User talk:PatW

Request for Arbitration

You have been named as a party at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Prem Rawat ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

just a note...

Hey where are all the flames on this page? I expected there to more here! :) Anyways, I just wanted to say, regardless of it's acceptability/appropriateness/whatever on the PR discussion page, that as a historian I found your related experiences that you recently posted to be quite interesting and somewhat enlightening. Generally speaking, I see problems with any group who uses secrecy as a primary tool against scrutiny. Thanks again.-- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom case

You have linked the wrong archive for my comments about formal mediation. The evidence should point to Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive_25#Mediation. Vassyana (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been noticeably yet tolerably uncivil at the Prem Rawat case pages, but this comment in particular is manifestly inappropriate. I have blocked you from editing for 24 hours; if after that time you continue to be unable to state your case without resorting to such comments then you will be blocked again. --bainer (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Resources on former MPs

There's a welter of easily available information on former Members of Parliament. You will find basic information on their career in most large reference libraries. All MPs have been included in "Who's Who", and on their death are removed to "Who Was Who" with a note of the date of their passing. If they do not have the print version, then there is an online database to which libraries subscribe. In addition, M. Stenton and S. Lees published in 1979-81 a four volume set called "Who's Who of British MPs" which is compiled from entries in the specialist "Dod's Parliamentary Companion". Your grandfather's entry in this book goes like this:

CLARKE, Frank Edward. Canmore, 33 Park Crescent, Erith, Kent. St. Andrew's. S. of Herbert William Clarke, Esq., of Erith, Kent, Merchant and Accountant. B. 21 November 1886; m. 18 April 1914, Hilda Mary, d. of Harold Strickland, Esq., of Dartford. Educ. at Dartford Grammar School, and at the University of London. An Industrialist. Managing Director of Herbert W. Clarke and Sons (Erith) Limited; a Freeman of the Port of London; J.P., and County Councillor for Kent, Alderman 1938; Chairman of Erith Urban District Council Finance Committee. Commissioner of Boy Scout Movement for 21 years. Commodore of Erith Yacht Club. A Unionist. Elected for the Dartford division of Kent in October 1931 and again in November 1935. Sat until his death on 12 July 1938.

For more interesting information on the Parliamentary career of MPs, The Times Digital Archive is a very valuable resource. Most public libraries have a subscription, and some allow their members off-site access. The Times covered all Parliamentary proceedings in this era, often including lengthy summaries of speeches. A search of "Clarke Dartford" brings up some interesting references and his Times obituary (13 July 1938). The full record of Parliamentary proceedings, Hansard, is only in the very biggest libraries (it's on open shelves in the Social Sciences part of the British Library) but is the place to go for the full monty. You need a reader's ticket to get in so this is not always practical.

Hansard is in the process of digitising its records but there is an experimental site which has a patchy online record of what has been done so far. It's here; I wasn't able to find anything on Frank Clarke in it but more information may be added later. Other sources to try, if you can get access to them, are the published diaries of active politicians of the period. As Frank Clarke was a Unionist, you might try 'Chips' Channon. Local newspapers from Dartford and Erith will be in the British Library's Newspaper Library at Colindale in North London, and probably in local history departments in Bexley as well; they will have reported on the activities of their MP. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette

Like any group, Wikipedia has norms of behavior. One of these is to "comment on the edit, not the editor". It's OK to say "that was a stupid edit", it's not OK to say "you are stupid for making that edit". I'd like to say that Wikipedia values terseness in talk page comments, but that's not always the case. However I can say that long comments often don't get read fully. Lastly, remember that the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss improvements to the articles. It's not to discuss the other editors, and it's not even to disucs the subject of the article. It's OK to say, "We need to add more material to this article about the Belgian sneak attacks", it's not OK to say, "I think the Belgians like sneak attacks" unless that's part of a comment about improving the article.

Being a successful editor on Wikipedia means working with an arcane and constantly shifting set of rules. More than that, it requires patience. This is a long-term project. It's more important to stick around and keep being a productive contributor than to win one heated battle and then retire or get banned. This style of editing isn't for everyone, but I hope you'll make more of an effort to comply with the standards here because if you don't then you may find yourself banned. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Will. I'll be more careful to comply with standards. Not exactly sure what particular comments inspired your feedback but I'm guessing I'm a little too 'long' and a little too 'strong' over on Talk Prem Rawat again.PatW (talk) 07:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I see Jossi put you up to this latest criticism of me [1]. PatW (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Evidence presented did not disclose a history of problematic editing, in terms of basic content policy, by Jossi, and the Committee commended Jossi's self-imposed restriction to edit only talk pages for Prem Rawat related articles. Due to a history of incivility and personal attacks surrounding articles related to the Prem Rawat movement, the preexisting community enforced one-revert rule on Prem Rawat and related articles that commenced March 4, 2008, has been superceeded by Arbitration Committee enforced article probation. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Personal attacks of this type are inappropriate.[2] Wikipedia is not a battleground. If you want to contribute in a collegial manner then you are welcome but not if you engage in personal attacks on other editors. You have received warnings before, including from me. The ArbCom decision calls on editors who are disruptive to be banned from editing certain articles. Because you reverted yourself promptly I am not requesting enforcement now. I will do so the next time I see a similar remark. Consider this a final warning. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Even this kind of edit is unhelpful:[3]. If your comment isn't about the article or edits to the article, then it's better if you don't post it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting quite a collection of 'final warnings'! I guess there's some wisdom in not 'rising to the bait'. Ruminton himself makes his best stab at a personal attack but you're only reprimanding me (the recipient) for taking him up on it. OK. It would appear you support Ruminton's accusation that 'The record shows you have contributed nothing of value to the article and have constantly sniped at those trying to improve it.' I think that's a shame and not a little insulting but you're entitled to your opinions.PatW (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Both of you need to stop it. I only learned of your posting because Rumiton drew my attention to it, and I hadn't noticed Rumiton's posting until you pointed it out. I'm not reviewing everything anyone writes about this topic - I've got 10,000 other pages on my watchlist. When I see, or am told about, inappropriate behavior I do what I can to get it to change. If requests and warnings aren't successful in preventing disruption then the community has to take action. I hope that requests and warnings are sufficient. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 3. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 05:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Jossi's pages

PatW, please leave Jossi's userpage and talk page alone. Your edits are, at best, unhelpful. Thank you. Risker (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I find it highly ironic that Jossi, after years of reprimanding me for using my userpage as a place to expound my views now leaves some kind of 'Self-Epitaph' (on which he clearly still philosophises from beyond the grave as it were). It's also quite scary to observe his ghost arise from the grave to, yet still, desperately erase 'disrespectful' graffiti from its own headstone.PatW (talk) 03:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but I am not here to talk about Jossi's behaviour, I am here to point out that your behaviour is problematic. Jossi has said that he is leaving, and I will take him at his word for it. I trust you will stay off his user and user talk pages; it would be far more charming if you were not to refer to them as his grave and his headstone, but I suppose that is a matter of taste. Risker (talk) 03:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes - poor taste. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I echo Pat's sentiments very strongly. I wouldn't bother to waste my time to post anything on Jossi's precious userpage, but before you wag your fingers at PatW, you ought to familiarize yourself with the vast history of Jossi's NPAs over four years against everyone he has ever considered his opponent and enemy on Wikipedia, particularly on the Prem Rawat articles. Of course, there are no official "NPA" warnings, because Jossi has always gotten away with them -- for four years! Like when he's called PatW, many others, and myself "hate group" members, trolls, and worse, without any whisper of concern or warning from Wikipedians, much less a formal warning to Jossi about his behavior, while he's changed Wikipedia policies in order to favor his own personal goals here on the Prem Rawat articles. It's a very, very good thing that Jossi is "retiring" in my opinion and it's long overdue. Btw, I noticed you didn't admonish Jossi for calling PatW a troll and an ax-grinder in his edit summary. How typical. That's what Jossi has been doing all along -- getting away with name-calling, stalking people around Wikipedia to intimidate them (he did it to me many times), and he's always gotten away with it. What is it with your double-standard, favoritism mentality, as well as your need to censor people on Wikipedia? Sorry if I'm not being "helpful," (boohoo) But I've had more than enough of Wikipedian favoritism for Jossi and his very bad behavior, which has hurt many people, including PatW.  !!! Sylviecyn (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Folks who label other editors working in good faith as "trolls and axe-grinders" tell us more about themselves than about the other editors. It's not necessary to make a fuss about it. Anyway, "retirements" from Wikipedia tend to be temporary. I'd be surprised if this one outlasts the ArbCom case by more than a month or two. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This would be a much better encyclopedia if everyone who ever announced they were 'retiring' actually did so... too bad we don't have some sort of one-way exit that won't let folks back in... Dlabtot (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne and Risker. Why can't you let Jossi's opponents have their say?

In response to those paragons of good taste who frown on my bad behaviour I have this to say:

• You don't understand because you weren't victims of either Jossi or Prem Rawat. Some of us feel very strongly that Jossi is simply Rawat's representative on Wikipedia and have long objected to this conflict of interest. We have been treated very unfairly as Sylviecyn has pointed out.
• "I trust you will stay off his user and user talk pages" Sorry but I'm not inspired to change my behaviour because someone completely unknown to me simply finds it 'problematic'. Why is it 'problematic'?
• I just posted there to see if Jossi really had retired. As I quickly discovered he wasn't quite so 'retired' as I'd suspected. In fact he took the bait and instantly leapt into life to crossly erase my cynical snipe. And you can't even see the joke. I personally find it a correct analogy: Jossi playing dead when it suits him but unable to remain unreactionary to taunts that really touch a nerve. I think that's rather funny. But then I have no taste.
• Some of us who have been victims of his 'Wikilawering' and double standards are entitled to express some pleasure and yet some cynicism at Jossi's supposed 'retirement'. Jossi's Userpage now is only decorated with tearful messages of regret. "So sorry to see you leave" etc. Not all of us feel that way. Can we say so, to redress the little love fest going on there? No, it's "tasteless". Do you think someone might be permitted equally to express their not inconsiderable pleasure that he has retired? Why not for goodness sake? Because some think it bad taste? I have been opposing Jossi in arguments for years and felt he played dirty and was kind of a bully. In fact I haven't been here for over 6 months partly because I found his behaviour so utterly tiresome and Wikipedias tolerance of him bad taste.
• What about Jossi's latest 'new agey' justification for breaking rules and being on the 'Infinite Team'? Is that in good taste under the circumstances? It so badly deserves to be objected to as the ironic faulty, unsociable philosophy it is.PatW (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • If Jossi's opponents they can well do so, just not on Jossi's pages. WP:USER points out that while all pages are the property of the community, user pages and user talk pages are viewed as the responsibility of that user first and foremost and their approach, if within guidelines, needs to be honored. That includes keeping them blank, and it includes (with only rare exception, this not being one of them) removing comments and messages, unanswered, whether the commentor likes it or not... Please don't contravene that or you may find yourself unable to edit until the matter is resolved. ++Lar: t/c 04:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't see what there is to contravene. What you seem to be saying is simply that Jossi has the right to remove comments. Anyone has the right to comment but has to accept it if Jossi removes what anyone says. Right? Jossi himself by the way was the first to comment on my userpage and continued to do so a lot from then on. I'll take a look at the Wiki guides but I doubt they say that opponents can't comment on user pages which is what you apparently think. Jossi has not written anything to request that his page is left blank (at least last time I looked) PatW (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Pat, this is not worth arguing over. Even in his so-called retirement people are coming to Jossi's defense when they have absolutely idea of the depth and breath of the Rawat cult members' backlash and retaliation towards former followers who are critical of their Lord of the Universe. (Oh gosh! Now someone's going to accuse me of religious discrimination when Rawat's cult isn't a religion but a legal church.)  :) :) From my vantage point, there have been fewer than five people over nearly five years of us having to put up with Jossi's bullshit, along with his friends' bullshit, who have ever really gotten the strangeness of the behavior or the MO of their actions. Besides, Jossi's regular habit has always been to delete posts on his talk page from people he obviously doesn't like (and call them trolls), but he always found it useful to complain about others on their talk pages and then lecture us when we deleted his comments, or change policies to prevent us from doing so, or just making threats. Btw, I have no doubt in my mind right now that Jossi is not really, really retiring and I'm quite sure he'll be returning to edit the Prem Rawat articles with more zeal than ever before. The question is when and under what handle. Btw, if I were you, I'd delete this whole section and the one above it. Besides, what's good for the goose... :) Happy Holidays to you and yours, Pat!!! Bests, Cynthia Sylviecyn (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Think of it this way: if Jossi were still active in the Wikipedia, do you think for the briefest of moments that he would allow your attack-oriented posts to remain on his page? You are allowed to have your opinion, but seeing as the object of your clear displeasure has retired, it seems like you are swinging at someone who isn't there to defend themselves, and - in the real world anyway - that would inspire a dentistry-related reprisal. Here, its simply discouraged and reinforced with blocks if necessary. So you don't like Jossi - message received. Now, shuffle on and edit something, willya? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah. You don't know what you're talking about, so please, just shut the fuck up stop before you make a total fool out of yourself. What you say here makes no sense, especially because you have no idea what we're talking about concerning Jossi's years-long abusiveness towards PatW and myself, his history of abusing the Wikipedia policies, such as BLP, NPA (not just recently but years ago) and COI, his financial COI, and the absurd lack of action by anyone on Wikipedia to put it to a stop. Your threats of blocking PatW are ridiculous. Go ahead, big boy/girl and a warning on my page -- see how fast I delete it. Believe that. Hey, Happy Holidays on your way shuffling off Pat's page!! :) Sylviecyn (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

A few words

This has gone on a bit longer than expected, so perhaps what's needed are a few words from the person who wrote up the evidence. Obviously I am no apologist for Jossi. For a year and a half I was in a very difficult position between two prolific Wikipedians, and it took a long time to figure out who was shooting straight and who wasn't. Getting things settled has been no small chore; obviously you've dealt with a lot of frustration. Going over to Jossi's user talk the way you did is an understandable human impulse. Still, it wasn't the best choice. It's prompted sympathy for Jossi in a way that few actions could because it goes over as poor sportsmanship. Wouldn't it be better, at the time when things are being set right, to be gracious about it?

We're a collaborative encyclopedia, not a battleground. We're also a volunteer organization. Now and then a problem slips through the cracks for longer than it should. It's tough to be on the short end of that as a not very well known editor; walked many miles in those moccasins too. Think of it this way if you will: nearly everyone who's coming to this page saying there's a better path has been in situations where it was very tempting to leave a post something like the one you left. The particular circumstances were different for each of us; the impulse was the same. If you like what I've done this week then please pause a moment, lean against a tree, and shake the stone out of your shoe. It'll feel better. Durova^Charge! 05:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok Durova, thanks..here goes I'll give that shoe a good shake!

My situation is quite simple. I passionately feel that Jossi was behaving in an unethical manner over the Prem Rawat/Guru Maharaji article and that there was an amazing amount of coverup, airbrushing, rewriting of Prem Rawat's history going on there. Collaborating with people of all POV's to improve an article is fine but that's not what was happening. Although I for a long time gave him the benefit of the doubt I, like you, grew to see that he was not 'shooting straight' although he had all the right words. I object to the fact that Jossi worked for Prem Rawat and clearly was a part of the latter's promotional campaign and would exploit all loopholes to achieve his ends. I also was drawn into this because I didn't like the way I observed Prem Rawat's emissaries sleazy approach to silencing critics and blackening their names and indeed rewriting Prem Rawat's and my shared past! I have observed this happening both away from Wikipedia and on it. The so-called 'ex-premies' were by no means the 'Hate Group' Jossi sought to tar them as here; and even if they were, their criticisms are valid and should not be so paranoidly suppressed.

Last summer Arbcom failed to see through Jossi's 'good points' which have covered up the conflict of interest. Trust in him remained. I and other editors felt we were wasting our time raising the same old objections and left. Further, I couldn't enjoin here because I nearly died. Since then I've had 2 major surgeries (the final 2 weeks ago). Returning home to a laptop gave me the chance to tune in here and see what's developed. Hence my comment. My impulses are at present unrestrained. There is no malice just the reinvigorated intention to (in my own small way) right wrongs in this world which I nearly left in July.

I have met and known Jossi and like him as a fellow man presumably seeking truth as I do. I don't mince my words with him and have always tried to draw him and other 'premies' out to examine the hypocrisies that I think they've fallen prey to. I feel qualified for this job as I was a very sincere and dedicated student of Rawat for many years.

If you like what I've done this week then please pause a moment, lean against a tree, and shake the stone out of your shoe. It'll feel better.

I don't really know what to say to this. 'Thanks for the nice thought' maybe?

Are you suggesting I drop my objections?

I suppose the truth is that when people feel abused - like really abused not just 'sour grapes' - it can seem a little unsympathetic to tell them to go chill out. I can tell you that major surgery is a good way off shaking off all the petty obsessions and minor gripes one has in life. So what remains is in fact a deeper understanding of what is worth challenging or leaving alone. And I definitely am 100% comfortable about my belief that people like Prem Rawat and Jossi should be challenged. Why? Because they will do anything to avoid being challenged on issues they feel uncomfortable about! Also they feel, like all religious zealots, that they are on the 'Infinite Team' and anything (however unconscionable) they do is justified, and that the 'truths' they spread are the only thing worth talking about. The rest is just'sour grapes' from non-believers, 'trolls and ax-grinders'. What is the extreme example of people who think like this? Jihadists for one. Do I 'like what I have done this week' still? Well, I am not ashamed to have said what I felt but, to be honest, I don't particularly like having to raise objections all the time. It is more or less a moral obligation.

if Jossi were still active in the Wikipedia, do you think for the briefest of moments that he would allow your attack-oriented posts to remain on his page? You are allowed to have your opinion, but seeing as the object of your clear displeasure has retired, it seems like you are swinging at someone who isn't there to defend themselves, and - in the real world anyway - that would inspire a dentistry-related reprisal. Here, its simply discouraged and reinforced with blocks if necessary. So you don't like Jossi - message received. Now, shuffle on and edit something, willya?

Well, let's look at what I wrote for a moment- is it really such a big deal?:

All most fascinating. Just one observation though. I can't help noticing that these 'Infinite Team' players are often the most arrogant cheats in the game. The 'Finite' guys seem like embodiments of virtue in comparison. The 'Infinite Team' captain must be a real saint...well.. a God really I suppose! (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2008

Know what, I never erased people's comments however sarcastic from my page. If I was him I'd have left it there - or taken the whole userpage down. Here in the UK intelligent people welcome sarcasm even if it is the lowest form of wit. Besides, he hasn't retired from removing or accepting comments on his userpage. Let him remove them if he doesn't like them. And since when did Jossi ever defend himself other than to avoid intelligently discussing comments like this? Also Jossi doesn't need to defend himself. His admirers are doing a great job of that on his behalf.

Some people here seem to nurse an exaggerated revulsion towards folk who come to Wikipedia (like me) with a passionate or single-purpose but who don't have the wiles or need to disguise it. Whilst I appreciate that it's good to show willing and 'shuffle off' to edit maybe another subject I know a lot about - (in my case that I can think of a few) I simply have not had the time or inclination yet. Maybe I would have if Jossi and his team of premies didn't require such protracted opposition to make a few simple changes to the Prem Rawat article. What of course is so very ironic is that you fail to see the determined single-purpose of more sinister cabals where people like Jossi (who are in the employ of the subjects they seek to influence) work pretty much full-time on Wikipeida editing articles, demonstrating good faith etc. with one clear purpose: to change the rules to suit themselves. I put it to you that Jossi's temporary 'Epitaph' is in fact clear proof of the thinking behind his Wiki-life in this 'rule-changing' respect, and that my comment on his Userpage was not in the least an inappropriate repsonse. Is the community really so dazzled by Jossi's 'good works' that they just turn a blind eye to his misguided ulterior motives? I think they should be exposed rather than overlooked. I guess it's amazing how society judges people. We love Frank Sinatra because of his singing talents so we overlook his faults and involvement with the Mafia etc.PatW (talk) 12:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Durova! That feels better already! Now I'll go get my long overdue breakfast!PatW (talk) 12:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

I have asked the Mediation Cabal to facilitate mediation on the subject of the disputed sentence in the lead and named you as an interested party.[4] Momento (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Prem Rawat page comments

I'm aware of the irony of saying this, given your comment regarding Wikipedia becoming a 'civility competition', however I think it would be preferable if you focussed your talk page comments on article improvement, and not on other editors. PhilKnight (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, one would at first rightly think that was a preferable focus but I don't believe it is always the appropriate one. Of course it was my original preference to simply help improve the article. That was indeed my stated intention when I arrived here - along with large dollops of goodwill towards Prem Rawats followers. However the 'other editors' on the Prem Rawat article (at least the ones who frustrated my efforts at editing to the point where I gave up in dismay along with everybody else) were either employed by Prem Rawat or were faceless followers with a dogged mission to prevent any editing that they didn't approve. The goodwill quickly vaporised when faced with their increasingly underhand and partisan behaviour. Now perhaps you might agree that, under the circumstances it was the more effective option (not the preferable one) to concentrate on raising objection to their behaviour. I emphasise the focus of my objections and comments has been on their methods not on 'them' per se. However that necessarily drew into question their ethics to some degree and of course them to some degree. How could the Prem Rawat article be edited fairly when the administrator guarding the article was a follower/employee of the subject of the article? Also I am not stupid enough to waste my time getting tangled up in the nonsensical arguments and bluster spun to frustrate the inclusion of stuff Prem Rawat followers don't want included. Have you ever tried to argue with a) someone with a religious conviction b) someone with a truly absurd yet immovable religious conviction? The phrase 'arguing black into white' comes to mind. That way lies madness...and poverty. Now if you doubt my words I would simply challenge you to try to include some properly sourced, relevant and interesting but non-flattering material into the Prem Rawat article. There's plenty of it btw if you care to look around. If after arguing with a Rawat follower about it ad nauseam you haven't been introduced to new depths of meaning of the word 'exasperation' then I'll eat my hat.PatW (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'm not saying there aren't user conduct problems - there have been ArbCom cases, and there may well be further cases. I was more saying the article talk page should be kept for discussing article improvement, and problem behaviour reported to WP:AE. PhilKnight (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course you must realise I am well aware of this. I am somewhat inured to having regular complaints raised against me by Prem Rawat's followers and the subsequent stream of people they've bleated to popping in here with a perfunctory response. Thanks though! :-)PatW (talk) 10:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation of Prem Rawat

A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Prem Rawat was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page.

Thank you, AGK 11:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The Request for mediation concerning Prem Rawat 5, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 23:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Asking for a block

I am giving you notice that if you attack me again I will ask for you to be blocked.Momento (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You're priceless. It's your behaviour and arguments that I've criticised not you. What makes you premies think you can use Wikipedia as promotional space for your master and not be attacked for it? Your entire Wikipedia history is one of aggressive and misleading pro-Prem Rawat editing which, as a former follower myself, I find particularly nauseating. Even if you do succeed in blocking me (which I'm sure would accord you enormous glee and horrify many Wikipedians to boot that 'another Rawat follower seeks to silence opposition') someone else will rightly see through and continue to resist your interminable revisionist editing habits. (as they are plainly doing now!) I look forward to challenging you at every opportunity as long as you try to twist the article away from the truth. PatW (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

PS. Do you still want to argue that Prem Rawat never claimed he was God? I'd love to see you try and pull that one on the current editors over at the Prem Rawat article! Know what- I am DELIGHTED that since you've returned from being banned yourself, your blundering attempts at revising the article in a Pro-Rawat way are being quite excellently thwarted - and not by me but by others who are more impartial and who are now wise to your tricks. I would happily retire now (or be banned eternally) from Wikipedia confident that no-one is actually going to put up with you or other premies trying to whitewash that article. Hooray! PatW (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Rawat's claimed lineage

Hey, guess what you helped to dredge up? http://web.archive.org/web/19991012111809/maharaji.org/masters/masters.htm I'll leave you the satisfaction of informing whoever it was who cast doubt on the source! Revera (talk) 10:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

PS - a further look reveals a once familiar name: http://web.archive.org/web/19991117033256/maharaji.org/credits/webconversion.htm Revera (talk) 10:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Regards from PremieLover

Hello, I tried to explain something about ex-premies websites in the discussion page of Prem Rawat, giving you my opinion, but I made a mistake, I did not know . So I want to tell you here what is wrong with those ex-premies who say they “gave” money or anything to Prem Rawat or his organizations and did not get back what they expected in return. I quote from The Bhagavad Gita, by Juan Mascaró, Penguin Classics, one of my two favourite versions, the other is by Paramahansa Yogananda.

The one by Juan Mascaró has 78 pages, you can read it on a weekend. The one by Yogananda with comments is over 1200 pages, but I like it better, it taught me more. Chapter 17, page 113:

20) A gift is pure when it is given from the heart to the right person at the right time and at the right place, and when we expect nothing in teturn.

21) But when it is given expecting something in return, or for the sake of a future reward, or when it is given unwillingly, the gift is of Rajas, impure.

22) And a gift given to the wrong person at the wrong time and the wrong place, or a gift which comes not from the heart, and is given with proud comtempt, is a gift of darkness.

Prem Rawat has said the same with other words: if you give something expecting something in return, that is not giving, that is trade.

So now you know, it only looks like giving, but it is not, just like the light of the moon is not the light of the moon, it only seems to be, or the sun seems to turn around the earth. Things often seem to be something but with deeper analysis we see they are not. These premies never gave anything, they only tried to buy something that is not sold.

Best regards --PremieLover (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Best regards to you PremieLover. I also have the Penguin classic The Bhagavad Gita, by Juan Mascaró. Your viewpoint smacks of religious fundamentalism with the usual 'scriptural' supportive quotes to boot. The world needs love and understanding not medieval fear-mongering Indian dogmatism. Read here http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/truth_and_reconciliation/ Your apparent lack of empathy or understanding towards ex-premies and indeed your over-the-top demonisation of them shows you have not understood the simple Christian ethics expounded by Tutu (and which I happen to agree with and aspire towards). Why don't you have the courage of your convictions and move this discussion to the ex-premie forum instead of 'telling me what is wrong with them"? Can you do that? I don't think they would agree that that their dedications were insincere. PatW (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

just a suggestion...

Hi Pat, I would just like to start by saying that lately, I have found most of your comments on the PR talk pages to be very helpful, particularly those that help find policy and source material that help maintain article NPOV which, as we both know is a constant struggle, so thanks for that. But (ya, you knew there had to be one of those, didn't ya? :) ) I also think that sometimes when you rail against PR it does a little damage to your credibility. I fully appreciate what I understand to be your views and relationship to PR to be, and I'm not for one moment telling you to change anything about what you write, I'm just making a suggestion. If your goal is to continually remind ppl about what you feel PR is doing/has done, then, comments like your recent one that Rainer responded to, will work, until someone attempts to get you topic-banned for some reason that may or may not stick (probably by escalating into a giant talk page argument that gets at *least* one person banned). If your goal is to continue to help ensure that the PR articles here don't get skewed because only those with a pro-PR bias are writing it, then those types of comments are much less helpful. Again, I have at the very least, a surface understanding of your frustration, I've been on this article long enough to know most of the basics. I just thought I'd give you a little reminder to think about what your goal here is (I don't know which it is, I'm just saying... :) ). -- Maelefique^(talk) 15:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'll try not to rail against PR :-) Goal probably is simply to ensure my past is not falsely rewritten by these clowns. But I'll think about it and let you know. PatW (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Well I've thought about it and I think it's fairly conclusive that I've run out of patience with aforementioned clowns and so, since nobody appreciates my expressions of disgust and I can't help myself - I should abandon reading here.PatW (talk)

Case Closure - Prem Rawat 6

Based on the advice of the Mediation Committee, this case will close. The mediation broke down after a party demanded a change in mediator, alleging that the mediator had misinterpreted content policy [he might equivocate with WP:OR] mistakenly and then maliciously. The committee did not agree that such a change was warranted. As a result MedCom is considering referring the case to ArbCom.

For the Mediation Committee

Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 11:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Note

Let me start by saying I sympathize with some of your frustrations on the Prem Rawat article. Any contentious article is going to have a lot of problems, and this one seems worse than most. That said, you have to be more tactful in your approach. I came very close to banning you from the topic, but I've decided I should give you at least one personal note to alert you to the fact that you're on my radar screen. I largely agree with a lot of what you've said on Jimbo's talkpage, and I would urge you to start an AE thread on Momento if for no other reason than to gain some attention; I'd handle it myself, but I think input from a couple other admins would bolster the legitimacy of any sanctions we'd impose. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)