User talk:Dseer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Ekajati/A Ramachandran/Hanuman Das Sockpuppetry

User:Ekajati Suspected sockpuppeteer Ekajati (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Suspected sockpuppets Chai Walla (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) Baba Louis (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Report submission by --Pigmantalk • contribs 01:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence Ekajati (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is under a two month ban for sockpuppetry. Currently confirmed sockpuppets of Ekajati are Hanuman Das (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), A Ramachandran (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), and Tunnels of Set (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). Hanuman Das changed his account name and was previously under the user name Adityanath (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). While still under the Adityanath account, two accounts were found to be sockpuppets of the Adityanath account: Baba Louis (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Chai Walla (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). See here for findings.

Since Hanuman Das is a sockpuppet of Ekajati, then accounts found to be sockpuppets of Hanuman Das are therefore socks of Ekajati.

As of 1/29/2007, Chai Walla is working on Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath [1]. This means Ekajati is using this sock to evade the ban.

[edit] RFC

Please comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/ForrestLane42.

[edit] Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

While you are the only one of the three parties to not receive a 3RR block, you did aggravate the situation by continually reverting this article. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Having blocked two contributors for edit warring, it is really not my place to comment on the nature of the dispute itself. However I will point out that countering aggressive reversion with aggressive reversion is unlikely to accomplish anything and that all content disputes have a limited lifespan. This reply might seem a little frustrating and oblique, but I really do wish you good luck in resolving the argument. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] comments on TM etc

Hi Dseer, Was interested in your experience with the TM people, although I didn't understand it all. What is COI? I have found it's a waste of time trying to do anything at the TM article. They think they own it and they don't want anyone trespassing on their property (mind you, there are similar problems at other articles). Can you tell me a bit more about your experiences with them, starting with an explanation of COI. In my case, I typed in a passage about the TM mantras, which was more or less critical of TM, and they deleted it straightaway. No amount of discussion makes any difference with these people, even if they concede some of my points. They're a waste of time. There is a problem at Wiki with people I call landlords; they think they own the article and they don't like trespassers. There's own at the Siddha Yoga article too. Neilrobertpaton 08:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll put a copy of my reply here to as well as on your page, in case others have questions about what I am doing.

Yep! What you are describing is the results of rampant WP:COI, Conflict of Interest and article ownership, which they probably don't even fully recognize themselves. Yes, when I looked into it further and checked the history, I realized an organizational cabal of at least a half-dozen plus TM advocates, sympathizers closely associated with TM, many employed by TM, has totally taken over the TM related articles and suppresses any real dialogue. One has already lectured me on my Talk page on their intended consequences if I persist, after a "friendly" notice didn't work, which didn't surprise me really since I had comprehended what they are up to. Discussions are demonstrably a sham and a pretext designed to get nowhere with endless talks and trivial points of contention while pretending to dialogue so they stay under the radar, as others have pointed out. I got a friendly email from TimidGuy, and at first he seemed open to discussion and the idea that some criticism with rebuttal would be allowable. I wasn't that familiar with what I now see is clearly a cult, but I should have known better than to fall for a variation of the "love bomb" technique. After I saw how tendaciously they were responding with one issue after another, I did some checking and came upon this site: [1], and I saw how TM still threatened and went after a Professor known to be very sympathetic to that type group and that I was just addressing endless talking points that TimidGuy and the others see and can learn to talk from in their Maharishi University. I now understand what I am dealing with here. There is no point in trying dialogue with those whose only ideas come from canned cultic PR, no matter how nice they try to appear and how much they accuse you of bad faith, in fact, discussions with them gives a false sense of legitimacy to their efforts. So I wisely stopped playing their game. Anyway, when dealing with those who have an obvious Conflict of Interest and whose personal and financial interests are served by making a group grow, trying to be nice doesn't work, you need to report them to the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard for others to comment, which I did, as you can see here: [[2]]. If more neutral editors keep pointing it out there, eventually it may get enough attention. Ideally, once you see this type of Cabal, you want to build a case that Arbcom can look at, because in extreme cases they have banned COI editors before even when they used the excuse they were "experts" on the practices. Right now, I think that the general assumption is that it isn't that important because most people will recognize yogic flying for what it is and steer clear of the group, even though the article is mostly TM propaganda.

It is interesting BTW to see what Maharishi's more traditionally respected guru, Guru Dev, actually taught, and see the big differences, one big difference being his own guru refused donations, another being that his guru did not teach mantras in isolation. But then after more research I've done after starting at the article, it turns out evidence shows Maharishi was actually only the guru's secretary, was not initiated to the higher levels being ineligible to replace him, and it seems likely was able to exploit the succession turmoil and his secretarial position after the guru died to start out on his own. On a lighter note, if one actually takes the Maharishi's early teaching seriously about special mantras being useful for householders in prospering materially rather than spiritually, it would be amusing if Maharishi was doing just that, since his guru was very specific that meditation should not be taught based on money. Maybe he's really selling his soul for material wealth. :-). --Dseer 18:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TM again

Hi, me again, Have been thinking about TM article and as far as I know, you can request that a particular article be deleted. In the case of TM, there is every reason to have it deleted. 1. it violates COI because they're employed by TM, 2. it violates NPOV because anyone can see they're biased, 3. they violate Attibution guidelines, which state that lack of attribution does NOT justify the deletion of a contribution, if the matter could be cleared up with some discussion. So, there are at least 3 grounds for applying to have the article deleted. I'm not sure where to start, but it seems to me that the two of us could both apply to have it deleted, but apply separately, about a week apart, because if we both apply at the same time it will look trumped up. What do you think? I'm game if you are. Neilrobertpaton 12:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Me again. The link for article deletion is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion

Tell me what you think. Neilrobertpaton 13:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)