sightings across the South ... Reports that the brightest comet ever recorded would soon trail orange clouds of cosmic dust over the whole land". 

Replies
Will Beback claims-

Tendentious editing and edit warring?
Jayen's excellent rebuttal demolishes virtually every example WB provides. But to give you some examples from the first section -

Example 1: WB claims "Momento keeps removing material that has been discussed at length, and for which sources are well-known. REALITY: The house was not bought by Rawat. The LA Times and scholastic sources say "in 1974, the Divine Light Mission purchased the four-acre $500,000 Anacapa View estate" as correctly sourced in the current version.

Example 2: WB claims "Momento adds text and then complains about it as an example of my "POV editing".

REALITY: Firstly, it was WB who inserted the original text using Downton as the source for "runaway expectations[66] for the event". And as the diff clearly shows I was objecting to WB using only that half of the Downton sentence that suits his POV and leaving out that the rumors of ETs were spread "in half-jest". I then inserted it.

UPDATE: When checking my facts I found that WB had removed the important, sourced material from Downton that "wild rumors spread in half-jest about a possible appearance of extraterrestrial beings".

Sourcing issues?
Jayen rebuttal covers most of these complaints, so I will just deal with the first 6 as examples of how WB's diffs to not support his claims. I advise you to look at the rest of his complaints with the same scrutiny.

The closest I get to saying the NYT is not reliable is "we should be a little more cautious about accepting the NYTimes at face value" in the third diff.
 * Claims that NY Times is not a reliable source.

The diff shows I didn't say the LAT is "not a reliable source". I said, referring to their article "16-Year-Old Guru Maharaj Ji Weds His Blonde Secretary, 24", that it is "a good example of how bad most news reports are".
 * Claims that LA Times is not a reliable source.

The diff shows I said "Extremely poorly sourced compared to an article by a sociologist or religious scholar". Scholars who contradicted the LAT.
 * Calls material taken straight from it "extremely poorly sourced"

In fact the only comment I made in the link was "Rolling Stone has a definite POV which makes then less than reliable on some topics, especially religion". Didn't say the SR and CB are "pathetic sources" The "pathetic sources" are using reporters who aren't linguists to justify a pronunciation insert. The diff shows I wasn't "arguing about UPI", I was wondering whether a community newspaper is a "suitable source".
 * Claims that Rolling Stone is not a reliable source.
 * Says that Saturday Review and Current Biography are "two pathetic sources".
 * Argues that UPI is an unsuitable source.

And so it goes on!

Refusing to acknowledge a consensus?
WB tries to prove his point by creating a misleading edit summary. He starts the "Balyogeshwar" sequence with my edit but omits the FS "Balyogeshwar" edit that preceded mine. Since there was no consensus for FS adding "Balyogeshwar" into the lead and objections on the talk page, I was correct to remove it every time he added it. See complete edit history here.

As for making essentially the same proposal year after year, absolutely true. Because it accurately reflects all the sources.
 * "Prem Rawat (b. Prem Pal Singh Rawat, 10 December 1957 in Haridwar, India), also known as Maharaji (formerly Guru Maharaj Ji) and called Balyogeshwar in India,.... 2008
 * "Prem Pal Singh Rawat ... (born December 10, 1957), also known as Maharaji (formerly Guru Maharaj Ji) and Balyogeshwar in India, ...." 2009

Assuming bad faith and making uncivil comments?
Having been the frequent victim of misrepresentation, fraudulent complaints and threats, I think I'm entitled to doubt the Good Faith of some editors. WB gives the following examples, and as with "Sourcing issues" claims, you need to dig a little deeper to get to the truth. - DETAILS: Refers to me challenging WB for changing the meaning of a verbatim quote from - "assured the prediction is probably another example of lila" to "may have been a lila". And then saying "probably" and "may be" are "almost synonymous".
 * Will, I've assumed, maybe incorrectly, that English is your first language. But since you think "maybe" and "probably" are almost synonymous, it probably isn't. If so, you'll have to accept that people with a greater grasp of English words, grammar and usage and an extensive knowledge of Rawat will see that this article is very biased both in structure and source selection....

DETAILS: The material comes from a column entitled "With malice towards one and all", an op-ed piece by an author who describes himself as "a self-proclaimed agnostic". Not my idea of a neutral source for religious material for an encyclopedia.
 * It's just another case of trawling through newspaper articles until you can find "fortress" "marble" "chandeliers" and sticking them in to promote a POV. ...

DETAILS: Several regular contributors to the anti-Rawat forum were editing the page to try an discredit the author Andrea Cagan. Here's a recent post from the forum. Note that I didn't name anyone but John Brauns outed me anyway in his first edit. The same JB who threatened Wiki editors with "I have information about many current followers that I have refrained from making public".JB (the EPO Webmaster), Nik Wright2, Sylviecyn DETAILS: Refers to the WB wanting to remove sourced material about a Rawat speech. DETAILS: Refers to the 71,000 byte Millennium article that WB wrote on his own without any input from any other editor. DETAILS: Response to WB's comments that Vassyana's appeared "to favor one side of the dispute, participated in writing a draft of the article, and then defended that draft".
 * ..Cagan did a lot of research. For example, she reveals that the three leaders of the Australian anti-Rawat group have all been found guilty of illegal behavior by Australian courts... This is why some people will make a huge effort to try and discredit her.
 * "..And that of course is the major problem with this article and your POV. What Rawat says or does is not nearly as important to you as what some crazy follower does."
 * ...This article was written by and according to WillBeback's anti-Rawat POV and everyone else has been playing catchup ever since....
 * .. Intelligent and NPOV mediating with Prem Rawat articles which still annoys the anti Rawat crew.

For WB's uncivil comments read my evidence in light of WP:HA. 

Over-reaching BLP claims?
"Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively...The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment". That is, the subject should be given the benefit of the doubt!

Other problematic behaviors?
WB makes the following claims -

I Forum shopped: That when no one would block WB at WP:AE, I posted to another page trying to get him blocked.

REALITY: Actually it was FS I was asking them to look at.

I interfered with Millennium '73 FAC.

REALITY: I didn't support it.

In addition to objecting strenuously to the existence and contents of the article, Momento made edits contrary to the suggestions of FA reviewers. They suggested having fewer quotations, and yet he kept adding more, and more quotes, even redundant ones.

REALITY: And so did WB, adding more, more, more, and more quotes

Obstructionist:

REALITY: Seeking consensus is now "obstructionist"!

Ex-Premie-Org dispute?
Constantly objected to by numerous editors, on Feb 13 2008 the consensus was to eliminate it from PR links. FS ignores consensus and edit wars over it. Any removal since then was to uphold unchallenged consensus. For details. 

Single purpose editor with a conflict of interest and a strong POV?
SPA's provide Wiki with knowledge and energy for innumerable non-mainstream subjects. Wiki would be much poorer without them. Contrary to WB's assertion that I am compromised as an editor by COI and POV, when WB took a two week Wiki break (Jan 13-26), rather than take advantage of his absence as his characterization would suggest, I did not edit any PR articles accept to remove vandalism.

Ignoring external input?
Read the diffs. They contradict WB's claims. But the last one is too blatant to ignore. WB claims -


 * RfC received several responses from two uninvolved editors who appeared to support inclusion of the sobriquet.
 * Momento continues to argue against it and to remove it from the article.

First note the weasel word "appeared" and note the incorrect use of "sobriquet". It was not a "nick name". And finally, contrary to WB's claim that I "remove(d) it from the article", I didn't, I relocated it, as this diff proves.

Msalt
Like WB, Msalt makes claims he cannot support with the sole purpose of undermining my credibility.

Scholarly vs. press sources
Msalt claims I incorrectly deleted a statement about " Rawat's purchase of a house" -- cited to the LA Times -- by calling it "extremely poorly sourced" (even claiming exemption from 3RR under BLP) Msalt misses the point, the edit was ""extremely poorly sourced" because according to LA Times and scholastic sources "in 1974, the Divine Light Mission purchased the four-acre $500,000 Anacapa View estate".

Msalt claims that I argue "that newspaper articles are prone to conjectural interpretation" and so must be removed under BLP. and Untrue, as the diff clearly shows I am talking about the editor's conjectural interpretation of the article, not the article/newspaper itself.

During this RfA Msalt claims "Momento has argued that no press should be used as sources at all, only scholarly journals, because they are better sources. He was refuted in RfCs and Noticeboard discussions".. I have never made such a claim but when I ask for evidence, he refused. What I have said is that "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available".

Claims I "reject consensus" and gives three examples. One is private discussion on an editor's talk page has nothing to do with "rejecting consensus". The other concerns the IfD and the third "Balyogeshwar" (see below) when it was FS who rejected consensus, not me.

Msalt claims that in the last year, "Momento has -- without support -- removed Balyogeshwar at least 6 times (with misleading edit summaries on the first 5)". The 2007 edits are covered here. The first three diffs relate to Jan 2009 (full edit history here ). In this case Cla68 has, according to Wiki guidelines, changed the tense of the opening sentence from the "past" to the "present". Therefore it is no longer correct to say Rawat is known as Balyogeshwar, Guru Maharaj Ji or the Lord of the Universe. This diff is part one of a two part move, here is the next edit. These two edits and the summaries are correct. Attempts to note Rawat was known as "Balyogeshwar" in India are rebuffed.    .

A large part of Msalt's complaints is that "Momento was heavily involved in the 3 Prem Rawat page protections". As you can see from Example 4 above, I was not responsible in any way.

Nik Wright2
Nik Wright2 has made less than a dozen edits to the PR article in a year. His undiscussed insertion and re-insertion of 12,000 bytes of contentious material triggered the first page protection in Feb 2008. His next effort is to break a year old consensus to have only Rawat's personal link in the article. He then makes an AE complaint about me when I remove it, vigorously supported by FS. NW2 is topic banned for a month.

Conclusion
We are here because of three fraudulent complaints made against me by a cabal of anti-Rawat, and therefore anti-Momento, editors. Francis Schonken edit wars, ignores consensus and pushes his anti-Rawat POV at will. But instead of resisting him Will Beback, Msalt and Nik Wright2 ignore his behavior and join in. WB misrepresents me at every opportunity and his evidence against me cannot stand scrutiny. Ms fabricates complaints like his "house purchase" and "page protection" scenarios. NW2 can't edit without disruption. Together they seek to dominate PR articles and talk pages. Their interest in this RfA is not to advance Wikipedia, if it were they wouldn't make false complaints or support those who do. But now that we're here, they protect their own and strike out at the enemy, me. The most I have to answer for here is expressing my opinion on the talk pages and other forums and occasional lapses caused by the unrelenting assault they have subjected me to. And three cheers for Jayen, the only non-aligned editor here but also criticized because he is not anti-Rawat.

Personal Statement
Firstly it is relevant to state how my involvement with Wikipedia came about: it commenced with a web link being created from the Prem Rawat BLP, to a webpage which contained defamations about myself, and other named former followers of Prem Rawat. I have documented this at archive; my attitude is that it was Wikipedia that came to me, not the other way around, and that therefore my exercise of an SPA is warranted, so long as I abide by the rules.

Abiding conflicts over Policy
In respect of this case, while recognising that WP:AP requires that “The Committee will primarily investigate interpersonal disputes”, in the light of the failure of the previous Arbcom intervention, to provide lasting resolution I would ask the Committee to consider the following: There are five related articles, only one of which is a BLP,
 * Prem Rawat


 * Hans Rawat


 * Divine Light Mission


 * Elan Vital

yet the abiding disputes all in one form or another devolve to issues related to interpretations of BLP policy and to the applicability of content between the respective articles. While the behaviour of editors must be of concern, arbitrators might find some long term resolution through consideration of the problems of applying policy in the context of ‘all’ the Rawat articles, not just the BLP. Prem Rawat may indeed be a ‘living person’ but he is also an individual who derives personal benefit from being ‘marketed’ by those organisations which promote him as a ‘teacher’, there is thus an inherent conflict between Wikipedia being used as a promotional tool for a ‘consumable service’ (Prem Rawat’s Knowledge meditation and Rawat’s role as a teacher/speaker) and the need to treat Prem Rawat as a BLP subject within WP policy. At the very least arbitrators would assist understanding of their judgement by stating the salient applicable policies and guidelines and the interpretation and application of those, as the Committee collectively understands them. As an example of the guideline/policy uncertanties  I would quote the circumstance in which I was topic banned, Enforcement, an assessment of which I have added to the talk page: example
 * Teachings

Tendentious Editing by Rumiton
[] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []
 * Rumiton has shown consistent disregard for the requirements of CIVIL and GOODFAITH

[] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []
 * Rumiton has consistently pushed POV


 * Rumiton has engaged in BATTLE in an attempt to stop the use of sources not compliant with his POV

[] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []

@ Jayen
Jayen states: "To be sure, I wouldn't give the Rawat article to Momento to write by himself. But neither would I give it to Francis, or Will, or Nik Wright to write by themselves, jointly or severally"

This statement summarises Jayen466’s ambiguous position in this arbitration, clearly Jayen466 is not willing to accord GOODFAITHto the named editors, but then Jayen466 does not offer any evidence why GOODFAITH should be withheld, except for the obscure reference to a ‘representative dispute’ where one editor’s contribution is supposed have come off “like an attack piece”. In the light of Jayen466’s statement of intent to withhold GOODFAITH – which must of course require that any editor is to be trusted to “write by themselves”, the Committee is bound to consider whether Jayen466 should be subject to sanctions. The Committee might further consider whether the expressed attitude has not contributed to the multiple difficulties experienced by the many editors of the Rawat related articles.

@ Momento
Momento claims “[I] have frequently denied having an anti-Rawat bias but ... have frequently rejected consensus” – I have never denied any bias, as will be clear from my statement commencing this evidence. If Momento has evidence that I have rejected consensus he should present the diffs. My arguments on talk pages have been almost exclusively concerned with the structure of the Rawat articles and the use of academic sources, my argument being that more sources were required.

Momento states ''“Nik Wright2 re-appeared on Feb 26 and started an edit war by adding 12,000 bytes of undiscussed, contested material and reinserting it when it was reverted. [157][158][159] Nandesuka protected the article until March 4.[160]"'' this provides a useful contrast with Momento’s own activities. The Prem Rawat article as it stood prior to the wider attention produced by exposure in The Register, was substantially that written by Jossi, Momento and Rumiton who had worked on a draft [] where the contribution of other editors was strongly resisted [] [] [] []. The block draft was inserted into the main article in May 2007 [] and the problem then arose that any alteration to the imposed structure would require similar block changes. I placed a link to the changes I proposed to make on the article talk page          [] which were based on the need for additional sources as I had presented at: [] two editors offered limited support for what I proposed and Momento, Rumiton and Jossi opposed outright without substantive explanation. I made the changes and Janice Rowe reverted without comment, it seemed reasonable that other editors should have the option to assess the value of the changes and offer a critique more constructive than simply restoring the status quo of the Momento, Rumiton, Jossi structure, I therefore restored the new version, Janice Rowe then made two POV driven edits and the page was protected. The first Arbitration then followed, which failed to address the underlying problems of editor behaviour and the progress made in the Steve Crossin managed mediation which followed the arbitration has since been under attack by amongst others Momento and Rumiton.

Momento seeks to make a class accusation [] on the basis that a number of editors post on a forum. Apart from the wholly unsubstatiated inclusion of names in the list, of itself this seems to be no more than an attempt at ‘guilt by association’ with the ‘guilt’ not even being supported by evidence of rule breaking. Momento then goes on to describe a fantastical scenario where he and Rumiton are lone protectors of NPOV, oppressed by a gang of co ordinated anti Rawat editors. At no point does Momento acknowledge that his perspective is anything other than uniquely correct - everyone else, is wrong and if they are in a majority, that must demonstrate a collective error or malicious intent. The Committee may see from this just how difficult it is to work with Momento.

@ Msalt
In responding to Momento [], Msalt writes: “I don't speak for the other 3 he attacks, but aside from NikWright2, who is as openly anti-Rawat as Momento is openly pro-Rawat, I doubt they have either.” While I support Msalt's questioning of Momento’s dubious accusations, I think it is unreasonable to class my position as equal to Momento’s. As I have explained [], my identification as a critic of Rawat was axiomatic on my (unsought) particiation in Wikipedia, a participation which followed directly in relation to material added by Jossi, and supported by Momento ! At no time have I used Wikipedia to ‘proselytise’ an anti Rawat cause and the bulk of my arguments on talk pages have been around the need to extend the range of academic sources used in the Rawat articles. It is has become frequently repeated and unexamined paradigm that the problems of the Rawat articles are because of the operation of two conflicting POVs. While there have been prolonged and unhelpful talk page arguments, the actual problems of editing the main page have been exclusively focused on the intent of some editors to promote the subject and to prevent any acknowledgement of criticism, or events or details which may evoke criticism by the reader.

@ Will Beback

 * The claim that “This dispute predates Wikipedia”. – is a gross overstatement, even if “predates appearance of Wikipedia article” article creation is taken to be the meaning,  the nature of  any disputation between current and former followers of Prem Rawat has only a marginal relevance to the arguments over WP content.
 * The claim that “There are two opposing camps: the current members and the former members. They have profound and irreconcilable differences in their views of the topic.”  is a false presentation and opens up an ‘accusation by class’. Of those editors who have openly declared themselves, or who have been identified by others (three former followers were identified as such on a webpage linked to from the Prem Rawat article, prior to any of us contributing to WP ! ) few have have contributed significant amounts of copy or offered material otherwise rejected for inclusion. In large measure the contributions of current followers and former followers have been on the talk pages where the pervading problem has been the inability to achieve consensus, something which all editors, aligned and unaligned have to take responsibility for.
 * The claim that: “The "anti-" editors have problems of a different kind. They mostly seem to have little understanding or patience for Wikipedia and their involvement has been often marked poor behaviors. They've insulted both the subject and the "pro-" editors, have engaged in edit wars, have inserted inappropriate links, have been blocked repeatedly, and have shaken their fists at the system in frustration. As a whole, they haven't been productive or NPOV editors.” is a further charactisation that advances the process of ‘accusation by class’, implying that there is a collective approach by those who see Prem Rawat in a negative light. Only two editors who have been identified as former followers have been given multiple blocks and the claims seem more to do with an attempt at ‘guilt by association’ than any real assessment of behaviour.
 * The claim that: “ Jayen466 and I are essentially in the middle. I believe we're both trying to bring the topic towards a more neutral middle ground but it's mostly been an unproductive activity.” is a false assertion of ‘exceptional’ neutrality, both Will Beback and “ Jayen466 have taken ‘positions’ over content which appear to reflect POVs and their respective behaviours should be as much subject to examination as any other involved editor.

@ Sandstein

 * Sandstein’s characterisation of the problem as merely that of warring sides is facile. The difficulties are numerous and relate in part to the inconclusive nature of the previous Arbcom judgement. Of course Sandstein’s prescrition of identifying editors as lacking social skills and banning them would certainly have the effect of removing the present participants – although it will do nothing to inhibit opposing groups (if such exist) from encouraging new players to enter the fray.

@ Cla68
--Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Cla68 joins in with the mythology of the ‘two groups of editors’ who are POV pushing. This picture is illustrated with statements about Jossi which can not now be tested because he is an absent editor. Cla68 also claims that “I'm aware that the anti-Rawat editors have been trying to introduce unreliably-sourced information into the articles”. This claim requires firstly a definition of how an editor is to be judged “anti Rawat” without suspending WP:GF, and then secondly that an indentification of unreliably-sourced information be given – none was provided by Cla68 although I think he may refer to the WP:EL issue which has nothing to do with reliability.
 * The assertion (on the impoverished basis of a Google search) that “there really isn't anything out there that wasn't already presented in the Rawat articles” – fundamentally fails to understand the current inadequacies, not merely in the Prem Rawat article but the intimately linked articles on *Hans Rawat , *Divine Light Mission *Elan Vital   *Teachings on which there have been long standing and still unadressed proposals to merge one or more of these articles, while the balance used in the WP articles of material published by scholars listed at  is a matter still requiring considerable work.
 * Cla68 singles out three editors, Francis Schonken, Momento, and Rumiton, yet he neglects to identify that one of those editors,  Francis Schonken, has provided a considerable volume of text in the existing articles, which is specifically relevant to the sociological nature of the bulk of the available sources multiple constructive edits. Difficult behaviour may not be tolerable – but difficult behaviour from an editor who writes intelligent copy is hardly the same thing as the obstructive behaviour of an editor who merely uses the talk page as an arena to hold back intelligent consensus without providing any compentent text.

Evidence presented by Rumiton
I think Will Beback’s assessment of the editorial terrain is flawed. There are no “groups” here, there are highly individual editors with their own stance on the subject. Indeed, to me, one of the biggest problems we have faced is a relentless attempt by Will Beback himself to make the article reflect his own views, while claiming neutrality.

It is almost impossible to make this discussion behaviour-based without explaining some of the editorial background. As the article explains, Prem Rawat was a child guru in India, who came to the west without parental approval when he was still an adolescent. He represented the Guru-shishya tradition which was revered in his own culture, and knowing (perhaps not caring) that Westerners knew nothing of the background, the British and American tabloid press mostly greeted the situation with delight, heaping scorn and derision on the subject. Ignoring this, Prem Rawat has continued into his adult life as a speaker on the subject of inner peace, and still spends most of the year travelling and propagating the techniques he teaches. Will Beback has, from his first involvement, tried to lower the tone of this article, to make it parrot the views and tone of the tabloid press, while more intelligent sources were readily available. A few examples:

[][] []

This would be acceptable if it concerned an ordinary editor, we all have our points of view, but Will Beback is an admin who consciously speaks as the Voice of Wikipedia. He has a habit of raining down judgements on the rest of us like Moses while still claiming neutrality.

On 20 Jan 09, an editor inserted a link to a highly derogatory website, [] for which he was later given a one month suspension. Did Will Beback as an administrator protest at this radical violation of BLP principles? No, didn’t seem to. Rumiton (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

MSalt's assertions below are typical of a kind of behaviour that has plagued this article: an editor pretending neutrality and claiming a superior connection to, or understanding of, Wikipedia. He alleges that I am, "in particular" guilty of edit warring, and apparently assumes he won't be challenged. Well, I am challenging. Prove your allegation true or withdraw it and apologise. Rumiton (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, if MSalt has evidence that Momento has engaged in sockpuppetry [] he should present it. Otherwise he should withdraw his allegation. Rumiton (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking through this section now, has anyone read the advice on top of this page re brevity? There is no way I have the time to even properly read all this stuff at the end of a working day, let alone reply in detail to it, and this gives an unfair advantage to people with a great deal of time on their hands. I hope arbitrators will take this into account. To cover a couple of Will Beback's points about me: I did not "add" the word philanthropist to the lead, I re-added it after someone else deleted it. There is a big difference. And the "good advice" I gave to an editor in 2007 was in connection with an article he wrote single-handedly on the Discount Tire Company. That article was pure advertising for an (apparently) billion-dollar corporation. The Prem Rawat article started as a savage personal attack, and some people would have liked it to stay that way. Your other diffs I will leave to arbitrators to examine if they have time. In context I am confident they will see them as non-problematic. Rumiton (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC) I do apologise to Will Beback for not knowing he was on a break when the derogatory link was inserted, and I agree that he has removed other links on both sides of the fence in defense of our single-link agreement. Rumiton (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Msalt seems to be claiming below that Watts' remark that Prem Rawat's philosophy was based on "sacred ignorance" was fairly inserted into the article. Given Watts' body of anti-intellectual and mystical writing and the fact that he financed Prem Rawat's journey to the west, it is clear that he coined the phrase "sacred ignorance" to express admiration for Prem Rawat. Just inserting it into the article without that background makes it look like a criticism, which suits the POV of some editors. Cherry picking? Pretty close. Rumiton (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Msalt
While factions clearly exist, the real problem is a small number of edit warriors, in particular [Rumiton] and [Momento] (devotees of Prem Rawat), and [Francis Schonken] (ex-devotee of a different religious leader). I'll focus on the worst, Momento.

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

2) Repeatedly deleted an image during its IfD against consensus     even after a neutral editor's warning.

3) Momento still fights having Prem Rawat’s alternate name Balyogeshwar (a redirect to [Prem Rawat]) in the lede even after RfC and after WillBeBack worked out a compromise ok with every other editor, including Momento’s allies Jayen466  and Rumiton .  Momento: “consensus doesn't eliminate the need for truth”,  RfC was "dishonestly framed.".

Outside reviewer [Abcedare]: "I really don't see why this issue is at all controversial. ... "Balyogeshwar" is a term of respect, and not an insult of any form."  Momento admits "I know Rawat was called Balyogeshwar and Mangalwadi provides a reliable and verifiable source." 

It's pure POV; supporting the strategy of Rawat's DLM church (and its successor, Elan Vital) to minimize Indian and religious trappings.  Momento's reply to Abcedare: "Rawat dropped the title "Guru" and all Hindu aspects of his teachings in the early 80s in order to remove any cultural barriers to his message. ... The lead should reflect the article and Rawat moving away from Indian traditions is a major part of his story.".

In the last year, Momento has -- without support -- removed Balyogeshwar at least 6 times (with misleading edit summaries on the first 5),   and added softening language another four:   .

Momento's disrespectful and sarcastic replies to warnings, blocks and refused unblocks from admins
To Sandstein

to Shell_Kinney

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

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

to Vassyana

to Vassyana

to Lawrence

to B

to Will Beback

On Noticeboards, he's described WillBeback's statements as lying , "relentless ... harassment" , and "falsifying the editing".

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

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

Momento was heavily involved in the 3 Prem Rawat page protections
Momento charges WillBeBack with harassment by false accusation: (Also:  )

“WillBeBack writes ‘It was protected at least three times in 2008, in each case due to edit conflicts of which Momento was a part’. And note that I was not involved in two of them and had a very minor part in one. So that's a lie isn't it.”

WillBeBack assumed good faith and apologized if he had gotten his facts wrong , but he needn’t have. Momento's aggressive defense is inaccurate and misleading. He chose precise time periods that excluded his edits, to make his point, but was deeply involved in the edit warring. Specifically:

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

Momento was blocked on 2/9/2008 (for disruption on Prem Rawat) and 2/14/2008 (for edit warring on the page). He made 3 edits the day of the first protection: reverting new, reliably sourced information about Rawat’s house   and making two unilateral, highly POV edits in the four hours before protection. In the days leading up to this first page protection, Momento edit warred over the page’s POV tag, over a picture of Rawat’s house (despite ongoing IfD) , over an external link to a critical website   , and over “Balyogeshwar.”

Second Protection: 18:28, March 16, 2008
The second protection lasted during the first Prem Rawat arbitration case. Even Momento's ally Jossi stated in an AE proceeding that Momento's edit-warring (along with Francis') was the main cause:

"... the article was protected due to edit-warring in which User:Momento (the user about which this AE posting was made) and User:Francis Schonken (the filer of this AE posting) and others were  protagonists." 

Momento: "Before the second protection there were 21 edits the previous day... I took no part."  Momento edited 9 times on the previous day (March 15th) between 21:50 and 23:20, all POV pushing except the last one here:         . He may have meant to say that he didn’t edit the same day as the protection – which is technically true since he stopped at 23:20 the night before, but very misleading.

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

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

5 of Momento’s 7 edits were contentious. EG, to the article's text "Critical former followers became known as 'ex-premies'," Momento added "and some have undertaken illegal activities against Rawat and his followers" with a highly disputed source. 

Note: These protections were last year, but Momento was warned for edit-warring and modifying others' comments as recently as January 24, 2009. 

Summary
It's interesting that none of these 3 editors appear to have any perception that there is a problem on these pages, aside from the charge that WillBeBack and I are harassing them for no good reason. There are numerous warnings and blocks for edit warring and disruptive editing (mostly to these 3 editors), 3 page protections, 2 ArbCom cases, and 40 archives of heated discussion on a subject that doesn't change much or have a broad scope. And the cause of it all is WillBeBack harassing Momento? Msalt (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to Durova
(moved to the Talk page per MBisanz)

1. "Pretending neutrality and claiming a superior connection to or understanding of Wikipedia"
He charges me with "pretending neutrality," a clear violation of WP:AGF since he knows nothing about me. For the record, I'm not a current or former devotee of Prem Rawat or any other religious figure, nor do I know anyone who is. I have no strong feelings about Rawat, and I don't think I'd even heard of him before February 2008 when I started editing this page. Nor do I claim "a superior connection to, or understanding of, Wikipedia" -- I know I'm probably the greenest editor here. But I assume that all editors, old and new, are entitled to join in the frequent policy debates here. Msalt (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Demand for evidence of edit warring
Rumiton also demands evidence that he edit-warred. I'm working on it, but in the meantime, 2 quick examples: 1) Example from first arbitration case  2) Momento's evidence on this page lists an edit war that starts with 2 Rumiton reverts and 1 by Momento, and is continued by others (Pongostick and Anon). 

The edit warring on this page is rarely one-on-one; several acknowledged devotees of Rawat often take turns reverting the controversial edit. Momento and Rumiton are usually among them, along with more occasional editors such as Pedrero and Pongostick (lately), Janice Rowe, Louise Po, Rainer P., Balius, Armeisen and some IP addresses. This does not change the fact of edit warring. Worth noting is that the ex-devotees of Rawat, while fierce in talk page opposition, rarely edit the article. (Nik Wright2 is the only exception that comes to mind, though there are several IP editors that might well be ex-devotees.)

Usually a more neutral editor makes the edit, and faces repeated reversion by Momento, Rumiton etc. even during dispute resolution. This is part of what makes editing these pages so frustrating. Msalt (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Scope
Momento seems to be trying to bring content disagreements into this Arbitration by arguing that those he disagrees with are lying, which is both incivil and missing the point of Arbitration.

Personal attacks
Momento has frequently made personal attacks in Talk page discussions and even in edit summaries. Now he is making very charged attacks in this proceeding such as "fraudulent complaints to advance their anti-Rawat POV" and "perjury." Sometimes he tones down his charges later, sometimes not. For example, he charged WillBeBack and I with lying in a deliberate attempt to mislead editors and deceive the Arbcom, though he later trimmed it to just an accusation of deliberately lying to mislead editors and harass him which of course is still outrageous.

This is a perfect illustration of Momento's continued inability to edit this page civilly. He seems unable to understand that people may disagree with his editing choices without being deceitful, or bad people, or hating Prem Rawat.

Scholarly vs. press sources dispute
Note that Momento doesn't deny saying we should use scholarly sources in this article instead of the press, he just demands a diff. (See this long diff under Msalt section, "Where's the diff?")  The original discussion was a year ago amidst 40 archives of Talk page discussions, and I can't find all the references, but here are a few. Momento justified his repeated deletion of a statement about Rawat's purchase of a house -- cited to the LA Times -- by calling it "extremely poorly sourced" (even claiming exemption from 3RR under BLP): "Extremely poorly sourced compared to an article by a sociologist or religious scholar. And certainly contentious. And irrelevant. This is why there is a BLP policy, to stop  editors writing Biographies of Living Persons using the property and social pages of  a newspaper." See also.

Many of his comments on the subject are in the long thread about using the LA Times and New York Times as sources, in which Momento typically continues fighting these sources AFTER a Reliable Sources Noticeboard proceeding yielded a strong and specific consensus against him. Examples: 1) "I'm becoming concerned that the push for using newspapers as sources is going to end in a "dumbing down" of the article. ... This article used to rely on peer reviewed articles from religious scholars and sociologists..." 2) He also argues that newspaper articles are prone to conjectural interpretation and so must be removed (as he did) under BLP. and

WillBeBack has added several more examples in his evidence.

It's worth noting that Momento didn't just say scholarly sources are better, he repeatedly deleted the press-sourced material and made these arguments (among others) to justify his edits, often after the fact. 

"This private discussion on an editor's talk page has nothing to do with "rejecting consensus".
As far as I understand, editor's talk pages are public spaces. The discussion is instructive; Momento is talking with an independent (opposing) editor, Mael-Num, who is trying to reach a compromise on the Prem Rawat page. Mael-Num says "Be that as it may, there's got to be some sort of middle ground, because I don't think this issue is going to just go away. You asked me to be more moderate, so here I am asking how I can do that. As I see it, Andries is on one side, and Momento and yourself are on the other. The best possible article is somewhere in between. Compromise seems sound, and that starts with communication." 

In response to that, Momento says: "There aren't two sides to the truth. It's either true or it isn't. So a compromise isn't a compromise, it's a failure." So he is precisely rejecting consensus and compromise in editing the Prem Rawat pages. Msalt (talk) 05:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"Msalt: Where's the diff?"//"When I asked for evidence, he refused."
This is so confusing. On this evidence page, Momento demanded a diff for my statement (on the Workshop page) that he insisted on scholarly vs. media sources, though he didn't deny insisting. I responded at length above in #3, Scholarly vs. press sources dispute but his demand for evidence remains. Msalt (talk) 09:12, 8 March 2009

Update: Momento now directly denies having disparaged (or removed) press sources, but inexplicably, he claims on this evidence page that I still haven't responded to his demand for a diff. "I have never made such a claim but when I ask for evidence, he [msalt] refuses. " Msalt (talk)  23:36, 18 March 2009

Update 2: Just 40 minutes after my first (previous) update, Momento deleted -- without comment or striking -- his charge that I haven't responded, as well as his denial of favoring scholarly vs. media sources. I appreciate that. He left this statement however: "Like WB, Msalt makes claims he cannot support with the sole purpose of undermining my credibility." I think Momento's unacknowledged retraction is the best refutation of this charge. His failure to assume good faith remains, though. Msalt (talk) 03:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Update 3: Whoops, the charge is back now, in a different section ("Scholarly vs. Press Sources"): "When I asked [Msalt] for evidence, he refused." Of course I did not refuse. Ironically, this charge is now part of Momento's response to the very section where I provided the evidence, in direct reply to his request. Perhaps I am just not understanding his point here. I prefer not to think this is just some cat-and-mouse WP:GAME he is playing. Msalt (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"History" (Msalt's edits)
Momento writes: "Msalt arrived on Feb 17. His second ever PRa edit was to revert my removal of unsourced material. and he began removing sourced material that didn't suit his POV. ... So there we have it. The first two weeks of torrent of tendentious editing, edit wars, anti-Rawat POV pushing and unqualified support for Francis Schonken by Will Beback, Msalt and Nik Wright2." (First posted here and slightly reworded several times since).

Of course, the problems on Prem Rawat did not begin in February 2008. I challenge Momento to say what my alleged POV regarding Prem Rawat is -- I sure don't know. (My "for the record" statement of POV is here.) Momento implies that I was editing contentiously, but still has not provided any evidence that I have edit-warred (and I don't believe I have.)

Specifically on his points: - "His second ever PRa edit was to revert my removal of unsourced material". Momento's edit mainly involved removing the key context of a sourced statement. The "facted" first sentence was unimportant. Specifically, the original read " Eileen Barker wrote that such changes can be generalized for conversion to other new religious movements. In a study by Marc Galanter published in 1989 about the healing effects of spiritual  affiliation, he found that social and spiritual recovery occurred naturally in certain groups. In the study,  Galanter presents as an example the fact that adherents experienced a reduction of symptoms of psychological  distress after they joined the group. "

Momento changed this to read "Marc Galanter in a study published in 1989, found that adherents experienced a reduction of symptoms of psychological distress after they joined the group. " He removed key context from the sourced quote to make Rawat's group seem uniquely positive in its effects, which is not at all what the source actually said. This was part of a more general consensus on the Talk page to remove claims of benefits to followers of Prem Rawat. 

- The 5 edits he then cites were biased, pro-Rawat statements that I removed for being POV and unencyclopedic. At least two were unsourced.

1) This was an unsourced claim about Rawat speaking to 86,000 people via satellite.  I discussed this on the Talk page before editing, no one objected, and I discussed it again afterwards.

2) A clearly POV statement, based on a source but violating [WP:SYN].

3) I removed a reference citing the controversial Cagan pro-Rawat biography, per my earlier compromise proposal on talk to use it only for non-controversial points.  I can't find the exact diff offhand, but that proposal became the consensus of editors on the page, including  as I recall Rumiton.  Add:  Rumiton confirms.

4) I removed a paragraph about Rawat flying his own plane around the world to many cities, as tangential and POV, after discussing it on the Talk page before and after .  This is the same paragraph that Cagan was used to document (in the previous point, #3).

5) I removed several claims copied from Rawat's resume, e.g. that he had skills in computer graphics and aviation software, because they weren't notable or typical of BLPs. I can't remember or find any controversy over this edit, which was part of my previously announced (on Talk) effort to remove non-encyclopedic detail.

In summary: each of my 6 edits that Momento criticizes in the History section were NPOV and discussed on the Talk page either in general or specifically. There were part of a much needed effort to remove hagiographic detail from the Prem Rawat article. For example, when I began editing, there were several references to Rawat flying his airplane; I worked with other editors to cut them to one. Msalt (talk) 10:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The house image
Momento writes, in the History section: "The house image was objected to by several editors and an IfD started. ...Despite the objections, the IfD, the Jepday's removal, it was inserted 3 times by FS. And once by Msalt."

This misrepresents the situation. The dispute was about process, not the ultimate decision; in fact, both WillBeBack and I  supported deletion in the IfD. The question was whether Momento was justified in edit-warring to repeatedly delete it before the IfD was concluded.

Yes, Jeepday removed it, but other neutral admins -- such as Nil Einne, who also supported deletion in the IfD -- argued for keeping it pending the IfD  and Frances carried the day by pointing out that deleting the image would also delete the IfD tag before the IfD was over, which makes no sense.

Even Momento gave up deleting it and said he was going to simply move it to a different section ; his ally Jossi warned him not to even move it until the IfD was concluded. In the midst of all this, Nandesuka removed it again, and I reverted in good faith exasperation with this edit summary: "Undid revision 193052651 by Nandesuka (talk) STOP reverting. IfD still open. There is a process -- follow it." To my embarrasment, Nandesuka reverted me with the edit summary "In fact, the IfD is closed. I know, because I closed it." Chagrined, I informed people on the Talk page and apologized there  as well as on my Talk page. 

Nonetheless, the point is that Momento kept edit-warring without respecting the ongoing IfD. It's also notable that his justification for deleting changed with basically every deletion, which is a pattern for him. The reason doesn't matter; he knows what he wants to do and will find keep changing the reasons as necessary to justify it. Msalt (talk) 06:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Francis Schonken "inserted "Balyogeshwar" into the lead without discussion or consensus"
Momento asserts this as a justification for his repeated deletions, but Francis had no duty or need to seek consensus or even discussion before adding "Balyogeshwar" -- [WP:BOLD] -- especially since the change was non-controversial (according to neutral editors in RfC ) and apparently the change was per Wikipedia policy, since the change was simply adding an existing redirect for Prem Rawat to the lead of Rawat's article as an alternate name.

Furthermore, this issue was much discussed resulting in a consensus for keeping Balyogeshwar, which even Momento's allies Jayen477 and Rumiton joined. Momento, however, continued to fight despite consensus: "consensus doesn't eliminate the need for truth." 

Posting on anti-Rawat forums
In yet another very late addition to his evidence, Momento just strongly implied that I (along with WillBeBack, NikWright2 and Francis Schonken, "the above four") had posted on anti-Rawat forums: "A major feature of editing the PR articles is the number of anti-Rawat editors it attracts. In addition to the above four, the following editors also posted on the anti-Rawat forum ... "  This is false. I don't speak for the other 3 he attacks, but aside from NikWright2, who is as openly anti-Rawat as Momento is openly pro-Rawat, I doubt they have either. In any case, Momento should present evidence or withdraw this charge and apologize. Msalt (talk) 07:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to Jayen466
===="Much of the evidence presented by Msalt on Momento is quite old, predating last year's arbitration case" ====

Momento's editing behavior is part of a long and continuing pattern of disruption. Since the conclusion of the previous Arbcom case, he has been blocked 3 times twice for actions on Prem Rawat pages for disruption and edit-warring, as recently as January 25th, 2009 May 26, 2008. Since the first Arbcom case ended, he has also received 5 warnings (as recently as January 23, 2009)      and 6 more gentle cautions about his behavior. including one from his ally Jossi. 

Just as important is his attitude. As I have noted, he has used personal attacks and incivility even in this new Arbitration. More generally, he continues to maintain that he has done nothing wrong despite all his blocks and warnings. When editors present clear, documented evidence of his inappropriate editing in DR, he calls it "harassment" and "deliberate" attempts to "deceive the Arbcom" and "mislead editors." When neutral admins warn or block him, he complains, argues and is disrespectful to them as well. All of this makes it very clear that Momento feels he is right and supported by policy, has no intention of changing his behavior or attitude, and will continue in this behavior until forced to stop. Msalt (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Momento: Two Blocks or Three?
I stand corrected on Momento's blocks; I must have misread my notes. Momento has only 2 blocks for edit warring and 11 warnings in the 10 months since the last arbitration. Yet picking at the details misses the bigger point; Momento's continuing problematic behavior and intransigent attitude. I don't have time to compile the precise statistic, but I think it's safe to say that Momento's total of warnings and blocks during this time period is equal to or greater than every other editor on the page combined.

Jayen asks, "Is it surprising if Momento feels that editors are misrepresenting the facts in their accusations of him?" Yes, it is. Seeing every honest mistake as an attempt at deception is failure to assume good faith. It's exactly what is wrong with the Prem Rawat pages in general and with Momento's editing in particular. Msalt (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"Removes sourced material, claiming WP:REDFLAG"
WillBeBack has responded to this point (about Momento deleting sourced material re: the Millenium '73 event) in a section on the Talk page for this article, presumably to keep this page from getting too long, and I have added my response there. Note that Will also put his response on Jayen's point about whether Rawat's wife had been his secretary in a different section there. Msalt (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"Cherry Picking"
I'm not quite sure what Jayen466 is alleging here. He starts this section with an edit of mine under the title "Cherry-Picking", yet in the talk page discussion at the time Jayen466 said "I like the way Msalt has now incorporated the NYT criticism." Not only that, but Francis agreed: "Tx, Msalt, works for me." 

This was consensus building at one of the most heated points in Prem Rawat page history, and frankly I'm very proud of the work I did here. 

On the Watts quote: well, Alan Watts is a very subtle and paradoxical thinker. His exact meaning is, well not exactly elusive, but it is what it is and can't be readily boiled down to something else, the way Jayen466 wants to make it an endorsement of Rawat. When he speaks of Rawat's "sacred ignorance" he's not making a codeword for a good or bad opinion, he's using a paradoxical phrase for a particular meaning. Especially since it's attributed to Watts, it's probably best that readers draw their own judgement about what exactly it means, though one could certainly argue that some contextual phrasing is important. Jayen466 may disagree with the way it's presented, and I self-reverted my addition pending investigation of the context, but it's hardly some kind of policy-violating "cherry picking" worthy of Arbcom sanctions, which is what Jayen seems to be implying. Msalt (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Representative dispute

 * As a representiative dispute I would offer User:Steve_Crossin/Mediation/Prem_Rawat/Proposal7, which was kicked off by this proposed addition to the article, which combines statements from various sources for dramatic effect and to me came off like an attack piece. Lengthy, but mostly amicable and productive discussions and over a dozen amended proposals ensued.
 * Generally I find it worth noting that although editors have often had diametrically opposed views on which direction to take the article, discussions have on the whole been civil and marked by less overt ill temper and aggression than many other article talk pages in this project. I would say that redounds to the credit of all the editors involved here. Jayen  466  20:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments on the evidence presented by Msalt
Much of the evidence presented by Msalt on Momento is quite old, predating last year's arbitration case (in which I remember I found some of the evidence brought against Momento less than convincing).

In this arbitration, we should focus on events that have transpired since the last case. A big part of this was the long dispute around how and whether to include the title "Balyogeshwar" in the lede.

While that dispute was very trying for all concerned, I wouldn't single out Momento for blame here. A number of editors made edits that presented this title as though it were in present-day use (i.e. not restricted to historical uses in literature). According to this scholarly publication which is considered among the best and most authoritative in the field, as well as the semi-authorised Cagan biography of Rawat (which unlike some other editors who object to the promotional nature of the book I would consider a reliable source on Rawat's present-day honorifics), Prem Rawat simply calls himself Maharaji today and has shed his other titles. A general Wikipedia principle is that we present people under the names that they self-identify with. For some reason, a number of editors were very reluctant to do so in the lede of Rawat's article.

At any rate, this revert by Francis Schonken did not help things at all, nor did this one in which Francis deleted the source I just linked to (based on the argument that the birthdate given in it appears to be wrong). Momento's following edit was actually in line with the source Francis deleted.

So in my view, the behaviour of a number of editors contributed to the impasse, as was acknowledged in the related AE thread. Nor did it help that Momento was three times dragged to AE in the course of a few days, where the first time resulted in Momento's accuser being blocked for a month, and where by the third time administrators considered blocking Francis for abusing AE. Neither of these trips to AE resulted in sanctions for Momento (although they brought us here), but naturally the situation created tensions that made it harder for everyone to cooperate in good faith.

To make this clear, I would not like to attribute any blame here to any individual editor. We are human beings, and this was simply the failure of a group to communicate effectively. Jayen  466  15:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Rejoinder to Msalt
Msalt says about Momento that "Since the conclusion of the previous Arbcom case, he has been blocked 3 times for actions on Prem Rawat pages for disruption and edit-wwarring, as recently as January 25th, 2009, citing the following three links:   Now, the first two of these related to the same incident. Momento was blocked at first, then the blocking admin unblocked him with the following comments: The case was then relisted at AE, and both Momento and Francis were blocked a week later for 72 and 48 hours respectively. Now as for the third alleged blocking of Momento in January, there is nothing in Momento's block log to indicate he was blocked then, nor is there anything in the previous arbcom's sanctions log:  In fact, this was the incident where Nik Wright, who started the AE thread against Momento, was blocked for a month, while Momento was warned. So on closer inspection, the alleged three blocks since the last arbcom actually boil down to one, which took place nearly a year ago. Is it surprising if Momento feels that editors are misrepresenting the facts in their accusations of him? Jayen  466  23:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The alleged "warnings" likewise appear to boil down to very little upon inspection: It is clear that Momento is a source of annoyance to some of the other editors here. However, I am far from convinced that the reasons for that are solely or even primarily to do with Momento not abiding by Wikipedia policies and guidelines – in some cases, it seems to me Momento has been the only one to uphold them. I think the reasons for this response to Momento's presence are a little more complicated and bear closer scrutiny. To be sure, I wouldn't give the Rawat article to Momento to write by himself. But neither would I give it to Francis, or Will, or Nik Wright to write by themselves, jointly or severally. Jayen  466  01:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * seems like a spurious complaint by user:Francis Schonken – according to this principle, Momento would appear to have been the only one with grounds for a complaint
 * was a justified copyright infringement warning by user:Cirt – what Momento inserted was recognizably similar to the source text – but insufficient source text reformulation is not what this case is about
 * was the precursor to Momento's May 2008 block, not a separate incident
 * this relates to the removal of the link for the inclusion of which user:Nik_Wright2 was topic-banned for a month, Momento's action being in line, mutatis mutandis, with
 * again relates to the removal of the same external link; the link provided by Msalt here is the same one as the one supposedly documenting Momento's third block in the preceding sentence of Msalt's evidence. I'll leave it there, the "cautions" are not much different.

Reply to Will
I think the way the topic of Rawat's wealth is covered in the article today is far superior to what we had in late June 2008, but it is incorrect to say that the article at the time hardly raised the issue. I count more than half a dozen references to it in the 30 June 2008 version, including a strong one in the lede. That was the version in place when the proposal was kicked off. I don't deny that there have been piques and accusations of bad faith – from both sides, mind you. Yet I have seen plenty of talk page interactions a lot less civil than ours in the Rawat pages. And I appreciate that it feels different from your perspective, given how often you and Momento have clashed over content. Jayen  466  12:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Analysis of Will's evidence
I will say that this sort of analysis is very time-consuming; an allegation is quickly made, but looking into it and refuting it, where appropriate, takes ten times as long. The following uses Will's headings as above. What he have here are not so much calculated misrepresentations as the visible results of irritation and frustration leading to errors in perception. This is human, and no one needs to be hit over the head for it: not Will, not Momento, not Msalt. But it does need to be pointed out. Jayen  466  16:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Tendentious editing:
 * The two blocks in May 2008 refer to a single incident. Momento was blocked by Relevse, then unblocked when Relevse had second thoughts, and then reblocked together with Francis.
 * The 1 RR thread which Will mentions next is in fact what triggered the first arbcom case (March 2008). We shouldn't try the same editor twice for the same alleged offence. (Also note that Momento was accused by Francis of being dishonest and a liar in the linked thread. If I started to make a collection of incidents where someone failed to AGF in their dealings with Momento, it would be a long list.)
 * This removal of the former title "Balyogeshwar" by Momento was subjected to an exceptional degree of scrutiny here and it was generally agreed that this situation involved several editors' actions. Editors have also agreed since then that it is appropriate to state that Balyogeshwar is a title that Rawat was formerly known by.
 * "Keeps removing material that has been discussed at length, and for which sources are well-known.": Incorrect. Sources cited in the article today say the DLM purchased the house as its new headquarters. Rawat did and does have an apartment in the building, but he was not the buyer.
 * "He adds text and then complains about it": Momento did not complain about the "bizarre" wording, which was present before he changed it slightly and was present in the article from the very beginning. Momento complained about the omission of any reference to premies jokingly reserving parking space for the martians ("If you see any extraterrestrials, just give them some of our literature!" said Rawat's brother, one of the prime organisers of the event). Momento was concerned that something which according to many reliable sources was a light-hearted and exuberant joke to participants in the event (these were the seventies, man), was being presented as some weird, po-faced belief that ETs would park their UFO in the parking lot. So Momento had a point, and incidentally this kind of misrepresentation that Momento complained about to Will here is not uncommon in media coverage designed to make religious minorities look weird. History is replete with precedents. At any rate, Will is not "getting" or presenting above what Momento was on about.
 * "In one edit he adds more material, strongly insisting it's necessary for NPOV. Another edit, he removes the same material as incompatible with NPOV.": What Momento removed was clearly not the same as what he inserted.

Continuing: "Claims that NY Times is not a reliable source:"
 * Sourcing issues
 * "The source is reality." – A frustrated talk page comment from an editor who is asked to provide a source for what he has just stated from memory. Hands up who has never experienced that.
 * - Does not refer to NY Times at all as far as I can see. And predates first arbcom (from March 2008).
 * - Momento is pointing out an obvious contradiction between sources – why is that improper? (From May 2008, two days after the first arbcom concluded.)
 * - Discusses different priorities of scholars and mass media; not an inappropriate discussion in an encyclopedic context. From July 2008.
 * . Polemical, yes, but grounds for topic-banning? No. Both from early May 2008, around the time the first arbcom case was approaching its end.
 * "Claims that LA Times is not a reliable source. Calls material taken straight from it "extremely poorly sourced" ": To be fair, Momento said it was "extremely poorly sourced compared to an article by a sociologist or religious scholar." Is such a comment grounds for topic banning? Looking further into this, the edits this talk page section related to were these. The information inserted was actually wrong, since the DLM purchased the property, not Rawat, the LA Times headline notwithstanding. The cited article was a very short piece (< 300 words); a later, longer LA Times article (also cited in the edit) reported correctly that the property was purchased by the DLM. So was Momento all that wrong? Of course, Momento citing BLP in his subsequent deletion of this material is optimistic, and his edit summary caustic, but he was right in that it wasn't great sourcing. Many editors do not seem to understand the difference between writing a journalistic piece and writing an encyclopedia article. Last but not least, this altercation, too, predates the beginning of the first arbcom case, being from February 2008. If editors are having to cast their net that far back in time to gather incriminating evidence on Momento, this is noteworthy. Jayen  466  18:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Will has added another link re the LA Times to his evidence: . I believe Momento is correct in that an LA Times article of the "16-Year-Old Guru Maharaj Ji Weds His Blonde Secretary, 24" type is not necessarily the best and most authoritative source available. To give an example, the LA Times article states, among other things, that "Other devotees said [Rawat's wife] played the role of a stewardess in a film made for the mission entitled "Who is Maharaji?" In fact, editors are agreed from our analysis of the available sources that Rawat's wife did work as a real-life stewardess when she first met Rawat. After meeting Rawat and starting a relationship with him, she quit her job as a stewardess, and became his secretary a few weeks before their wedding. Andrea Cagan's biography of Rawat, which Will categorically rejects as a questionable source that should not be used, is confirmed here by sources such as the Florence Morning News ("She's Tried Everything Else And Now She's Mrs. Guru") which had interviewed Rawat's father-in-law: "The bride's father, construction superintendent Dale Johnson, said his daughter met the guru when she was a stewardess for United Air Lines. She quit the airline in February and became the guru's secretary." (They married in mid-May of that year. And of course Will was correct in asserting that Rawat's wife had worked as his secretary by the time they got married, a fact that Cagan does not mention and Momento seems to have been unaware of.) What clearly has been unhelpful is the sweeping, adversarial style of debate on the talk page: "Your sources are unreliable!" – "No, your sources are unreliable!" Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process. Jayen  466  12:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Removes sourced material, claiming WP:REDFLAG: ": This was a revert by Momento of this edit by Msalt. The resulting talk page discussion is here. After several paragraphs of discussion, Msalt said, at 22:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC), "Good points all around. Until we see clear evidence that Rawat himself discussed extraterrestrials, I think the wise move (given BLP) is to leave it out." Look guys, I am not saying that Momento could not be more diplomatic, he definitely could, but each time I drill down into one of these situations the result seems to be a "six of one, half a dozen of the other" type of situation, and I find myself unable to judge that Momento's action was either intentionally disruptive or taking the article away from a version that was clearly good and neutral encyclopedic writing. In addition, this is yet another example from more than a year ago. Jayen  466  14:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Cherry-picking

 * 'Several scholars have criticized Rawat's teachings for lacking in intellectual content, and as emphasizing the superiority of subjective emotional experience over intellect. One writer described a 1974 Rawat talk as banal, and Zen scholar Alan Watts wrote "The core of this doctrine is a sacred ignorance"'; 'According to 1973 New York Times article, Rawat's doctrine has about as much intellectual content as the fudge sundaes he dotes on.' (note WP:POINTY edit summary); 'Alan Watts, a student of Eastern Religions, said, "The core of this doctrine is sacred ignorance."'; 'According to Bal Bhagwan Ji a quote attributed to Alan Watts, "The core of this doctrine is a sacred ignorance", applied to the intellectual content of Rawat's doctrine.' This example is all the more deplorable since anyone with any familiarity with Watts' work will know that in Watts' philosophy, "sacred ignorance" is a desirable state of mind. Watts paid Rawat's air fare when he first came to the States. Discussion. The source was this passage in the New York Times article "Oz in the Astrodome":
 * I seems to me that what was an intelligent and interesting analysis in the New York Times has, in the above edits, been reduced to a far coarser level, trading insight for crude effect.
 * 
 * I found this paragraph composed of statements compiled from a number of sources undue in terms of its cumulative effect, and in its inclusion of the alleged vase-shooting incident. The vase-shooting incident is based on a single sentence in a thirty-five-year-old Rolling Stone magazine article on Rawat: 'Another premie describes the time the Guru fired a pistol at a number of prized vases in the backyard of the L.A. Residence "to teach us the worthlessness of material possessions."' No other source in the entire corpus of Rawat literature has been found to refer to this alleged incident. I consider the topic of Rawat's wealth and lifestyle more adequately covered in the present article, though I'd be happy to concede that this insertion by Will was part of how we got to the present status.
 * Edits lacking in editorial maturity: (Will asked me what I meant by this, and I've expanded on it here.)

The Balyogeshwar edit war, again
There still seems to be confusion about what exactly happened here. Here a timeline:
 * Cla68 (justifiably) argued that the first sentence of the lede should state what Rawat is today. This resulted in the article saying "Rawat is a guru", a change which was unsourced.
 * Rumiton reverted with the following edit summary: "Guru is what he was. Current occupation needs discussion." Note that there is support for Rumiton's position in the scholarly literature:
 * Cla68 then posted to the talk page and without waiting for a reply changed the sentence again: The source he cited on the talk page was a very poor source for this type of article: "The Cult of Wikipedia" in The Register. Even so, Cla68's addition that "Rawat's followers often refer to him as "Lord of the Universe" is actually contradicted even by The Register, which states that "At one point, Ji was referred to by [Mission] members as Lord of the Universe and was regarded as a living avatar".
 * Momento then made two changes as a result of the move to present tense: he deleted Balyogeshwar (Hindi for "boy guru", "child god"), Rawat's childhood honorific, from the lede sentence, and added "philanthropist". I agreed with the first of these changes, since Rawat obviously is not known as a boy guru today, and find the second questionable. While the Prem Rawat Foundation is a registered charity, describing Rawat as a philanthropist without a source is OR (though Momento makes a case for this change on the Workshop page). For the record, this is the diff between the status quo ante bellum and Momento's version. Apart from the questionable "philanthropist" label, it is really a very minor and sensible adjustment.
 * The "philanthropist" was removed, in a good edit by Sylviecyn, re-added once by Rumiton, and then finally removed as unsourced by Will, and probably correctly so.
 * In the ensuing edit war, multiple editors claimed they were reverting to the version before the edit war triggered by Cla68's changes. This assertion is not borne out by the diffs comparing their edits against the pre-Cla68 version:
 * Each of these edits established a wording that implied that "Balyogeshwar" is a current title used by Rawat. Each of them (bar the last one by Francis) also added "Lord of the Universe" to the list of titles and asserted that this is a title Rawat is known by today. Both of these assertions are wrong, contradicted by authoritative sources, and were not present in the article prior to Cla68's first edit. The assertion that it was Momento who was editing disruptively by trying to change the article from a longstanding consensus version, while other editors were only reverting to this longstanding consensus version, is not borne out by the facts. Yet Momento was the only editor accused and taken to AE over this, resulting in these present proceedings.
 * Response to Will: It is true that there are recent works that mention Rawat's being called Balyogeshwar, but they do so in historical context, mentioning his seventies career as a boy guru. For present-day usage (or non-usage) of the title, see 20062007 as well as Cagan's biography. In the end, having looked at all the evidence, we agreed that "formerly known as" was the appropriate wording. If an individual has shed a name or title, we should respect their choice and should not imply in their biography that they are still called by their former names or titles. We do that for Muhammad Ali, and we can do that for Rawat too.
 * Alright Will. Yes, Momento could have just put "formerly" in front of the name in the lead and lived with that, like everyone else was prepared to, rather than trying to restrict it to the childhood section. He is a stubborn man sometimes.

Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.