Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-07 Prem Rawat Named Critic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

Article: Prem Rawat State: Closed Requested By: Nik_Wright2 Mediated By: TheRingess

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2007-01-07 Prem Rawat Named Critic 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 1.4 Discussion 1.4.1 Comments by Jossi (talk · contribs) 1.4.2 Response to comments by Jossi from Nik Wright2 (talk · contribs) 1.4.3 Reply by Jossi

[edit] Mediation Case: 2007-01-07 Prem Rawat Named Critic

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Nik Wright2 11:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Please refer to User talk:Nik_Wright2

...

Who's involved?

Jossi appears to have nominated himself - however if Jossi and the other pro Rawat editors are correct in their assertions the dispute appears to be between me and Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nik Wright2 (talk • contribs)

Mediator Comment Hello Nik. I'm not sure that I would use the phrase "nominated himself". Jossi is merely a fellow editor that has chosen to participate in this discussion. Several other editors may also chose to participate. Most often the creator of a mediation page lists the persons involved; a lot of mediation pages are created after discussions become stalled. Also, in my opinion, it's counter productive to classify fellow editors as either "pro Rawat" or "con Rawat". The policies of Wikipedia allow anyone to edit any article (as long as their edits conform to the Wikipedia:Five pillars. Our discussion here is only about the material in the article. The purpose of a discussion like this is to build consensus about the material. The particular beliefs and or motives a fellow editor may or may not hold regarding the subject of this article (or any other article for that matter) are not of interest. Since this is an informal mediation process, the only actions taken when the discussions are finished, will be taken by you and the other interested editors who choose to participate. Please read over Jossi's comments below and respond to them. Thanks.TheRingess 16:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

...

Response to Mediator Comment Please understand I am not anybody's "fellow editor" - I am engaged in this process only because I have no other recourse to address an unfairness which happens to impact directly upon me. This unfairness lies solely with Wikipedia - I did not seek out Wikipedia - Wikipedia links to (defamatory) material about me. I have no intention of playing the game that we are all working to some greater good - I simply want resolution of Wikipedia's unfair treatment of me. As to naming Jossi - the only name I'm concerned about as a 'respondondent' is Wikipedia - which is the entity I have an argument with. Indeed I would regard any 'editor' who refuses to have included in a biography about Prem Rawat, any mention of the activities of two men who were amongst the closest advisors of the adolescent Rawat, and who subsequently both presented major obstacles to Rawat's message, as not merely partial but irredeemably biased. For anyone interested in how the Rawat movement dealt with a) attempted murder b) child rape see: Mahatma Fakiranand [1] and Mahatma Jagdeo [2] 18:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)~

Mediator Comment Based on your statement, it seems to me, that this informal mediation case will not meet your needs. This mediation process is for nothing but reaching consensus. I might suggest that you contact the WikiMedia foundation as a next step. I do not know where the contact information can be found off hand, but I'm sure if you search around you can find it.TheRingess 18:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

What's going on?

...

What would you like to change about that?

...

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

...

[edit] Mediator response

There has been no activity on this case for over 2 weeks. So I feel it is fair to close it. According to statements made by the creator, I believe that mediation was not what they really wanted. They seemed to want some sort of resolution that mediation could not give and did not involve wikipedia's policies. That is just my opinion. I consider this case closed.TheRingess 05:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Comments by Jossi (talk · contribs)

1. I do not see any such person mentioned in the article. There is a mention on a PDF that is not directly linked from the article, but available from a page that is linked. That PDF is an affidavit signed by a person not associated with the organization that made it available on their website.
2. The user complains that "Elan Vital which identifies me as a critic of Prem Rawat", but that is incorrect. The identification was made by the person that signed the affidavit, and not by Elan Vital.
3. The user complains of "profuse links" to that web page. There is only one link on an article and a few others in talk page archives. See weblinks
4. The article has been edited by a myriad of editors over a period of more than two and a half years, and not jut by "adherents" as claimed.
5. The reference to a characterization as "hate group" was removed by me few days ago and is no longer present in any of the related articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Given this comment, Mr. Wright2 may need to be advised by the mediator about the mediation process, as he seems be unaware of how it works, and may have expectations that the Mediation Cabal will not be able to fulfill. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to comments by Jossi from Nik Wright2 (talk · contribs)

I do not see any such person mentioned in the article. There is a mention on a PDF that is not directly linked from the article, but available from a page that is linked. That PDF is an affidavit signed by a person not associated with the organization that made it available on their website.

1. I have never suggested that I was 'mentioned in the article'. Any recognition that there are active critics of Rawat is has been routinely expunged and all links to critic's websites have been removed by pro Rawat editors.

2. The notion that a file which links directly from a Wikipedia link, is not somehow linked from Wikipedia is sheer sophistry.

3. The proposition that an affidavit which names as Applicant the CEO (George Laver) of the Elan Vital operated IRCC, has no association with Elan Vital because the affidavit is signed by someone who (although he had for many years previously) currently has no association with Elan Vital, is patently absurd.

The user complains that "Elan Vital which identifies me as a critic of Prem Rawat", but that is incorrect. The identification was made by the person that signed the affidavit, and not by Elan Vital. The user complains of "profuse links" to that web page. There is only one link on an article and a few others in talk page archives.

4. The proposition that Elan Vital is somehow divorced from the responsibility of publishing the 'affidavit' on its web site is absurd. Elan Vital does not run a free speech forum, all the material that appears on its site is edited and approved by Elan Vital. An affidavit is not an expression of opinion it is supposedly an affirmation of 'the truth'. If that affirmation is false then any derogatory statement within it is defamatory.

The document presented by Elan Vital claims to be an affidavit - however there is no identification of who the Notary was. There is a claim that the document is lodged with a Court but no case number is given. The name of a respondent is given but no evidence that the respondent has ever received notice of any serving of papers. Most importantly there is no evidence given that the affidavit has ever been tested by the Court where it is claimed the document has been lodged.

Mediator Comment I struck out a paragraph here that basically purported to reveal personal information about a fellow editor. Fellow editor's should not be revealed here or anywhere else on Wikipedia without their express permission. Given the writer's unfamiliarity with Wikipedia policy, I will chalk it up to a beginner's mistake.TheRingess 19:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

5. More sophistry is being used in the matter of the links. All the pro Rawat websites interlink, in fact they are in effect a webring. Although an argument could be advanced that the various Rawat promoting organisations are separate entities, they are clearly part of a single 'conglomerate'. Funds are frequently moved between the various Elan Vital's [3] while the relationship between The Prem Rawat Foundation and the Elan Vital organisations is multi layered. Brad Griffin, a Director of TPRF has a long standing involvement with IRRC (Ivory's Rock Conference Centre) - at one time Griffin served as head of construction at IRCC. Other TPRF directors have held board positions within the US Elan Vital. The IRCC management company is owned by the Australian Elan Vital (see above re: affidavit) while the land on which the Conference Centre company operates was bought by Prem Rawat personally through an off shore vehicle - Myrine Investments, and was supported by donations by followers, and now according Elan Vital, the ownership of Myrine shares is lodged with TPRF. Some of the pro Rawat websites that are linked from Wikipedia have no clear 'ownership' however they all promote the same party line as the named Elan Vital sites and or feed back to Elan Vital sites. Visions International is a subsidiary of the US Elan Vital .

Mediator Comment Per request from jossi (see below), I've reviewed the material in point #5. In my opinion, the material is not relevant for this discussion. The purpose of this discussion is to do nothing more than build consensus. I am not deleting it, in order to make it clear that fellow editors may wish to show it's relevancy.TheRingess 19:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The article has been edited by a myriad of editors over a period of more than two and a half years, and not jut by "adherents" as claimed.

6. I have not claimed that the only editors of the Rawat articles have been adherents of Rawat - what is the case however is that contrary views have been 'policed out' of the articles leaving an anodyne advertisement for Rawatism. It is ironic (and manifestly unfair) that the only information about Rawat's current critics that Wikipedia links to, is that given by Elan Vital.

Nik Wright2 18:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply by Jossi

All these comments are Mr. Wright2's opinions on a subject that it is not at the core of what is being discussed. The issue at hand is if the inclusion of a web link on an article whose linked page includes an affidavit by a third party filed with the Supreme Court of Queensland, in which Mr Wright2 is mentioned, is compliant with Wikipedia content policies or not.

Mr. Wright2 forgets also to mention that he is the author of one or more pages in the websites he claims are "broadly representative of [his] views".

As for Mr. Wright2's assertion about criticism of Prem Rawat being "policed out" I would draw the attention to a full article Criticism of Prem Rawat in which criticism sourced to reliable sources is explored in detail. That article is a spin-off article from the main article as per Wikipedia:Content forking as it pertains to "summary articles." (The mediator may want to also note that there is a merge proposal made by several editors). Mediator comment Duly noted. I want to suggest that as part of the compromise offer that the interested editors follow up on the merge proposals in a timely manner. I will add that to the compromise offers section when all interested editors feel that they have reached consensus.TheRingess 19:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Mr. Wright2's point (5), I state my objection to the use of this informal mediation process as a platform to voice Mr. Wright2's opinions on the subject, as per WP:NOT, and request from the mediator to refactor it from this page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediator Comment Thank you Jossi for bringing this to my attention. I am new to the process of serving as a mediator. I concur that comment #5 is not relevant in the context of this case. As I see it, this case exists to build consensus and the information contained in that comment is not relevant or necessary to the process. I will strike it out.TheRingess 19:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I checked the text in question in the article, and there is no mention of this affidavit. The mention of the affidavit was removed last year after a discussion that included a discussion about the lack of reliable sources on the subject of the small group of "current critics." The result of that discussion was the removal of the affidavit information as well as links to the personal websites mentioned by Mr Wright 2. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)