User talk:Steven Crossin/Prem Rawat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User Page User Talk Contribs E-mail Subpages Adoption Awards


Mediator Notes

  • As I said on the Prem Rawat page, I'd like editors in the dispute to write a "statement" of their current concerns/issues/points they would like addressed. Please do so below. Keep a cool head, be civil, focus on the content rather than the contributors, as much as possible. And, watchlist this page. Do it in a new section header, thanks. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 23:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that I should re-explain my request at Talk:Prem_Rawat#Declaration_of_agreement_to_proposal_by_mediator, as it seems necessary here.


  • I think there is some confusion on what I exactly meant. My request never asked for no changes at all to be made, that's just not how Wikipedia works, it's changes that are disputed, controversial, or are under discussion. Everyday, standard changes to an article, such as copyediting, are fine, but removing/adding content, changing section titles, basically, a change that will be disputed or controversial, should not be made prior to establishing a consensus, which is something I should determine. What I've just said will probably now be quoted, but it needs to be made clear. Controversial changes that are made, well, how about we just don't make them, and deal with them if, and when, they are made. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 00:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could agree to make no changes, but that would bring about discussion about very minute details, and it's really against the spirit of Wikipedia to say "make no edits at all", but it's more a "don't make edits you know others will disagree with" sort of thing, in this situation, anyway. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 00:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • BLP states that Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable, should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.. Note it says that if the content is unsourced or poorly sourced. I understand that at the present time, the quality of some sources is under dispute, but that is why it is under mediation, and removing or adding such content isn't in the spirit of mediation. It's generally accepted that in mediation cases, content of articles is under dispute, of course, that is why it's under discussion. See what I am saying here? Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 00:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi should remove all his unjustified abrasive comments

Whether on one of the Prem Rawat related talk pages, mediation related pages, WP:ANI or whatever, Jossi should remove his abrasive comments, derogating fellow Wikipedians. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi should withdraw from all Prem Rawat related content and discussion, since he wants to impose rules on others he doesn't care for himself, ordains others to do things as if he has to play the role of a mediator (even in instances where even a mediator would not ordain), and thus is at the root of most of the bad atmosphere.

If Jossi hadn't time and again shielded Momento with a tactic of baseless diversions, Momento would have learnt by now how to edit harmoniously, how consensus works etc. I see only one possibility, alas, and that is that Jossi stays away, indefinitely, from all Prem Rawat related content and discussions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit I quoted above, [2], was done without consensus, a spade is a spade. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever jossi's assessment of my edits (he's using the diversion tactics again), he didn't keep up with what he sees imperative for others. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit I quoted above, [3], was *controversial*, there's no other way to describe it. Whether it was "big" or "small" or "sooner" or "later", it was controversial at the time it was done, and jossi knew it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a living person too... you might forget. If jossi makes abrasive comments about me **and these comments are poorly sourced**, to the point of being just figments of his imagination, they should be removed from talk pages or whatever, as per the BLP policy. E.g. the contention that I would've been "... arguing acting in a way that shows an understanding that informal mediation is just informal and not binding", is still, currently, at Talk:Prem Rawat#Ex-premie.org revisited, based on what? - it should be removed without delay. Further candidates for immediate removal, "... clearly you did edited out of consensus and in abdication of your commitment not to do so" (he can't even write without typo's when baselessly insulting me); "Basically, had you not made that edit out of consensus, we could have been using all this time to continue collaborating in proposal pages. Instead, all this brouhaha, including a mini edit war, has ensued." You see what I'm getting at? --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • BLP applies to articles, where the civility and NPA policies cover comments and actions directed at editors. Also, two wrongs don't make a right, and making similar comments about Jossi when they are making comments about you, isn't the best thing to do,. Referring to he can't even write without typo's when baselessly insulting me, just above. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 00:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I'm a living person too, I hope you get that point. My first action now will be to remove all BLP-infringing content against my person from Talk:Prem Rawat#Ex-premie.org revisited (in fact I had hoped you would). Anyway, if it doesn't stay away there, I don't see much point in me contributing to this page here. Otherwise, my next move will be to remove possibly inappropriate material regarding jossi from this section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=219186433 (the first edit proposed by Steve above):

I commented on that edit here: Talk:Prem Rawat#Ex-premie.org revisited. I stand by my analysis there (WP:POINT), and by my objection to Jossi regarding the baseless diversions to obfuscate my comment.
Moving over my comments from Talk:Prem Rawat#Ex-premie.org revisited (the first of the diffs below is the one proposed for analysis by Steve):
I don't think we have a problem in understanding how WP:POINT applies to these two edits: 04:57, 14 June 2008 and 05:38, 14 June 2008, especially after what you presented as a reasoning above [4] — I'm requesting appropriate action. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[regarding the "reasoning" for the two contentious edits presented by Momento:] So, instead of dicussing the merits of an edit you decided to retaliate with an unrelated edit which you selected for being contentious, re-reverting to that edit within less than an hour? I'm not going to answer that, but it's not a rhetorical question. Mind WP:POINT though when answering. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=218884075 (the second edit proposed for comment by Steve above)

I commented on that edit here: [5], with this content:
BTW, for the indicated edits I felt covered by the outcome of these discussions (I participated in all of them):
Probably I should have given clear links to these discussions in the edit summaries.
I don't exclude that I might have misappreciated what looked to me (for all aspects of my edits) enough consensus for proceeding with the updates. The lack of content remarks, however, seems to indicate I didn't misinterpret anything. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=219154048&oldid=219147164 (the edit I proposed for comment above)

This edit should be discussed too, imho, and not just waived for whatever reason ("later"; "but others made edits too";...). --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the discussion can resume at a time when the other parties are availible for discussion, a discussion between the mediator and a single party would be better suited on my talk page. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 01:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resuming the discussion:
  • 16:08, 30 May 2008 Jossi writes on the talk page: "[...] segregating viewpoints based on their nature may be not the best of these ideas [...]"
  • 20:38, 13 June 2008 (that is the edit I propose for analysis) Jossi attempts to "segregate viewpoints based on their nature" for which there was nothing near to consensus at the time. Filibustering at best, but actually plain disruption. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jossi, please remove:

Compare with this edit by Francis, which triggered the whole brouhaha.

from your comment below, it is inappropriate. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I ask that Jossi stay away from all Prem Rawat related content and discussion. It was triggered 21:12, 14 June 2008 by "... clearly you did edited out of consensus and in abdication of your commitment not to do so ...", illustrating that, in real cross-examine style, jossi was not asking my answers, but found it mandatory I would have given his answers. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Reverting to stop reverts" is not a procedure that is likely to succeed. This has been discussed before. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve,

  1. Objecting to the idea of "reverting to protected version". This doesn't contribute in the least to the solution of the problem, it is just cosmetics to keep the article in limbo, I'm afraid.
  2. My commenting out of the objectionable material didn't keep [6] - I'm depending on you now to find a solution to get NPA/CIVIL/BLP-infringing material out there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your objection is noted, however, I did request that controversial changes not be made without consensus. It appears the recent changes to the article, have been controversial and/or disputed, this is what is apparent that the changes have been controversial and/or disputed. I've also discussed this with someone, and they too believe that it should be reverted, in the interests of the mediation, and I think the best course of action would be to revert to this version, which is basically this, with error corrections. Additionally, about the commenting out of Jossi's perceived uncivil, Jossi was correct in pointing out WP:RPA, this should only be done in extreme circumstances by an uninvolved administrator. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 02:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You read things in WP:RPA that aren't there: "this should only be done in extreme circumstances by an uninvolved administrator" isn't there, nor is it an acceptable summary of what is there (but true, I've heard jossi incorrectly paraphrase it that way). Please make sure you read for yourself what is in the actual policy, which is how it works. There's no problem, neither for you nor for jossi, nor for anyone else (except myself) to remove things I perceive as a personal attack against me. When I indicate I perceive them as a personal attack (while unfounded and directed at me) it's your (or jossi's,...) judgement call to check whether they are founded, and if not you're free to remove: in that case it's only about willing to remove or not. Jossi is gaming the system, he knows the allegations are unfounded: the only thing he knows is that by now they're sticking because he repeated them often enough, so you started to believe them too. Then all he had to do is help you a bit in misreading WP:RPA. I insist you remove what I perceive as unfounded badmouthing of me, unless where you can find a sure and sound basis for the correctness of the allegations. Typically, you should ask jossi for diffs, which he will not be able to provide because they aren't there. What is not supported by clear and unambiguous diffs, and yet is language that puts me in a bad light, I ask you to remove. Sorry for the compliment that is going to follow: you seem clever enough to handle that.
    • Re. reverting to this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=219186433&oldid=219184337 as you indicated above:
    • Re. "It appears the recent changes to the article, have been controversial and/or disputed, this is what is apparent that the changes have been controversial and/or disputed." - not my changes (apart from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=219154048&oldid=219147164 , but I continue to contend that is only due to jossi's error), so much you make clear regarding the version you want to revert to. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't about which version I wish to revert to. I will implement this, seems there is consensus for it. The other issues, well, this is really a no-win situation, but for now, we will just leave things as they are. Steve Crossin (contact) 06:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi's unjustified abrasive comments against John Brauns

Repeating John Brauns' request [7]:

BTW, I would appreciate if other editors would request that Jossi withdraw the serious allegation of defamation against [John Brauns], and that he should apologise.

I fully support that request by John. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starting again, on a new talk page

Objecting to the arrogant tone of this comment: [8] --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi refusing to take a hint

[9] [10] --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Momento (II)

And I object to this - Rawat's followers will serve him until their death or the day they become ex-premies. --John Brauns (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC).Momento (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jossi

I only ask that editors abide by the agreements they made in talk page, or publicly declare that they are abdicating on their original commitment. As it stands now, it becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible, to develop consensus and collaborate on material via the proposals page when the sword of Damocles of undiscussed and direct edits without consensus is hanging above editor's heads. This was the wording to which editors agreed to: [again] changes, have been made without consensus. This includes the removing and addition of content. So, here's what I propose. Let's take a topic, as in, a section of the article, and each of you write up your section on a proposals page. That way, each of you can write your own versions, and then, each version can be discussed, and a compromise can be negotiated. As for following consensus, I'd strongly advise all editors to refrain from making any controversial changes without consensus here. If this situation is not resolved, I reserve my privilege to call it when I see it ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit Francis refers to was rather minor edit I made later on, with no removal or addition of new content. Compare with this edit by Francis, which triggered the whole brouhaha. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see only one possibility, alas, and that is that Jossi stays away, indefinitely, from all Prem Rawat related content and discussions. That has been Francis request in the arbitration case, which did not yield anything close to that kind of restrictions on me (or any other individual for that matter), quite the contrary. Continuing to push that request after the long and protracted ArbCom case, is disruptive, most unwelcome, and bordering on harassment. Again, I am asking a very simple thing: To abide by the commitment made not to make substantial edits (be that additions or removal of material) without going through the proposal page format that we are now using quite successfully so far. As for Will Beback comment below, this is not a discussion about content, but about standards on how to address content disputes. The discussion about that material, as per any other material, should take place in the proposals pages as agreed, and within the context of developing a neutral and balanced "Reception" section for the main article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A way to move forward could be to revert to the version as of the last page protection, restoring any minor edits that took place after that, and move all the discussions to the appropriate proposal page discussion so that consensus can be sought, as well as re-iterate the agreement not to make major edits to the article without such discussions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may be an option, however it would be something I cannot obviously do myself. I am having a discussion with someone about this, I will discuss this again once I have been advised on the best course of action here. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 02:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Will Beback

My concern is that users are seeking to censor the name of an opposition website without adequate policy justification. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by John Brauns

As I have stated before the main problem with the Rawat articles is that there have been very few serious articles on him, and none since former followers started speaking out on the internet. Previous studies were all seriously flawed as inside information was not available, and researchers tended to trust unquestionably the statements of followers (there was, and still is, a culture of lying to outsiders). Until such a serious article is written, the Rawat article cannot hope to be an accurate portrayal of him. When Rawat started in the west his message was clear - he promised to reveal God face to face. Most of his followers believed he was God in human form, and certainly his followers and organisations presented him thus. Rawat himself did much to encourage that view and almost nothing to deny it. This is the only reason he achieved notability, and that fact should be front and center in the articles. There are good sources for that view such as Rennie Davis, the book 'Who is Guru maharaj Ji', and the magazines published by Divine Light Mission. In the meantime, my purpose in spending the little time I have available here is to counter current followers' more blatant POV pushing, and to try to prevent current followers libelling me and others by association. I have no personal connection whatsoever to marijuana growers in Australia (I am personally anti-marijuana), and those who disresepect the courts. There are, I am sure, many current followers who break the law, but I would not stoop so low as to suggest that Jossi, Momento or Rumiton should be associated with such people. I also believe that ex-premie.org should be recognised as a reliable source but I do not have the time to attempt to argue my case. --John Brauns (talk) 09:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Momento

The only question I have is how much of the transcripts and evidence of the trial should be included. We've given 8 lines to a 1972 incident that suggested illegality but didn't involve any court case or judgement. I would imagine the "ex-premie" case of Macgregor and Gubler would warrant it's own section with heading and maybe 30 lines at least, so I will make a start on it. I suggest John Brauns excuse himself from this topic as he is mentioned in court documents and must be mentioned in the article.Momento (talk) 22:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC) As for the suggestion above about reverting to this [11], I object. Francis made " controversial and/or disputed" edits without consensus on June 12th that were objected to by several editors. If mediation is to be successful is must treat all editors and all edits equally.Momento (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding this edit, which I suggested reverting to, that edit was the last edit before controverisal and/or disputed changes were made. I'll go through the edits, so they're explained.
  • This edit by me. Adding the content from This proposal, per the consensus established on the proposal discussion page.
  • This edit by Jossi, changed the alignment of an image from left to right.
  • This edit by Will, removing content from an image caption that couldn't be sourced, and that was tagged with {{fact}}.
  • This edit by Jossi, which you have disputed. It seems very clear that India still studying goods confiscated from youthful guru. New York Times, July 18, 1973, is the title of a news article in the New York Times. I can't understand why that's disputed. Steve Crossin (contact) 07:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These edits by Francis [12] were so "controversial and/or disputed" that several editors objected and they were the subject on an ANI initiated by you at 01:17, 13 June 2008 [13]. If you want to revert to "the last edit before controverisal and/or disputed changes were made ", you need to revert to here [14]. As for the four edits you discuss above I have not disputed any of them.Momento (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, Momento was the only one who posted an objection to the content of the edits, and that well-after Jossi had posted his complaints about the process. For the record, I didn't object to the edits and only asked the editor to revert himself in order to smooth the dispute. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly Will, you, Jossi and I asked Francis to revert his edits on the ANI and Rumiton objected to them on PR Talk but Francis refused to revert. Savlonn commented on the ANI that "the recent edit to the main article wasn't helpful to the goodwill around the current mediation". That sounds like a disputed edit to me.Momento (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will you revert your deletion of "ex-premie.org"? It is certainly disputed too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All "disputed" edits will be reverted if Steve goes back to here [15].Momento (talk) 23:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously, reverting is something I cannot personally do, being the mediator and all :) Steve Crossin (contact) 23:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, when you suggest reverting as you did above, please suggest reverting to here [[16]]. Which is before Farncis's disputed edits. Thanks.Momento (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from Macgregor's affidavit which was not examined by the court, in what court documents am I mentioned, and why would a leak of documents from a company in Australia, and a related contempt of court case not involving Rawat, be mentioned in an article on Rawat? For the record I received no communication from any court officer in that case nor did I make any communication. Momento's claim that I should excuse myself is simply absurd. --John Brauns (talk) 23:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that several editors see the "ex-premie" group as being sufficiently notable to include in the PR article means we should inform readers about them. Macgregor's affidavit is an excellent source about the "ex-premies" and how they operate. And just as Mishler and Hand are named as important critics so must important "ex-premie" critics as identified by Macgregor.23:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know who wrote this but I would just like to stress that there is no 'ex-premie group'. If a follower of Rawat in India rejects him and unilaterally writes some criticism of Rawat, including personal testimony, does such a person become part of the 'ex-premie group'? Obviously not, and that is basically what has happened. Followers of Rawat independently decide to reject him, speak out or don't speak out, but I can say with certainty, that such people have not yet formed a cohesive 'group'.--John Brauns (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Macgregor's article says "Then, slowly, other ex-premies materialised, including one who happened to have web design skills: www.ex-premie.org was born. As bits of information - recollections, documents, photos - trickled in to the web site from all over the world, an entirely new picture of the Perfect Master began to emerge". That's your website John and this about that website, the people who maintain it and use it and the court case about the activities of those people.Momento (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Macgregor is notable enough to be named then is his criticisms are notable enough to include. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.Momento (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will, do you actually mean 'affidavit', or was that a typo for 'article' ? If there is now serious support for using the unnotorized, untested in court, document then we need to have a separate structured discussion about it. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given my typing, it's always safe to assume a typo. ;) However I don't think I typed either word in reference to Macgregor. But since you ask, I don't think the affadavit it usable as a source. The Good Weekend article would count as a reliable source. My honest opinion is that if we can avoid gettig into the Macgregor issues for as long as possible our editing will be easier. Let's improve the article as much as we can and if we still need to bring in Macgregor for some reason we can discuss it then. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will, I admire you, and I admire your confidence that the difficult issues can be postponed, but you should understand that the sole reason Elan Vital went after Macgregor is because he was a respected, award-winning, journalist and had written an article detailing the well-corroborated criticisms of Rawat in a reputable publication. Macgregor sadly gave EV a way to get him by failing to respond to a court order, and further suffered through poor legal representation. His legal difficulties have nothing to do with me, my website, or the testimonies of other prominent former followers, and the efforts of the premies here to put former followers into a 'group' that they can then treat as all bigots treat the targets of their bigotry should be exposed as what it is. Let's focus on establishing whether the Good Weekend article is a reliable source, and lance this boil for once and for all. --John Brauns (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Macgregor was leading a carefree, unmolested life until he and Gubler illegally removed and used private information which you posted on your website. Quite rightly, the owners of the material objected to the disgusting breach of trust and went to court to stop it. The court agreed.Momento (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<<< I agree with Will here, and leave this issue out the discussion for a long while. A compromise that was presented early could work: e.g. not presenting any information about McGregor whatsoever. Other compromises could also be worked out, of course, but for now, lets focus on moving forward with the proposals on the table. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to make a start on the "ex-premies" as a part of a section called opposition. It will include early opposition in India Arya Samarj, Christian scholars in the west, Christian and Krishna's at Millennium, anti cult, totalitarian governments and illegal activities of "ex-premies".Momento (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Momento, considering the vast majority of former followers are law abiding why on earth would you specify illegal activities of ex-premies and not the legal activities of ex-premies? Does anyone detect a little bigotry here? --John Brauns (talk) 10:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no information about the ex-premies other than breaking the law.Momento (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Steven_Crossin/Prem_Rawat&oldid=1144577091"