User talk:Enigmafay

Welcoming myself to Wikipedia!

Hello, Enigmafay, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help.We're so glad you're here! Enigmafay (talk) 10:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Straw Poll

Please consider participating in the straw poll at Talk:Satyananda Saraswati#Straw poll on "Controversy" section. -- Rrburke (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Satyananda Saraswati‎

This is a final warning. You may disagree with the consensus at Satyananda Saraswati‎ but I'm afraid that you will have to accept that you are in the minority. Editing here is a privilege and if you continue to behave disruptively you will be blocked. Thank you for your attention. Philg88 ^♦talk 17:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are in error to believe that my behaviour is disruptive. I can taken part in all discussions and I have brought many arguments which have not been discussed nor taken into consideration. Instead of promoting a neutral point of view, you chose to make a quick Straw Poll that was actually very destructive to the discussions and to the consensus. I have the right to express my opinion and that is that including the allegations paragraph compromises the neutrality of the article.

You are also not taking into consideration that I tried to edit the paragraph in a way that would satisfy both parties. But my edits were deleted. I consider those deletions disruptive. Wikipedia is not a democracy, it should work on consensus but there is no such one. And your poll definitely contributed to ruining all discussions. You are wrong to judge my behavor as disruptive and you are obviously influenced by the users who are attacking me personally and not arguments. Which makes you a bad administrator. Enigmafay (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are being disruptive now

Your current behavior will lead to you getting you blocked. Just because you don't agree with the consensus, you can't keep on removing other's edits. Its better for you to limit yourself to talk page, if you want to continue to have any say. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 17:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vigyani is being disruptive

The consensus is not real, because the poll was created and closed within a short period of time. I barely got to vote on it and most people did not get a chance. If you wish to see the real consensus, stop making personal accusations and re-open the poll. Enigmafay (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Separating Fact from Fiction[edit]

The Royal Commission - Swami Satyananda refuting sexual abuse allegations

It is worth noting that the Royal Commission is not a court of law and does not exercise judicial power, although its powers may be coercive, denying the basic legal rights afforded ordinarily in a court of law http://www.smh.com.au/comment/extraordinary-powers-come-with-weapon-in-pms-armoury-20140210-32cpw.htm .

Testimonies in a Royal Commission and the opinion of a commissioner do not carry any direct legal consequences. As is stated in the High Court of Victoria, Australia

If (a) Commissioner were to report that he is of the opinion or that he finds that a person has contravened a law, the report would carry no legal consequence; (Victoria v ABCE & BLF 1982 152 CLR 25 (Brennan J at 154))

On the other hand, in an ordinary court of law the standards for the rules of evidence, and one’s protection against self-incrimination apply. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-31/royal-commission-questions-gillards-professional-conduct/5858466

The testimonies from witnesses heard in case study 21, Satyananda Yoga Ashram - Mangrove Mountain Ashram at the recent Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse should not be relied upon as facts to support unproven allegations of sexual abuse against Swami Satyananda.

They are individual testimonies given to the Royal Commission as one’s personal account of events as they allegedly happened 30 years ago, and therefore should be treated with caution.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/industrial-relations/julia-gillard-tackles-union-royal-commission-witnesses/story-fn59noo3-1227110275976

It has been noted, that in the past, the legitimacy of different Royal Commission recommendations have been brought into question http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2014/s4152609.htm

Reporting unproven allegations as fact carries severe damage to an organisation such as the case study involving the Salvation Army after it was investigated by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (case study 5). http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-22/salvation-army-reputation-declines-after-child-sex-abuse-inquiry/5983508

Confusing individual testimonies* as factual accounts which have not been proven in a court of law may inadvertently create more untruths: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-01/berg-shining-a-light-on-the-dangers-of-royal-commissions/5562354

There are times when the legitimacy of the Royal Commission findings has been placed in doubt. http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2014/s4152609.htm

Where real reform from Royal Commissions reports has failed to be implemented http://www.acu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/241019/Prasser_and_Aroney_Fitzgerald_Inquiry_Griffith_Law_Review.pdf

There have been times when the Royal Commission reports have been completely rejected and the credibility of the Royal Commission questioned http://www.smh.com.au/national/failure-to-deal-with-kathy-jackson-undermines-credibility-of-royal-commission-20141219-12aof9.html http://www.afr.com/p/national/cfmeu_rejects_royal_commission_findings_1NhksjinxuMrjFXarOpMPJ

In addition, there are instances where the findings from Royal Commissions have been ignored by governments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission

Finally, a clear distinction needs to be made between what Royal Commission testimonies are and their legal standing and what testimonies submitted and proven to be factual in a court of law are, to avoid the serious damage and repercussions that unproven allegations, accusations and speculation that may arise during a Royal Commission case study, may cause for the organisation involved.

Testimony based on another’s account as is seen in APR’s statement, “It was only in listening to the statement of Bhakti Manning yesterday that…….I have a non-distinct memory of my initiation” Royal Commission witness APR(106:11094)http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/bc75afe3-4a12-41be-983d-f9db256f6260/case-study-21,-december-2014,-sydney

Consensus as an outcome of a poll is unacceptable especially when you don't allow people time to find out about it and vote, Re open the poll, Read my texts

January 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. If you have evidence any admin, including myself, is working in collusion then you present that evidence. Nthep (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make any personal attacks. All I said was that I read the deleted text and wonder whether that could be true. If you are referring to the facebook group, I saw it with my own eyes, before they made the group "closed". So its my ALLEGATION that the owners of those facebook groups are here in wikipedia with help of admins distorting the article. YOU ARE INCLUDING THE UNPROVEN ALLEGATIONS ON THE MAIN ARTICLE, WHY ARE YOU AFRAID OF MY ALLEGATION ON THE TALK PAGE? Because it has not been included on a couple of tabloids? I could easily arrange for that.

On the contrary, it is obvious for everyone to see, that we have here a group of users that are attacking me, just because they cannot comment on the huge amounts of texts that I have contributed on the talk page. I have contributed the greatest quantity of text and arguments and all the other users are doing are trying to provoke me by making personal remarks, by passing judgments about me. I was not aware that I am on trial and on who's authority this will be decided. I know for sure, that the administrators who chose, or were called to interfere, are not handling the issue effectively nor objectively.

I am new to wikipedia but I am sure there is a system to report administrators for not being effective or objective. Enigmafay (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You made an allegation not backed up by any sources that administrators (of whom I'm one) are colluding in preserving a version of the page that you obviously don't agree with. Without substantiation that is a personal attack and in the vernacular "Put up or shut up".

On the article you appear to be confusing the reporting of the allegations which seems perfectly reliable with a decision about the veracity of those allegations, which is not currently substantiated or disproven. Those are totally different things and anyone claiming that the allegations are true is way short of the mark on what has been said and it's entirely likely that they can never be proven one way or the other. That allegations have been made, though, appears to be beyond question and edits that have been made by you and others trying to eliminate this content from the article are incorrect. The policy of WP:UNDUE does need to be applied and the way the allegations have been written at times does not meet this policy and has been excessive - in my opinion, but that does not mean that they should be removed altogether. Nthep (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Threatening me and comment on my arguments on the talk page

When this all started, we were instructed to discuss. So I did, and I presented all my points numerous times, in many ways, formal and informal on the talk page.

What was the outcome of the discussion?

In my view the outcome was that none of the administrators took the time to evaluate what is the best for the readers of wikipedia. The admins were influenced by the quantity and not the quality of the people who are taking part in this dispute.

I do not think that you or anybody can decide what is being included in an article by making a quick poll, where only 10 people participated.

The whole atmosphere behind this dispute is negative and if you check the comments you will find plenty of personal attacks towards me.

I said what I read on the history page, and I also said that I hope its not true, because if people come out with proof, it is going to have a very negative impact on wikipedia.

I will certainly continue to say my opinion and edit the article accordingly.

I would expect serious comments on my texts on the talk page, but all I was getting was threats and attacks.

Moreover, I also took the time to edit the allegations paragraph in a way that would satisfy both parts of this dispute. But these people kept deleting my additions. Because they did not suit their agenda. What would you recommend me to do? To accept this?

I cannot understand how neither you nor anyone else, has the common sense to understand that there is a reason behind these edits. Enigmafay (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings are not threats. Weegeerunner (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Enigmafay. Thank you. Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 02:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Satyananda Saraswati is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIPA

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

EdJohnston (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi editor, I would like to draw your attention and politely request you to ignore the bickering on this page. It is just another website and is not important in the way you might me perceiving it currently. I have zero info on the subject nevertheless I strongly dislike the way the editor K is preaching and passing judgement and tells you to "dump him, and find another Guru" and "you are wasting time". He is deliberately being insulting and provocative. That is what perhaps he has learned at home, his arrogance is his trait, you can choose to overlook it. In summary, forget this page, don't fight, not worth it at all and your actions are reflection of your nature, irrespective what others are doing. Choose to be calm and even ignore things that are only going to lead to undue tension. Take a stand where it matters. --AmritasyaPutra^T 07:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Viruswitch, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

User:Vigyani 12:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Viruswitch (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mike V • Talk 20:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Enigmafay (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I request to see the evidence that led to me being blocked. This is my only personal account for wikipedia and I don't wish to create a new one. You have blocked a lot of users, some of which I know personally, under the Viruswitch investigation. I have evidence of at least 3 usernames blocked that belong to people living in different cities, and different countries. Therefore I wonder how you reached the conclusion that I have a double account. It is quite clear that my account was attacked and falsely accused by the people who refused to discuss and counter my arguments on the talk pages. I wish that my block is investigated by an independend administrator who was not involved and has not taken sides in the dispute over the unproven sexual allegations that you stubbornly allow to display on Swami Satyananda's wikipedia page. What is also remarkable, is that the user who applied to me being blocked, did this only for personal revenge. As I was not involved in edits, but was solely discussing the situation. There is a lot of hatred here on wikipedia and I feel that I have been severely cyber-bullied. Enigmafay (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a checkuser block and, as such, can only be removed by an admin with checkuser ability. If you wish to argue the evidence, which you will not be permitted to inspect, I suggest you e-mail the checkuser concerned. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.