Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat

Statement by non-party Cla68
This is the kind of issue that ArbCom was made for. Jossi shouldn't be anywhere near the Prem Rawat articles. He has severe COI issues, as disclosed, in part, by himself and further revealed in the recent Register article, and he continues to disrupt attempts to make the Rawat articles more neutral, such as by quickly archiving talk page discussions before they are finished and by trying to keep out referenced material from the article. He even tried to argue that the Los Angeles Times couldn't be used as a source for the article. Because of extensive community intervention, the Rawat articles are now more neutral than they were before, but Jossi is still fighting as hard as he can to keep them as close to "his" version as as possible, which I believe may be the reason for his last-ditch use of the ArbCom to try to salvage what he can. If the ArbCom accepts this case, you're going to see a lot of diffs and ANI, COI, and reliable sources board thread links entered as evidence and I think you'll see one person in particular right at the center of all the NPOV problems with those articles, and that's Jossi. Cla68 (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Adding to statement...it appears that there may be some COI or obvious POV-pushing with other editors also. It may be that Jossi isn't the only one who needs to be prohibited from involvement with any of the Rawat articles.  Also, I see no evidence of abuse of admin privileges by Jossi, just POV-pushing. Cla68 (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by semi-involved Lawrence Cohen
Urge acceptance of this case. This is a long, long standing case of conflicting interests, possibilities of demonstrable efforts to own articles, many instances of dancing around BLP, and possibly a list of others. Community enforced 1RR has largely failed here, external media attention in the The Register has largely failed despite all the news eyes it brought in, and now the various parties are trying to find liberal interpretations of 1RR to use against each other. Please accept. Lawrence § t/e 22:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by non-party user:Maelefique
I have followed this article for months, and despite Jossi's claims of "making good progress", it seems an awful lot more like 1 step forward, and 2 steps back, the vast majority of conflict seems to be attributable to a few editors in particular, who seem to constantly voice an obviously pro-Rawat sentiment and refuse to allow the article to read any other way. I have watched several edit wars unravel, many of which include Jossi either cajoling or threatening (with WP policies) only the editor who is not pro-Rawat, as seen in these examples here and here and here and here. I cannot find a single instance where he has acted the same way, and in the same tone, to any of the pro-Rawat editors.

When asked directly for help, if it does not lean towards a pro-Rawat statement (or is in conflict with something said/done by one of several pro-Rawat editors), Jossi is often at best, evasive, at worst, deliberately unhelpful. As evidenced here (sorry, couldn't find a better way to reference these) where I asked for a helpful reference and he referred me to the entire collection of sources available, and here (the entire argument here is not germaine, for brevity, I would suggest picking up the discussion at Will Beback's straightforward question, "Jossi, can you please give us your opinion about whether the L.A. Times and N.Y. Times are reliable sources for this article?")  for example. Jossi's reply, which he even took the time to embolden, is obviously obtuse, he knows the source, and he knows the context. The question was clear and was later determined to be a reliable source [].

And yet, Jossi seems to have no problem pulling up sources for statements that seem to be pro-Rawat, such as here where he manages to come up with no less than 5 sources supporting his view in less than 45 minutes (granted, this particular issue is not contentious, but I think it goes to the point that Jossi can certainly find supporting evidence when it suits his needs). I think we can stipulate that Jossi is somewhat of an authority on this subject, at least in terms of knowledge, if not viewpoint, and as such, should be held to a higher standard, certainly that would be standard in any type of academic context.

He has no problem promoting his viewpoint, backed up with many different sources, but when a viewpoint other than his own appears, he seems either strangely silent, allowing other pro-Rowat editors to further slow down the process of arriving at a consensus by arguing their blatantly obvious POV, edit-warring, etc, until other editors/admins step in to impose a halt to these actions, as was done here and here and here and here and here. Please note, that these examples are not included as any slight upon these users, they only go to illustrate my point that while Jossi is extremely active in the Prem Rawat article, he does seem to turn a blind eye to many obviously problem-ridden edits.

This pattern of conduct from Jossi seems fairly consistent with a COI, and I have to wonder, (and I realize this is probably a huge subject probably beyond the scope of this discussion), if there is ever a one-off argument for someone being involved in an organization and a consequent inability for them to discuss the issue with a NPOV, I would have to think a situation where someone is a disciple of the person being written about may be the case, as one's faith itself would, of necessity, be called into question regarding certain aspects of the subject. I don't want to suggest here that by extrapolation anyone who believes in God should not write about God for the same reason, I don't believe that and I'm not trying to suggest that (don't we have a template somewhere to notify the reader about possible COI edits in the article?). I have no doubt that many of the 50,000+ edits made by Jossi are of excellent quality and I am not questioning his admin actions either. However, doesn't the very meaning of faith include the concept of truly believing something you do not have the evidence of, or even despite evidence to the contrary of your faith? What I think about Prem Rawat should have no more or less weight than what Jossi thinks about him. If we can allow all sides of this discussion to work on this article without constant reverting/wikilawyering/whatever, I think this article could be turned into something most people could agree on, and isn't that what an encyclopedia should be? I firmly believe ArbCom should look at this case. Maelefique (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by non-party User:Nsk92
Since by now it is clear that the case will be accepted for arbitration, I'd like to make a few general comments. I hope that in this case the ArbCom will go beyond the standard disciplinary actions and make some sort of policy recommendations, e.g. with regard to COI and merge issues, as well as make some specific recommendations on the editorial matters underlying this dispute that could help future editors of the Prem Rawat article. Given how much off-Wikipedia publicity this case has received, I think it is important that it be handled particularly carefully and well. As for disciplinary actions (that seem to be inevitable here), I would urge some leniency, that is, topic specific bans (including talk pages) plus probation rather than, say, a total one year ban from Wikipedia that seems to be a popular enforcement tool of the ArbCom lately. I hope that most editors involved in this dispute are capable of contributing constructively to Wikipedia on non Prem Rawat related matters, and it would be a pity to lose them completely. Nsk92 (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

two questions: scope and evidence from how long ago?
Is the article Teachings of Prem Rawat included in this case. Evidence from how long ago is okay? Max. one year? Andries (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Rumiton's AE appeal 2013
I couldn't find a link to Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive132 — although inconclusive, wouldn't it be best to list it at the block and ban log section? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Appeal request: Prem Rawat
Link to original discussion

Initiated by  — MOMENTO (talk) 09:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Case affected :

Discretionary sanction
 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * Momento(initiator)

Notified The Blade of the Northern Lights. MOMENTO (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request


 * Information about amendment request


 * Prem Rawat []
 * I am requesting removal of the topic ban.

Statement by Momento
On Nov 15th, 2012 I was indefinitely Topic Banned from all Prem Rawat articles for “Persistent Battleground Behaviour” by The Blade of the Northern Lights. TBOTNL gave no warning to me nor did he provide any diffs to support his claim I was engaging in “Persistent Battleground Behaviour”. Fifteen months later when I appealed my ban at WP:AE he provided three diffs to justify continuing my ban with the disclaimer “I'm not giving my own point of view on the truth or validity of any additions or removals”.  I believe the three edits TBOTNL provided are fair, correct and in accordance to all Wiki policies and spirit. The first edit I made was the result of a discussion by two other editors who came to the conclusion that “the current version gives undue weight to the fringe opinion that Rawat is a cult leader.” I waited two weeks for any objection to their opinion and then I proposed making the appropriate change. When no one objected to the proposed edit I waited a further 24 hours and then made the edit. There were no objections or reverts. The second edit I made was on the talk page in response to a proposal by another editor (“Good suggestion. I'm happy with that”). The edit proposed was to remove a superfluous material, the majority of which was a quote from Prem Rawat. There were no objections or reverts. The third edit involved removing excess opinion, both positive and negative, not necessary to express the crux of the matter which was that “Rawat's affluent lifestyle was a source of controversy in the early 1970s” which I retained. There were no objections or reverts. None of the edits I made, or the talk discussion that preceded them, show “Persistent Battleground Behavior," incivility or tendentious editing and the attached synopsis of the other edits made at the same time show that I was editing according to the best policies of Wikipedia. My criteria for every edit was to improve the accuracy and readability of the article. I am a writer by profession and knowledgeable on the subject of Prem Rawat. I have removed both positive and negative material that bloated the article without adding value. At the time of the editing Prem Rawat was being watched by 446 editors and seventeen editors edited the  article in the preceding month and none of them objected to my edits.

Additional statement by Momento
I do not believe I'm being treated fairly here. I came to Arb Com believing that my appeal would be judged on the simple criteria - does the evidence presented by TBOTNL support his claim of “Persistent Battleground Behaviour” and justify his application of an indefinite Topic Ban. Instead, the evidence presented is being ignored and other unknown criteria are being used which I am unable to address. I thank NewYorkBrad and Salvio for giving me the opportunity to respond to their concerns. Thanks.MOMENTO (talk) 02:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Final statement by Momento
Well I guess that's it then. I'd better get a word in before I am swept out the door. I thought my nightmare had ended when Arb Com finally recognised that Will Beback and fellow travellers had been waging a campaign of harassment against NRMs for years but his legacy lives on. Anti-NRM editors can still abuse, edit and sanction with impunity. I have made hundreds of good edits since my last one year topic ban which was, no surprise, instigated and manipulated by Will Beback and his cronies. Now three years later Arb Com has once again ignored my appeal for help and rubber stamped a sanction that has no evidence or merit. It is a fraudulent sanction that stakes its legitimacy on a string of sanctions instigated and/or manipulated by an admin who is known to have used his position and his influence with other admins and Arb Com to harass and sanction dozens of well meaning editors whose only fault was to belong to an NRM, you know who you/they are. Of course I could always appeal to Jimbo but I have a feeling that it will fall on deaf ears. I would like to thank NewYorkBrad and Salvio for making a tiny effort to understand what is really happening. Special mention to Seraphimblade for his prompt decline of my appeal for "my lack of judgement", you were right, I shouldn't have expected an unbiased, evidence based hearing. And a cheerio to Olive, Francis and TBOTNL, you have demonstrated the best and worst of Wikipedia.MOMENTO (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Epilogue
A quick brain teaser. Here are two links, one to the Prem Rawat lead after my last edit and one to today's version. See if you can tell which one sounds like a professionally written encyclopaedia and which one reads like a tabloid cut and paste using Wiki as a source. Best wishes.MOMENTO (talk) 08:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * @Seraphimblade - I misunderstood the instruction above - "You can paste the template into your user space, or use an off-line text editor, to compose your request in private". Should I remove it?MOMENTO (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC
 * @Seraphimblade - Editing a variety of articles is not a requirement to launch an appeal. I have no interest in editing other articles. My area of expertise is the history and teachings of Prem Rawat and as long as I am editing according the guidelines for WP:SPA I should be accorded the same rights as any other editor.MOMENTO (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Seraphimblade - As regards my "lack of judgement" in using a sandbox to prepare my appeal, the instructions above say I can use my "user space ... to compose my request in private". Neither my user page nor my talk page is private. The only private user space I can have is a sandbox.MOMENTO (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Seraphimblade -As you may have seen Gaijin42 has started a discussion on the talk page which concludes "Currently we are directly instructing users to violate their bans as they try to appeal them." Please reconsider your position on "my lack of judgement.MOMENTO  (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * @Gaijin42 - Perhaps you, Seraphimblade or another editor can explain to me what is allowed and what isn't and I can amend my appeal accordingly. Thanks.MOMENTO (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Gaijin42- Thank you for having the integrity to open a topic on the talk page to point out "Currently we are directly instructing users to violate their bans as they try to appeal them." Let's hope Seraphimblade will now reconsider his position on "my lack of judgement".MOMENTO (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * @The Blade of the Northern Lights - Your statement doesn't address the issue of this appeal - "Do the three edits you provided show evidence of “Persistent Battleground Behaviour” warranting a 22 month topic ban".MOMENTO (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @ Newyorkbrad - It's very easy to accumulate a list of sanctions when the fact that you've been sanctioned before is reason enough to be sanctioned again. The evidence presented here shows how easy it is to be sanctioned without a shred of evidence. This vicious circle will never end unless someone decides to judge me on what I actually did according to the diffs of the case.MOMENTO (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @ Newyorkbrad - I'm male. It's hard to specify what I would do differently going forward until I hear from the other Arb Com members. I'm hoping they'll have valuable input about my editing and how I could be a more productive editor.MOMENTO (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Newyorkbrad - I'm not sure who you're asking for a link to my AE appeal but here it is.MOMENTO (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * @Worm, GorillaWarfare,Salvio - So far no one has been able to agree with TBOTNL's claim that I was engaging in “Persistent Battleground Behaviour”. So far no one has even been able to mention the phrase “Persistent Battleground Behaviour”. In fact, no one has been able to produce a single diff that shows even "Very Occasional Battleground Behaviour". The worst that anyone has been able to say about me is that I put material in my sandbox, I've been sanctioned before, I'm a SPA and I've got an attitude. So why are you denying my appeal? The claim that the Prem Rawat article would suffer if I am editing is demonstrably untrue. TBOTNL stood by for months while an anti Prem Rawat editor waged war on several editors and soon after my ban another editor (admonished during PR2) made 53 edits in two days without one word of discussion on the talk page, removing strongly sourced material from an unimpeachable authority along the way which has still not been reinserted. <font color="#FF7133">MOMENTO (talk) 05:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Salvio - Regarding your comment - "your focus is non-neutral, as evidenced by the diffs provided by TBONL" -if you had looked at the other edits I made around that time you would see that I was also removing pro Rawat material.<font color="#FF7133">MOMENTO  (talk) 05:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio - Thank you for giving me a chance to address your concerns. You're correct, it doesn't matter what you call it, what matters is whether it is evidence of wrong doing. These edits don't show “Persistent Battleground Behaviour” and they don't show "tendentious editing". Nor do they show edit warring or incivility, nor are they reverts or done without considerable discussion. They are three innocuous edits that even Sandstein wrote "I wouldn't have imposed the topic ban based on the evidence presented here by the sanctioning admin. The diffs they provide are not on their face problematic, and valid editorial reasons are imaginable for them".Regarding my comment about your statement - "your focus is non-neutral, as evidenced by the diffs provided by TBONL" - my emphasis is on your view that something non-neutral is "evidenced by the diffs provided by TBOTNL. TBOTNL's diffs are not evidence of non-neutral editing, one removes positive Rawat material, one removes negative Rawat material. As for whether I was also removing positive Rawat material I provided this link in my initial statement to a summary of the seventeen edits I made in the week before I was banned and the reasons behind the edits But here are three of those edits that show me removing pro-Rawat material and Rawat's own words. 1) I removed this glowing praise "One witness said that Rawat "played the whole time he was there ... he played with squirt guns, flashed pictures of himself for all to see, and took movies of everybody ... Love flowed back and forth between him and his devotees." 2) I removed the opinion of Rawat supporters that - "there is no conflict between worldly and spiritual riches, and that Rawat did not advise anyone to "abandon the material world", but said it is our attachment to it that is wrong...Maharaj Ji's luxuries are gifts from a Western culture whose fruits are watches and Cadillacs," a spokesman said. Some premies said that he did not want the gifts, but that people gave them out of their love for him. They saw Rawat's lifestyle as an example of a lila, or divine play, which held a mirror to the "money-crazed and contraption-collecting society" of the West". And 3) I agreed to the removal of "Rawat said, "It has nothing to do with me, it is an attempt to harm the Divine Light Mission. When someone grows, others get jealous of him, and the Divine Light Mission has just blasted like an atomic bomb all over the world".. In fact, in the week before I was banned I removed more pro-Rawat material than anti. Thanks. I am more than happy to respond to any charge of improper editing if diffs are provided.<font color="#FF7133">MOMENTO  (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Francis Shonken - Regarding your claim that "In the mean while editing environment in the Prem Rawat area has greatly improved". You are right but not because I was banned but because PatW was banned. PatW, is a fiercely anti Rawat critic who has been warned for incivility and battleground behaviour nineteen times on his talk page and countless times on the PR talk pages but numerous admins including Will Beback allowed him to continue undisciplined, making only one 24 hour block in 2008 despite years of spiteful ranting. In the three months before I was topic banned without warning PatW was warned twice by The Blade of the Northern Lights for his incivility. On August 25th - ‘'everyone, especially you PatW, needs to cool it. I get that each "side" here is frustrated with the other, but it's not that hard to review what you're saying and remove the invective from your post before hitting the save button”. And again on September 3rd on PatW's talk page - “(Pat) you have to be more tactful in your approach. I came very close to banning you from the topic, but I've decided I should give you at least one personal note to alert you to the fact that you're on my radar screen". On the same day as TBOTNL allowed PatW to continue his attacks a new uninvolved editor remarked - “I came to this page to see if the allegations being made about Momento's editing were true, but what strikes me as more egregious are the constant personal attacks by PatW and Surdas.  Because of the hostility and unconstructive comments by those two, I'm unwilling to get involved at this point. As for your comment "allowing to update the article after unanimous talk page deliberations". After I was banned you made your first appearance to the PR article in two years and made 53 edits straight in two days without one word on the talk page, removing strongly sourced material from an unimpeachable authority along the way which has still not been reinserted. TBOTNL was aware of FS's edits, the removal of impeccable soured material and the injection on numerous POV edits and did nothing. I hope the Arb Com now have a clearer picture of how TBOTNL allowed extreme editing by PatW and Francis Schonken whilst topic banning me for 22 months for being a victim of this harassment.<font color="#FF7133">MOMENTO  (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Carcharoth - Sorry to disturb you.<font color="#FF7133">MOMENTO (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved editor Gaijin42
Separate Momento's userpage content into two issues. 1) content. 2) location.

If the only issue is the location (IE he should have made that content directly as part of this appeal, not in a draft) then I strongly suggest that that particular issue be taken out of consideration, as the instructions at the top of this page explicitly say "This is not a discussion. You can paste the template into your user space, or use an off-line text editor, to compose your request in private. Do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive."

If on the other hand, the content of that page would not be a valid/appropriate appeal even if it had been in the correct location, then by all means proceed using that as a bit of evidence against his appeal.

Also if one thinks that that content was not indented to be part of his appeal at all, and was just a naked violation, then obviously use it in that situation as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by olive
If those responding here have looked at the AE on Moment, have looked at the diffs Blade presented in context of other edits, if past sanctions are being used to support a decline, if tendentious editing is also being used to support a decline (and with due respect, there probably is no more obscure way to present evidence against an editor, since evidence of tendentiousness does not, as Salvio pointed out, require any diffs, and remember, Blade had not been too in touch with the article when he made his blocks,  (yes, more than one, three at first,  and one of those 3 editors had made only  3 or so edits in several years while a fourth editor, the one who had been warned multiple times, and whose behaviour was abusive was not sanctioned until later), if  one does not ask why it was that Jimbo Wales went right to the Prem Rawat article  and added a pejorative to the lead which he had tried to add in the past and had been reverted, and if no one here believes that an uninvolved editor came to the article and saw that editors, with possibly the influence of an outside influence, began to improve collaborative skills, then I have nothing more to say except emphatically, Blade, a good admin., made a mistake. Momento was showing improvement and should be given another chance, and the atmosphere on that article was designed to bait him.

And while bold, I'd like ask, do any of you believe that Timid Guy was the first that Will Beback tried to remove, or was he the last, in along line of those who got in his way. Will Beback (who was a regular editor on this article and who was banned from any NRM articles). Why was he banned, and does that mean that those who faced him day in and day out on NRM articles should be reevaluated?

No one is perfect and editors, just people, make mistakes: Will Beback a hugely productive editor, Blade of the Northern Lights, by all accounts a good admin, and Momento a knowledgable SPA editor. Momento had improved and I see no evidence here that proves he hadn't except the few  diffs of the original sanction taken out of context.

He's asked how to improve further. Maybe someone could advise him?

Salvio:Thanks for the advice on how Momento can address concerns. I was interested in that advice coming directly from an arb familiar with this case and who was hopefully neutral about Momento. I believe the original advice came from Mastcell.

The arb clarification /appeal system seems to be a guilty unless you can prove innocence system.
 * This decline rests on the idea that Blade's sanction of three editors of which Momento was one, was called for. Its easy to prove guilt In the Wikipedia system. Its harder to show innocence and its almost impossible to show improvement that requires and understanding of what the base line behaviour was, and what other factors come into play on a talk page.

This isn't my appeal, but I am heartened by the fact that arbs actually responded in a substantive way. That's a net positive in my mind. Thank you. (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC))


 * Francis and arbs: I found Momento very easy to work with. I didn't have an agenda one way or the other either nor did I necessarily agree with him. Further, the lead of that article hardly looks neutral. How many times can you say cult in one paragraph?  And as well academics in the field of NRMs like Chryssides are not overly anxious to use the word since its a known pejorative with overtones that are non-specirfic. So three times in a lead seems overkill. Having both watched that article and spent time on the talk page I dissagree with Francis vehemently.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC))


 * Per Francis' comment on discussion of other editors: : Editors do not exist in isolation from one another, in vacuums. Context is critical. People are hurt, damaged, angry, tired, and also just make mistakes. Looking at all of the behaviours, the talk page, and the edits on an article is  necessary. Diffs are important, but so is context.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC))

Short statement by The Blade of the Northern Lights
At the last AE appeal, User:MastCell summed up the concerns I have quite well. I haven't paid an enormous amount of attention to the Prem Rawat topic area since December 2012, but I'm failing to see how this request addresses any of those concerns. Not sure if there's anything else you need to hear from me, except that I stand by my decision on the matter. The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 18:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Francis Schonken
Momento is a WP:SPA. Not a single mainspace edit since his topic ban in November 2012

In the mean while editing environment in the Prem Rawat area has greatly improved, allowing to update the article after unanimous talk page deliberations. I'm involved while I contribute to those edits and discussions, was part of the Prem Rawat ArbCom cases etc. Currently all views on Rawat are represented fairly in talk page discussions and edits to the article, and the respect not to edit the article before unanimity is reached is held by all participants.

Momento is a tendentious editor difficult to work with (just speaking from general experience), doesn't fit in an environment where people allow themselves to be persuaded by arguments given by others (as it is now in Rawat-related articles). He hasn't shown otherwise in the intermediate period of topic ban. He doesn't even show to understand why he was banned. I support the commenting arbitrator's inclinations not to lift the topic ban under these conditions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment", i.e. (in my understanding):
 * no content discussion, not on the lede of any mainspace article, nor on any other content of the encyclopedia
 * not on behaviour of anyone else but Momento (his newly added comments on a fellow editor are irrelevant for the above amendement, except that they show Momento's bad choice in current behaviour: slurs on editors, whether justified or not, don't show an improvement on better fitting in in the dynamics of content editing)
 * IMHO Momento can't see the bigger picture (e.g. Writing for the opponent is totally lost on him), and it's that that hasn't improved a bit afaics. For Momento the bigger picture limits itself to the teachings of a single person. That makes him an excellent follower for all I know, but a terrible editor (and indeed, difficult to work with in this environment). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (disclosure:) above I already mentioned my involvement: for completeness: in 2008 I was blocked 48h for edit-warring with Momento on the Prem Rawat article I'm OK this might diminish the weight of my statement here, just expressing my current view. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @: regarding Momento's "...and did nothing" above: that's not true is it: you warned me — which I took at heart, leading to the current more positive editing environment in the area. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@: In your latest edit above you added: "...I came to Arb Com believing that my appeal would be judged on the simple criteria - does the evidence presented by TBOTNL support his claim of “Persistent Battleground Behaviour” and justify his application of an indefinite Topic Ban. Instead, the evidence presented is being ignored and other unknown criteria are being used which I am unable to address...": Don't forget its who you are now who is going to be allowed or not to edit in the topic area again. It is who you are now who is weighed whether or not a net benefit to the encyclopedia. The sum is easy: useful edits to the encyclopedia since topic ban: zero. Antagonistic behaviour against fellow editors (past and present) as of the start of these amendment proceedings: level: high to very high. Sum = near bottomless energy sink for other editors. The factors making that sum are things you can start changing as of today. And then you'll see your current or next petition to be reallowed in the Prem Rawat topic area will be a piece of cake. I wish you good luck. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Nobody suggested you drag in PatW. Afaik, PatW didn't ask her topic ban be lifted, nor is there any indication such request would be more successful than yours. Nobody is assessing you "in comparison to" PatW, so I don't see how you ever thought that could have worked as support against TBOTNL's claim of “Persistent Battleground Behaviour”. Trying to make PatW's past behaviour look much worse than yours is really not helping your case, independent from whether that past behaviour was de facto worse or not, while all we see is you at your worst criticising others (which is about the opposite of you showing your best behaviour, and that's what we'd presumably rather like to see).
 * 2) Instead of dabbling in PatW's past, maybe it would be more advantageous for you to have a look at Rainer P.'s successful topic ban lifting — Maybe the differences aren't all that big:
 * 3) The biggest difference is probably the past. The past can't be changed. Thus far your main line of defense in your appeal has been to try change the perception of that past, which is almost impossible (as also Littleolive oil pointed out, quoting Mastcell). Here's the small difference with what happened in Rainer P.'s ban-lifting discussion: after elaborating to some extent he was "unjustly" banned, further on in the discussion he wrote this little sentence which made a world of difference (in my view) for influencing those that deliberated the case: "I still think the ban was inappropriate to begin with, but I have no inclination to fight over this" (bolding added).
 * 4) Although also qualifying himself an SPA, here's the small difference: after his topic ban he contributed to Wikipedia outside the Prem Rawat topic area. These other edits were very limited ("almost none" as observed by the reviewers), but again there's a world of difference: Rainer P. showed he can contribute to the encyclopedia outside his main field of interest, unproblematically. I think in making the right impression this is exceedingly more valuable than trying to change a perception about the past.
 * 5) In the whole ban-lifting case Rainer P. didn't need to blacken any of his fellow-editors (past or present). Really, it is possible to sketch a context without the murky stuff.

Statement by {yet another user}
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Moments is, as recently as this month, maintaining and editing a Prem Rawat related page at User:Momento/sandbox. I'm not inclined to lift a topic ban when it's actively being violated. Momento, it was made very clear to you at AE that you would need to show productive editing in other areas unrelated to Rawat before modification of the sanction would be considered. Decline. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Additionally,, I note that you have not notified the sanctioning administrator, . That is required when filing an appeal; please go do so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Littleolive oil, I'm not sure what you think I misread. The exception to a topic ban for appealing is not to edit regarding an appeal anywhere, but rather on the appropriate pages. For an appeal at ARCA, the pages that may be edited are this one to present the case, and talk pages to provide any necessary notifications. Maintenance of a userspace archive with updated counts of editors, records of appeals, etc., is not appropriate when topic banned. It's a somewhat common misunderstanding and it's not one I'm going to block for, but it doesn't show the good judgment I'd want to see before considering modification of a sanction. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * With due respect, I do not view the issue concerning sandbox edits as significant, given that the only edit to that page in months was drafting this appeal. What is more troubling, at least to me, is Momento's multiple instances of sanctions before the topic-ban; this was not a sanction imposed for a first offense, or at least what the AE administrators perceived as a first offense. Speaking of AE, may we have a clear link or links to the relevant AE or DS discussion(s)? Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Repeating, we need clear links to the relevant prior discussions in order to evaluate this request. It would also be helpful for Momento to tell us how he or she would edit differently going forward from in the past if this request were granted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * NYB, there's a lot here, but the discussion I felt most enlightening, especially pointing to Momento's general attitude, was his recent AE appeal <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT(<font color='#060'>talk ) 10:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm rarely willing to overturn topic bans. When I do, it's because I get the impression that the topic ban is no longer necessary. In this case, the topic ban still appears necessary and removing it would be a bad thing. Decline. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT(<font color='#060'>talk ) 10:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It can sometimes be difficult, when it comes to tendentious editing, to point to a single diff (or a group of few diffs) and say "gotcha", especially when the editor in question seems to be using the letter of a policy against its spirit which makes this type of tendentious editing all the more insidious. A good example of this  and one which might also guarantee plausible deniability  would be the repeated adoption of stricter criteria for the inclusion of positive (or negative) items of information about a subject, so as to make our coverage thereof more (or less) favourable. Also, WP:TEND should be read in conjunction with the principle that editors  especially SPA  ought to take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral. Moreover users sanctioned for disruptive behaviour are expected to improve their behaviour; failure to do so may lead to increasingly severe sanctions, even for comparatively less serious violations of policy. In this case, your conduct *has* created the impression that your focus is non-neutral, as evidenced by the diffs provided by TBONL and, so, also taking into account your recidivism, I see no reason to overturn TBONL's decision. Finally, since you have not demonstrated that the restriction is no longer necessary to prevent disruption, I cannot support lifting it at this time.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So far no one has been able to agree with TBOTNL's claim that I was engaging in “Persistent Battleground Behaviour”. So far no one has even been able to mention the phrase “Persistent Battleground Behaviour”. The fact that an admin correctly identified what appeared to be disruption but failed to employ the correct "nomen juris" does not invalidate the fact that there actually was actionable disruption. What he called "persistent battleground behaviour" I call "tendentious editing", but it does not alter the fact that the sanction was, in my opinion, warranted. Regarding your comment - "your focus is non-neutral, as evidenced by the diffs provided by TBONL", actually my comment was that your edits gave the impression that your focus was non-neutral, which is rather different, as a matter of fact. And I stand by my comment, but if you wish to provide evidence of your removal of pro-Rawat material, then I'm interested. Finally, in response to Olive's request for advice, Momento has already received the standard suggestion to edit in an unrelated topic area for a bit, to demonstrate his knowledge of policy and willingness to follow it and after six months come back and ask for the sanction to be lifted. However, he has clarified that he is not interested in following this procedure. Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not think removing the topic ban would be wise here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Decline per above. Carcharoth (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Decline. T. Canens (talk) 04:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Decline. L Faraone  04:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)