Talk:Prem Rawat

Archives

June 2004 – July 2004 July 2004 – July 2004 (1) July 2004 – July 2004 (2) July 2004 – August 2004 August 2004 – August 2004 (1) August 2004 – August 2004 (2) September 2004 – September 2004 (1) September 2004 – September 2004 (2) September 2004 – September 2004 (3) October 2004 – October 2004 October 2004 – April 2005 June 2005 – August 2005 August 2005 – October 2005 October 2005 – February 2006 February 2006 – March 2006 March 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – May 2006 May 2006 – July 2006 July 2006 – September 2006 September 2006 – November 2006 Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat (page merged) November 2006 – January 2007 January 2007 – March 2007 March 2007 – May 2007

Moving on

Page archived as per discussion.

Now that we have some kind of tabula rassa, I would propose the following approach:

1. Allow Andries and Momento, and any other editor that wants to join them, to complete their work at Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal_nr2;
2. Editors are also welcome to make further improvements at Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal if they prefer to work on that version;
3. In 30 days or so, or when editors are satisfied that they have put their best effort in these two versions and cannot improve these any further, we can engage Wikipedia:Peer review, WP:RFC and GA reviewers to give feedback on which versions is more encyclopedic, NPOV, etc.;
4. In the meantime if we all agree to a self-imposed moratorium in editing the current article, as to afford editors the time and space to focus in improving versions in response to the GA review, that would be excellent;
5. We can also agree to discuss edits and not the editor, and if we need an outlet to discuss editors, to do that in user namespace rather than here.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider the slate to be wiped clean. I only agreed to the archive of the previous talk page, nothing more. I definitely don't agree to a 30 day or any time limit. There's no good reason for a time limit. I also don't agree to any moratoria on the existing article. Any as far as I can see, no one has been disallowing Momento and Andries or anyone else from continuing work on the article drafts, so I don't get your point on that. But, what really needs to be discussed is your own Conflict of Interest, since you have taken such a strong and influential role on the talk pages in such an authoritarian manner for so long, that certainly affects the outcome of the article's content, and how that interfers with producing an good, honest article. Sylviecyn 20:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... I cannot be blamed for not trying. Note that I did not suggested a time limit. See the caveat "or when editors are satisfied that they have put their best effort in these two versions." The moratorium proposed is on the current article, as to not to do double work, proposing than editors focus their efforts in the two versions proposed instead. As for your repeated COI argument, please read WP:COI where you can find the detail on the behaviors expected of editors with COIs. (Note that this policy may applies to you as well. A person that has spent 20 years as a follower and is now a actively engaged as per your own statement, may be too close to the subject and have a COI as well.) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You can be blamed for exerting too much influence and authoritarianism on the talk pages. I don't have a COI. Goes to show you don't understand what COI really is. I'm not employed by Rawat or anyone connected to Rawat or ex-premies. I'm not a member of anything as you are a member of this new religious movement. You've said you are a personal friend of Prem Rawat. The most you can say of me is that I may have a particular point of view, but, I'm only interested in making sure there is enough honesty and balance in the article. Do you own or prepare any websites for Prem Rawat, his organizations, or do you have any editorial control over their content? Do you have anything whatsoever to do with the public relations of Prem Rawat or his related orgs? Please answer. Sylviecyn 22:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC) oops!

I cannot exert any authority in this or any other article in WP. This is a wiki, and in my capacity as as administrator in Wikipedia, I cannot use any of my admin privileges in this or any other article in which I am involved actively. You have as much authority as any other contributor to the project, and your edits and comments in talk are and will be evaluated on its merits by other editors. You also need to read WP:COI to understand how it applies in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

20 years' experience and insight into a subject is something most encyclopedias would pay good money for, Jossi. Talking of which, we know that Wikipedia doesn't pay its editors or administrators, so how come the position you've taken that you describe as "a conflict of interest" allows you to spend so much time (presumably during your working day) editing Wikipedia? Isn't that certain someone therefore paying you for what you do here? Now, if that's the case, there surely must be a Wiki policy on it somewhere? If there is, please enlighten us.

Revera 22:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:COI. It is all there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you're looking for someone to hold your sword while you fall on it. Well, having declared your conflict of interest, you could do the decent thing and leave the article about your employer well alone. You could, couldn't you? Or would that entail you having to relinquish your 'position' with your paymasters?

Revera 00:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia.Momento 00:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Versions, versions, versions

I think Andries new version is already substantially better than the current version although it is longer at 6819 words versus 6592 words for the current version (the proposal is 2500 words).Momento 23:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Please see Template talk:Prem Rawat. Smee 08:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Jossi's Conflict of Interest

Jossi, you still are not answering the specific questions about your role(s) in the organization(s), related to Prem Rawat, which if left unanswered, leaves suspect any of your edits, both on talk pages and on articles. For instance, if you do website design or public relations work, it is important for you to disclose this. But, those are just examples. This isn't something that I'm suddenly bringing up, your situation on October 15, 2006 [Disclosures.] Btw, that disclosure is not easy to find on your user page. You declared this in writing and yet demand that people blindly trust you to make judgments about your own edits, vis a vis, whether or not you are abusing your COI or not by your request of other editors to provide you with the diffs. That's backwards. Refusing to disclose what you do for the related organization is not a show of good faith and this is improper behavior for an administrator and editor of Wikipedia. The onus is upon you to clear the air, not other editors. You have declared that you know Prem Rawat personally and that he's your friend, then you declared you work for a related organization. It doesn't matter if you are paid or work as a volunteer employee, you still work for a related organization. You have declared proudly that Rawat has been your teacher for 20 or so years.

I'm not asking you to name the organization(s), although why that also remains undisclosed is also suspect. Why not? Other people on Wikipedia with conflicts of interest disclose that information. But, you do indeed need to state your specific role(s) within the organization that you yourself stated you have, so that others can fairly judge whether or not you are or are not exerting undue influence or breaking Wiki policies here. See the "Close Relationships" section of the COI policy. You may need to recuse yourself from these articles altogether, but no one can make this determination without proper information about your situation. Part of the COI policy also warns against advocacy and propaganda. That you participated in the many revisions of that COI policy also places you in a poor light, given you have stated your own conflict of interest here, on an article of a living person who also happens to be your friend, teacher, etc. The same goes for the fact that you played a large role in writing the policy of biographies of living persons. These kinds of things don't go on in the real world without a lot of scrutiny, and I don't think you have any good reasons to ignore the questions and requests that have been made of you regarding your COI, since you originally stated it in writing on the Prem Rawat talk page and on your user page. Avoiding the questions isn't acceptable by quoting the COI policy. Please answer. Sylviecyn 17:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I did answer. Copying it here.

I have already told you all I needed to tell you.

If you have concerns that I have breached any of these terms as outlined in WP:COI, please let me know:

Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when:::

1 editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,

2 participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,

3 linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

and you must always:::

4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, attribution, and autobiography.

(1) I am not editing this article besides making no-contentious edits, making minor edits, and applying BLP as advised by this guideline and the WP:::BLP policy. I am contributing via the talk page, encouraging interested editors to collaborate civilly and apply the content policies of WP.

(2) I am not participating in deletion discussions

(3) I am not spamming Wikipedia

(4) I am not breaching any content policies.

I would also like to bring to your attention this portion of the guideline:

Another case is within disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. When conflicts exist, invite the conflicted editor to contribute to the article talk page, and give their views fair consideration. (from WP:COI)

I have never used my administrator privileges in this article. If you have any concerns about abuse of admin privileges, you can report it at WP:ANI, where it will be evaluated by fellow administrators

So, if you have any specific incidents that you want to discuss, please provide diffs to support them.

Also note that as an editor of this encyclopedia, I have collaborated with other Wikipedians in the shaping and monitoring of its policies. If you have any concerns about these policies, you can raise them in corresponding the policies' talk pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sylviecyn, Wikipedia editors have a right to privacy. jossi is operating well within the WP:COI guidelines, and there is no reason for him to reveal any more information than he has already revealed. Please move on from this line of questioning, which itself is veering into policy-violation territory. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Also to the point, this is the talk page. If someone has a conflict of interest, and still wants to contribute, the talk page is exactly where that person should be editing. This is a good thing, not a bad thing, and Jossi's position in this regard is correct. Wikipedia allows pseudonymous and anonymous editing, and as long is it does, continued harassment such as this is not acceptable. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The point of Andries' proposal

The point of Andries' proposal was to respond to the GA review. As Vassyana noted - "The old version is a complete mess, especially in comparison. The new version is not perfect. However, I find the old version to be filled with bias and poorly written... Why not work on fixing the well-written and organized, if still flawed, revised version instead of trying to put back a poorly-written and organized version?" Andries disagreed and decided to rewrite the old flawed version. The result is we have Andries' version that is even longer and has not addressed many of the GA concerns which were addressed in the first proposal. After a brief spurt of activity, Andries' proposal has slowed to a crawl. I propose we replace the existing article with the first proposal until Andries' proposal addresses some of the pressing issues brought up in the GA review.Momento 21:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)