Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:11, 14 January 2016

Welcome RickAlanRoss1952!

Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page, and someone will try to help.

Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.

Sincerely, Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)   (Leave me a message)

• Español
• Deutsch
• Français
• Italiano
• עברית
• Русский
• 日本語
• Polski
• فارسی

Please contact the Arbitration Committee to credential your account

Greetings! Since you are holding yourself out to be Rick Alan Ross and Rick Alan Ross (talk · contribs), you are subject to the ruling at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Rick Alan Ross instructed and restricted. Please see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee for the email address at which you can reach the committee; you must correspond with a member of the arbitration committee. —C.Fred (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I have contacted the arbitration committee and received no response. I am still barred from the Talk page of my bio.RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 14

47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Make sure you sent the email to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org you should get back an email saying that your email is being held in moderation because you are not a member of the list. A clerk or Arbcom member will then pass it on to the list or contact you. You can also send them email them by clicking Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee. The technical restriction was placed on your article talk page to prevent anyone from posting using an IP address or non-autoconfirmed account. Regardless, based on my reading of the Arbcom restriction, you can not edit until you have heard back from Arbcom about confirming your account whether the software will let you or not. Doing so could lead to a complete loss of editing privileges as it would be rapidly reported to the Arbitration Enforcement Noticeboard as a violation of an Arbcom sanction.

A list of Arbcom members is available at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee#Members. If you think there is some problem with your email you can start a new section here and {{ping}} {{ping|Example}} one or two of them to get their attention on-wiki. I usually notice Courcelles, DGG and Doug Weller on regularly but all of the ones listed as active should notice a ping within a day or so. I hope this helps you resolve this matter. Jbh 15:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I will email again. I only wish to post suggestions for edits at the Talk page and participate in that process.RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Please email the arbitration committee with the instructions (posted above) rather than filing an AC amendment request. You can also post a note on an arbitrator's talk page. Liz 20:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: He says that he has emailed ArbCom. Based on the conversation here and on my talk page he says he has done it at least twice. Maybe there is some hang up on the list filter?? Jbh 20:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I have emailed, posted and repeatedly requested help. I would like to be able to post suggestions for edits at the talk page of my bio.RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I have sent an email to the committee on one of their internal email lists asking them to keep a lookout for your messages. Just know that there are 12 active arbitrators right now, they get many email requests and usually discuss cases among themselves which can take a while to come to decisions. It may be a while until you hear back so I recommend patience. Thanks to Jbhunley for your help on this. Liz 20:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. My understanding is that I am blocked from posting at the Talk page of my bio because Misplaced Pages editors are not sure I am me. I am willing to absolutely prove that I am Rick Alan Ross. I can fax or email documents or whatever it takes.RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to let you know

I saw your recent edits. I'm somewhat offended by your "One Misplaced Pages user has insisted that..." (). Afaik there was a lot of them, including the admin who protected the talk pages against IP edits. So "One..." seems completely out of order. Not sure whether I'll let myself get involved in this again, I need a somewhat clearer editing environment for that to be productive I suppose.

Re. comparison with Steve Hassan's Misplaced Pages article: comparing in this sense is somewhat of a weak argument in Misplaced Pages, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (before even examining the WP:COI). If you have a problem with Mr. Hassan's page, post on its talk page with, if and when applicable, disclosure of your COI in the matter. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The issue is consistency in BLP Misplaced Pages rules. Otherwise I have no interest in Mr. Hassan's bio. Do you somehow know Steve Hassan, or do you know people in some way associated with him or his work? What is your special interest in my bio? Do you have any COI in the matter?RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 13:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Never heard about the person until an hour ago. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Is there some special interest that drew you to edit at my bio?RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Ten years ago I got involved in the Prem Rawat imbroglio. Way out of my field of expertise, just trying to help out. At the time we were discussing whether your website could be used as a reliable source on Rawat. Then your Misplaced Pages bio got unstable (... the Scientology ArbCom case): I was still hoping things would stabilise, and your website could be used, which didn't work out that way. Anyway, that's when that bio landed on my watchlist. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. There was someone that used to edit my bio that worked for Prem Rawat. I think he was outed and banned at some point. It seems that a number of people with some axe to grind due to the Cult Education Institute (CEI) database have used my bio over the years for retaliation. BTW -- CEI is a tax-exempted educational nonprofit, which maintains an online library, not unlike Misplaced Pages. First established as a website (1996) and later converted to a database, CEI is an institutional member of the American and New Jersey Library Associations. I simply want Misplaced Pages to admin and edit my bio fairly based upon facts, not POV. Thank you for your interest.RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Probably Jossi (last edit to your page) – left "under a cloud" during the second Rawat ArbCom case, and was later blocked for socking. But that's far from the only Rawat-involved editor having edited your bio that left (or had to leave) the premises – note that not all of those who left or had to leave the area are pro-Rawat. Explains part of my cautiousness, I hope. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Seems like it was Jossi. The irony is that Rawat is a very small part of the CEI database. There has been quite a bit of POV and/or misleading edits at my bio. My hope is to sort through this with suggestions at the Talk page. I am trying to learn the ways of Misplaced Pages.RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Re. "small part of the CEI database" – Yes, I know. I think Bibliography of Prem Rawat and related organizations is doing considerably better than http://www.culteducation.com/group/1219-divine-light-mission.html that apparently stopped following Rawat some two or three name changes of his organizations ago, if I may shamelessly promote a page that is for a large part my work. What CEI does better is the publication of primary sources like court transcripts (something Misplaced Pages due to its rules would generally avoid); another difference is that we would never keep a full copy of a copyrighted document like the Cade Metz piece (although we have a fair share of quotes at pages such as Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars, Talk:Prem Rawat/journalists, ... see more)

Whatsoever... wouldn't it be nice to have the DLM CEI page or http://www.cultnews.com/category/elanvitaldivinelightmission/ listed at the Bibliography of Prem Rawat and related organizations page? Alas it wouldn't be possible (yet) I believe. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Per its disclaimer Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source. its disclaimer states, "Misplaced Pages cannot guarantee the validity of the information" it contains see https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer fCEI is an online library with fully attributed articles, reports and documents. Guru Maharij (aka Prem Rawat) is historically known as a "cult leader" that hurt many people, Today very few people are interested in him and so he has a very small subsection at CEI, which reflects that fact see http://www.culteducation.com/group/1219-divine-light-mission.html.RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The irony being that for me Rawat is a thoroughly uninteresting topic. Re. "Today very few people are interested in him..." – I disagree, Cagan's 2007 book on him was a bestseller. I think you worded it better at the cultnews page: "... the old familiar groups called “cults” ... actually are still around such as ... Divine Light Mission ..., although they may now use new names ...". Also the buckloads of hurt feelings pouring into Misplaced Pages in connection with the Rawat article make your assertion that he hurt people only "historically" seem flawed.

Re. Misplaced Pages disclaimer: true, but doesn't impede Misplaced Pages editors from trying to get it right. There are several reasons why under current Misplaced Pages rules it is not possible to link to the CEI website as a reliable source. There are the questions about copyright clearance for some of the content on that website, there are the questions regarding editorial oversight of what is on the site (is it really only one person who decides what gets published, or is there a process of peer review?)... On Misplaced Pages there are some discussions regarding whether or not the site can be used as a reliable source. If you're interested I can look these up, and give you the links (unsorted, this is where I'd start). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Not interested. My previous response to you covered this. If you enjoy editing about Rawat fine. Seems like you have a POV that you bring to your editing at Misplaced Pages and a bit of an attitude regarding CEI. This is one of the reasons Misplaced Pages entries like Prem Rawat are not quoted and cited by serious researchers. Misplaced Pages says regarding its content that there is "No formal peer review" and "opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields." Anonymous editors at Misplaced Pages often skew and conflate Misplaced Pages entries. The Prem Rawat entry seems like an example of this ongoing problem.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, err, let's not talk attitude. I enjoy editing about Rawat probably less than you do – neither do I "enjoy" editing your article, that was my point, and explaining why I do nonetheless. Scholars not wanting to look beyond Misplaced Pages itself (i.e. not wanting to look to the texts used as sources in Misplaced Pages) are not Misplaced Pages's target audience. The disclaimer should make this clear: Misplaced Pages does not want serious scholars to quote Misplaced Pages directly (that does more harm than good to Misplaced Pages). That being said, I do think Bibliography of Prem Rawat and related organizations superior to http://www.culteducation.com/group/1219-divine-light-mission.html – at least the Misplaced Pages bibliography article is more up to date, and more complete (although yours has a few advantages too, as I pointed out).

Having a POV is not a problem, disclosing it is not a problem (even required in some circumstances as you are well aware), bringing it to article editing is. Instead of vaguish complaints show me the edits where I did. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding quality of the Prem Rawat entry, I agree that that quality is still worse than suboptimal. But at least no Misplaced Pages article is currently "ruled by the Lord of the Universe". Jossi Fresco, the person mentioned in the 2008 Cade Metz article is no longer allowed to edit Misplaced Pages, not Rawat's article, not yours, not the COI noticeboard. But you know how that is from personal experience: one does something wrong and the press is all over it. It is put straight, and nobody even mentions. My suggestion is that you give a follow-up to your February 9, 2008 entry at http://www.cultnews.com/category/elanvitaldivinelightmission/ – And you're as welcome to help getting the Misplaced Pages Prem Rawat article in better shape (which nowadays by implicit agreement is done by unanimous decisions on its talk page, that's why the improvements to the article still move very slowly). The page is still on my watchlist, but I try to intervene as little as possible, while, yeah, not interested in the topic. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Not interested. FYI -- I have never edited the Prem Rawat bio at Misplaced Pages. Again, the very small subsection relegated to Prem Rawat at CEI reflects his actual historical significance and importance. If a new press article from a reliable source comes out about him let me know. I have not seen anything of any relevance or importance, but maybe it was overlooked. IMO the CEI subsection is more useful to researchers and the public who want to know who Prem Rawat is and why he is of any interest.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem, hope I didn't annoy you too much. However there's an advantage in being more than a WP:SPA at Misplaced Pages. Tried to raise some more general interest in the Misplaced Pages project. Didn't work apparently, no problem, maybe just unsuccessful in uncovering other topics that might interest you here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I did request that my bio be deleted from Misplaced Pages. Failing that my interest is for it to be factual, NPOV and not a place for POV propaganda and personal attacks. My online time is largely devoted to CEI and the ongoing construction and improvement of that database online library as an educational resource. IMO the Prem Rawat BLP is an example of what's wrong with Wikiepedia and how it is at times used for propaganda rather that a genuine reflection of historical information and perspective. It reads like an infomercial put together by Prem Rawat's PR team.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Interesting new news report about Prem Rawat reflects his actual history significance http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/article/9033909/greedy-guru Rick Alan Ross (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Just in case you didn't see the message from C.Fred - MrX 14:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I have now logged in under Rick Alan Ross.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

User account renamed

Per ARBCOM request, I have renamed this account from User:RickAlanRoss1952 to User:Rick Alan Ross (moving the previous account to User:Rick Alan Ross (usurped)). I am given to understand that the individual behind the account has confirmed that they are in control of the new account. User:LFaraone, could you please confirm? Cheers Worm(talk) 12:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I have logged in using Rick Alan RossRick Alan Ross (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Reading

Just read your message, tx! For now I'd wait for two things to happen (neither of them will take too long any more I suppose: a few days max): (1) the AfD on the article being closed; (2) the ANI discussion being archived and/or closed.

In the mean while there's some area that might benefit you to have somewhat more feeling of: what (at Misplaced Pages) is understood by references to reliable sources. WP:V is somewhat where it starts (with WP:RS as an important subsidiary guideline, somewhat tough reading but there is no better summary for the time being); then there's WP:RSN if you want to see a bit "hands on" how Wikipedians put that in practice (I think your website has been mentioned somewhat a dozen times in its archive too). Then about formatting of references I'd recommend WP:CITE too, not so much for all the technicalities of references, but in order to get the main thrust, e.g. that a reference to a reliable source usually names an *author*, at least a *publication* (newspaper, book, trusted website, etc...), a date, etc. so that you understand that "it was all over Asian media" is not something we can work with, but "Article abc" by John Author in Newpaper XYZ, page ii, published Month dd, Year is something we can work with (no matter in what language that newspaper is written). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Printed out Citing Sources, Verifiability and No Original Research. These will be added to my desk stack, read and noted. My book has 1,200 footnotes and was professionally edited. We used Chicago Manual of Style footnotes format. No problem.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Some advice that you might find helpful

While you're not exactly new at this point, I thought you might find it helpful if I shared some advice I give to new editors:

I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Misplaced Pages: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Misplaced Pages by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Misplaced Pages's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Misplaced Pages's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter.

Some topic areas within Misplaced Pages have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again.

The article about you fits all the cases that I note: It's a biography, you have a conflict of interest with it, and it is under general sanctions. When I realized this as I was looking over the BLPN noticeboard discussion you started, I cringed at participating in the discussion. It's quite the hornet's nest.

One thing that might help you: Articles like this should be written from high-quality sources, and most of those sources should be secondary. Disputed content without such sources will be difficult to add to or retain within the article. When you make a suggestion, it will go much easier when you have a secondary source to support it.

Because of the subject matter, deprogramming, I expect the secondary sources to be popular news articles rather than the academic and peer-reviewed publications we'd like. In such situaions, we prefer news articles based upon in-depth reporting that includes historical context.

I hope you find some helpful information in all this. --Ronz (talk) 23:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks you and happy holiday. I have a stack of Misplaced Pages policies printed out about two inches high on my desk. I have read this material and hi-lighted pertinent policies that reflect relevant issues concerning my situation. Secondary sources have been linked in my latest round at the Talk page. I will continue to locate links to such sources and use them. Many publications don't keep articles up indefinitely, but some keep them up for long periods of time. I will do my best to locate the supporting articles online and link them. The Cult Education Institute (CEI) was launched (1996) to archive articles about various groups and leaders in an effort to keep such material readily accessible to the public for an extended period of time in an organized database. Much of the reports, articles and academic research is not available elsewhere on the Web, though it could be found at a public or university library. It's CEI, my many media interviews and court expert testimony that I am actually known for today, through I began as a community activist and organizer in the early 1980s and later became more widely known as a cult deprogrammer in the 1990s. IMO the reason my bio is often "hornets nest" is that some people disagree with my opinions and/or object to the information contained within the CEI database. My bio for these folks is a place to exact retribution by discrediting me and/or diminishing my work. This is often done by soapboxing, fact picking, coat racking and giving undue weight to certain points. I am resigned to this as an ongoing issue. I appreciate the willingness and openness of Misplaced Pages to address the situation. Several editors have encouraged me to study the rules and work positively in good faith within the framework of Misplaced Pages. It's a slow process and I continue to benefit from the suggestions and insights offered by verteren Misplaced Pages editors.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I also wanted to chime in with further unsolicited advice. I urge you to exercise brevity in your talk page posts. Volunteer editors have limited time. It will help you to be more brief. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note on request to add DS template

My original purpose in wanting to put the DS notice about Scientology on the talk page was to give notice to passing users and enforcing admins that the article was vulnerable beyond a typical BLP based on concerns you raised, most recently in your conversation with me at Talk:Steven Hassan (Who is also explicitly subject to the Scientology DS because he is in , which I assume would fit you as well) but several other times as well. There is no question in my mind that the page falls under the Scientology decision and my original post was simply to ask a procedural question of the Arbs about whether I could place the template or if I had to ask an admin to.

Whether that template is there or not if I felt you were behaving in a way that I thought should be addressed in reference to Scientology I would simply open a complaint at Arbitration Enforcement and make my case. The only thing that template does is place users on notice that the article is subject to enhanced enforcement and warn people that Scientology crap may be going on.

Bishonen said it perfectly, what is now going on is simply shit-stirring for unknown reasons. At the most the template will put everyone on notice that disruptive behavior surrounding Scientology can be addressed under DS even if it is not an obvious or direct BLP violation, maybe not even that since I am not overly familiar with how admins interpret DS stemming from one case or another. Jbh 01:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Notification of WP:NEWBLPBAN

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Template:Z33 Per my edit to Talk:Rick Alan Ross I feel that your continued refusal to address one topic at a time and swamping editors at that talk page has become disruptive. You have been asked repeatedly to slow down and have refused to do so. Your overall behavior has, in my opinion passed from proper engagement by a BLP subject to disruption for the purpose of pushing your POV. See WP:CPUSH which I have pointed out to you before. This notice, in and of itself, does not mean that you will be subject to any sanction or even that there is a consensus your behavior is improper. It does however, provide the notice required for an WP:UNINVOLVED administrator to take action per WP:AC/DS without further warning if they feel such action is necessary. I have placed the same template where I record my WP:AC/DS awareness . You are subject to nothing from this notice that I am not subject to as well. Jbh 18:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)