This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Retired user 9487593 (talk | contribs) at 14:17, 15 June 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:17, 15 June 2007 by Retired user 9487593 (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)My interest in Misplaced Pages is limited to the circumstance that a Misplaced Pages article provides a link to defamatory material about myself and others, a situation that lacks obvious resolution due to:
a) the weakness of wikipedia policies in respect of non "significant persons"
b) the determined intransigence of self interested editors.
Misplaced Pages has adopted policies related to the "Biography of Living Persons" which provide 'protection' for those individuals who are deemed significant enough to warrant a Misplaced Pages biography, but those same policies provide no protection for those who may be incidentally named in, or linked from Misplaced Pages articles. Misplaced Pages has created rules which favour the rich, famous and powerful, while at the same time placing the ordinary person at huge disadvantage.
The Prem Rawat Misplaced Pages Article
The article ]has been rigidly policed by adherents of Prem Rawat, including one who has acknowledged that he is paid by one of the organisations that promote Prem Rawat. The Misplaced Pages listing on Google and other search engines is particularly important to those involved in the promotion of Prem Rawat because the Internet is now the primary medium of Rawat's advertising and publicity. The present article includes numerous links to organisations that actively promote Prem Rawat. All of the Rawat promotional websites interlink and in practice constitute a webring.
Ownership and POV of Linked Sources
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 while the relationship between The Prem Rawat Foundation and the Elan Vital organisations is multi layered. A good example of the interconnections shows in the person of Brad Griffin, a Director of TPRF who has a long standing involvement with the Elan Vital owned IRCC (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 heading on the contentious claimed 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 from followers and according Elan Vital, the ownership of Myrine is now lodged with TPRF (link). Some of the pro Rawat websites that are linked from Misplaced Pages have no clear 'ownership' however they all promote the same party line as the named Elan Vital sites while the linked Visions International is a subsidiary of the US Elan Vital. All of these promotional sites link to the site which carries the contentious claimed affidavit.
A Named Critic of Prem Rawat
One of the links from the Prem Rawat article is to an Elan Vital website page which includes a .pdf file of what is claimed to be an affidavit, this document names myself and others in defamatory terms. The document offers no evidence for the claims made within it and the Elan Vital website offers me no right of reply. Despite the defamatory nature of the claims made about me, I see this as a matter of fair representation which simply requires that a balance of perspectives is acknowledged. With regard to Misplaced Pages's connection to this defamation, if links are made from Misplaced Pages to websites which in turn directly link to a site which defames me then it seems only reasonable that links should also be made to sources which include my response to the defamation and, as it is Elan Vital which identifies me as a critic of Prem Rawat, links to sources which represent my views as a critic of Elan Vital and Prem Rawat. Alternatively, should no link be permitted to my response to the defamation, then fairness requires that all links to the Rawat promoting web ring be removed from Misplaced Pages.
The claimed Affidavit
Misplaced Pages itself does no accept affidavits as appropriate documentation of evidence, it must follow that any linked document that is claimed to be an affidavit should at least meet minimum standards of authenticity. The linked document published by Elan Vital carries no identification as to 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 there is 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.
Amendment to article sought November 2006
(criticism)]
Existing text Elan Vital claims that there are a handful of former students that actively engage in opposing Rawat, his students and organizations, and lists a series of complaints against them related to their activities and motivations, and characterizes them as a 'hate group.'
Proposed addition The Elan Vital organisation has published an affidavit which claims to identify members of an active 'critics' group of Ex premies. Of those named one - Nick (sic) Wright has written a response to the affidavit (Prem Rawat Talk Forum.Wright ] rejects any notion that an organised 'Hate Group' of former followers of Rawat exists but commends two sources which he considers broadly representative of his views of Prem Rawat (Prem Rawat Maharaji Info) and (Prem Rawat Critique)
Attempted Resolution 1
Mail Sent to Wikimedia October 2006.
Core article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Prem_rawat Defamatory link: http://www.elanvital.org/faq/faq_opposition_i.htm I am contacting wikipedia in terms of 'subject of an article' as this most closely matches the scope of my concerns. I am not a named subject of a wikipedia article, however I do fall into a 'catchall' class of being a 'critic of Prem Rawat. Further I am named in documents which are linked from wikipedia, the documents being located on websites not under wikipedia control, and where I have no recourse to a right of reply. Misplaced Pages is currently operating a double standard. Those persons who are 'significant' enough in wikipedia terms to warrant an article are assured certain protections while those who do not qualify as even significant enough to be quoted within an article, but who have dared criticise a person who is the subject of an article, can have defamatory material not tolerated in a wikipedia article, linked from a wikipedia article. The history of the Prem Rawat related wikipedia articles is a sordid affair and in my view the current versions are not merely unbalanced, they constitute a whitewash with even the most basic 'negative' content consistently blocked by Rawat's followers - the hammer attack on journalist Pat Halley being a prime example. In the interests of fairness I would ask that wikipedia editors take one of two choices in respect of the Rawat articles: 1. If links to pro Rawat sites (which contain unsupported criticisms of named and unnamed former followers), then links to sites maintained by critics of Rawat must also be included - AND specifically if the link to the material in which I am named is retained, I ask that a link to the following URL be included and protected. http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/forum/posts/5504.html 2. All links to all sites which contain unsupported criticisms of named and unnamed former followers of Prem Rawat must be removed from the Rawat articles. Please note this is not merely a question of removing the single link no. 24 in the Criticism article - all the pro Rawat sites either carry or link to defamation of former followers. I have no wish to spend endless hours in edit wars with employees of Rawat's front organisations merely to be able to address untruths published by those organisations about me. I trust therefore that an equitable solution will be arrived at. Nik Wright
Reply from Wikimedia October 2006
Dear Nik Wright,
Thank you for your mail. Thank you for contacting us regarding the dispute you encountered while editing.
Misplaced Pages is a collaborative encyclopedia (as explained at <http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Introduction ), and so anyone may edit its articles. Its policy, nonetheless, is that articles must be written from a Neutral Point of View, representing all majority and significant-minority views fairly and without bias, as is discussed extensively at <http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:NPOV .
However, since article content is not controlled by a central authority, we do not resolve editing disputes via email. Instead, please follow the steps outlined at <http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution . These steps are designed to help you work with other editors and to draw upon the help of the wider community.
Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages.
Yours sincerely, Scott MacDonald
Attempted Resolution 2
Sought mediation via Mediation Cabal Mediation Case: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-01-07_Prem_Rawat_Named_Critic#Mediation_Case:_2007-01-07_Prem_Rawat_Named_Critic Arbitrator Response 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
- There is more on my talk page at: User talk:TheRingess#Mediation Prem RawatTheRingess (talk) 05:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Mediation Announcement
Since there has been no activiy for more than 2 weeks on the mediaton case that you created I closed it. I will gladly reopen it if you and other editors feel that you can reach consensus.TheRingess (talk) 07:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Attempted Resolution 3
Request for Arbitration ]
Statement Nik Wright2 Fairness and Balance
Along with others I am named in a document (which is claimed to be a sworn affidavit) which is linked from a Misplaced Pages article Prem_rawat and a User talk page User_talk:Gstaker, elements of that document are defamatory. The article Prem_rawat itself carries no acknowledgment that there are active critics of the biographical subject of the article (Prem Pal Singh Rawat) and all links to sources which acknowledge that there are active critics and which represent the views of those critics have been determinedly removed by supporters of Prem Rawat.
I have sought resolution of this issue by (a) contacting the Wikimedia Foundation: see Point 8. Attempted Resolution 1 User_talk:Nik_Wright2 and (b) by reference to the Mediation Cabal. see: Point 9. These two attempts are now locked in an apparent Logic Loop of circular referral. see: Point 12. Misplaced Pages Logic Loop.
I do not claim a position of NPOV - my role as a Misplaced Pages editor is 'under protest' as it appears to be the only way I can establish a 'fair and balanced' treatment of 'my position' - in this sense it is Misplaced Pages, (by linking to material which defames me) that has sought me out, rather than my having come to Misplaced Pages in any disinterested sense. I am entirely happy to be known as a critic of Prem Rawat and his organisations, I simply wish that a level playing field should exist within Misplaced Pages, between the subject of a Misplaced Pages biography and those whom the subject of the article and or her/his supporters, wish to attack. see: Point 3.
Issues Raised in the Mediation Cabal
A. Imbalance of editing: Rigid policing by Prem Rawat's supporters. see: Point 1
B. Existence of a web ring - multiple sites interlinking and governed by the same POV. see: Point 1
C. Nature of the relationship between the Prem Rawat supporting organisations and the websites quoted as sources within the article. see: Point 2
D. Veracity of the defaming document. see: Point 4.
E. Status of the 'publisher' of the defamatory document. see: Point 5.
F. Status of Misplaced Pages editors relative to legal action entailing the defaming document. see Point 6.
Other Pertinent Issues
The matter of paid representatives of organisations and individuals acting as editors of Misplaced Pages articles about those organisations and individuals is of current concern. In this respect User Jossi ] has been open about his relationship with the Rawat promotional movement ] however perhaps some examination of his role in Rawat articles may be required despite his candour.
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/1/1)
Please provide diffs showing that the other two involved users have been notified, and provide a brief summary of previous steps in dispute resolution attempted in the appropriate section. Thanks. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC) Decline. I believe that content matters raised by article subjects and others who are directly affected by an article are squarely outside our remit and inside that of the OTRS team. I note you have already contacted them. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 10:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Reject, not seeing an ArbCom case here. Will review again if more information is provided. FloNight 17:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Recuse Fred Bauder 17:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Reject per UC. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Decline, per FloNight. Paul August ☎ 18:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Attempted Resolution 4
Referrence back to Wikimedia
E-mail exchange commencing 17/01/07
In October 2006 I contacted Wikimedia in respect of what I considered unfair treatment of me by Misplaced Pages - a Misplaced Pages article links to a website page that defames me, but the same article is rigorously policed to prevent any balancing links being included in the article. The Wikimedia response is referenced Ticket#2006102710006762
Following the Wikimedia reply I sought to follow the remedies suggested - (1) acting as an editor (under protest - I still consider it unfair that I should have to do this) (2)seeking Mediation (3)seeking Arbitration.
Inevitably my edits were removed. I then sought Mediation:http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-01-07_Prem_Rawat_Named_Critic
this again inevitably failed, with the Mediator making the following comment:
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
On 17/01/07 I reported this comment to Wikimedia quoting the original Ticket Number - I received no reply.
On 27/01/07 I requested Arbitration:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=104551191
The request has fallen with the following response from Arbitrators:
Decline. I believe that content matters raised by article subjects and others who are directly affected by an article are squarely outside our remit and inside that of the OTRS team. I note you have already contacted them. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 10:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
My experience of trying to deal with Misplaced Pages is rcorded at:http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Nik_Wright2
and I refer you particularly to the question of a logic loop:http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Nik_Wright2#Wikipedia_Logic_Loop
I look forward to your positive proposals on how I (and I suspect many other individuals who are similarly affected) can hope to gain fair treatment from Misplaced Pages.
Nik Wright
Dear Nik Wright,
Thank you for your mail.
What article is involved, and briefly, what is the problem with the article ?
Thank you for responding to my email of 17th January 2007
The article concerned is http://en.wikipedia.org/Prem_rawat
As I stated in my previous email I have explained the issue fully at:http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Nik_Wright2
put in its briefest form the problem is that an article note: http://en.wikipedia.org/Maharaji#_note-109
links to:http://www.elanvital.org/faq/faq_opposition_i.htm
which carries a pdf. file:http://www.elanvital.org/faq/JMG_AFFIDAVIT.pdf
which carries text which defames me.
I have addressed the issues related to the pdf. document at: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Nik_Wright2#The_claimed_Affidavit http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Nik_Wright2#The_Publisher_of_the_Claimed_Affidavit http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Nik_Wright2#Status_of_Editors_involved_in_litigation
and http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Nik_Wright2#Inherent_Unfairness
It seems fundamentally unreasonable that the test of what is fair and acceptable criticism of a person who is the subject of Misplaced Pages biography should be radically different from the test of what is fair and acceptable criticism of those who are critics of a person who is the subject of a Misplaced Pages biography. All that I am seeking is a fair system - either Misplaced Pages should not (in this specific case)link to defamation about me - OR - it should as well, link to material that is broadly representative of the criticisms that I have made about the person who is the subject of a Misplaced Pages biography - AND additionally link to my rebuttal of the defamatory material.
I hope we can make some progress on this.
Nik Wright
Dear Nik Wright,
Thank you for your mail.
We would be happy to assist you if there are errors of fact in the article regarding you or someone you represent. We are generally unable to assist you via email if there are no errors of fact.
From the summary on the page you link, it appears as though your concerns are about balance and presentation. If there are errors of fact that concern you, please summarize them briefly in a reply to this email and we will investigate them on your behalf.
Thank you for your offer to investigate any factual errors. I have, in respect of the affidavit that I have previously referred to, re-presented my contention of the errors involved within it. I further contend that together with the errors on the affidavit's parent document, these multiple factual errors preclude inclusion of a link to this document from any Misplaced Pages article because it does not accord with Misplaced Pages’s requirement for accuracy and balanced representation of fact.
Additionally I would appreciate a substantive answer regarding the matter of ‘fairness’, it is after all only because Misplaced Pages links to material which defames me that I have asked anything of Misplaced Pages. Further as I have tried to gain some resolution via both the mediation and arbitration processes and in both cases I have been referred back to Wikimedia, it does seem reasonable that I should receive a substantive explanation from Wikimedia as to why my concern about fairness is not valid.
Errors related to the use of an external link from article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Prem_rawat
1.Position in text: In a FAQ article about opposition to Maharaji and his message, Elan Vital claims that there are a handful of former students that actively engage in opposing Rawat, his students and organizations, and lists a series of complaints against them. '
2.Link given: ^ "Opposition to Maharaji and his message – Detractors and the negative message they convey" http://www.elanvital.org/faq/faq_opposition_i.htm >>>> http://www.elanvital.org/faq/JMG_AFFIDAVIT.pdf
3.Authenticity: The linked .pdf document has no proof of authenticity. There is no identifiable named Notary, neither is there any identification of a legal case in which this document has been tested, nor any evidence that the claimed respondent has even received case papers, let alone lodged a response. There is no means for a Misplaced Pages reader to verify the existence of the document, other than as an item published by Elan Vital. It is acknowledged by the publisher of the .pdf document – Elan Vital, that at the time this affidavit is claimed to have been taken Elan Vital was seeking substantial costs from the claimed author of the affidavit, raising serious questions about the freedom of expression available to the claimed author.
The .pdf document contains numerous unsupported claims about individuals but not a single referranced fact – it is difficult to offer any challenge to these factual errors where there is no point of reference – dates, times etc. In respect of any matters pertaining to me, I find the whole to be essentially untrue, and in specifics outright lies.
4.Accuracy and Factual Ommission: http://www.elanvital.org/faq/faq_opposition_i.htm this document forms the parent body for the affidavit. It contains numerous assertions without any supporting evidence. Claims are made about anonymity, the existence of a ‘hate group’ and ‘dirty tricks’; ironically these claims are accompanied by the naming of a clearly not anonymous individual. Claims regarding a ‘regulatory complaint’ omit to include the information that this not only failed but is listed on the Chiling Effects website:
http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi?NoticeID=650
Claims of ‘illegal acts’ and ‘media manipulation’ are unsupported by any evidence while an academic study is quoted entirely out of context. The reported outcome of a an Australian Court case, is wholly erroneous, confusing a civil action with non existent criminal sanctions.
While not a ‘factual error’ it surely raises concern that these very ‘inadequate’ documents are published by an organisation with which a prominent editor of the Prem Rawat article, is closely linked.
I trust that Wikimedia will now actively investigate this issue.
Nik Wright
Unacceptable Sources
It is demonstrably unfair for Misplaced Pages to link to material which defames an individual, and then for Misplaced Pages to set up impossible hurdles which prevent that same individual having any opportunity to have their position given equal standing. Misplaced Pages may, for all sorts of good reasons not wish to have various media cited as sources of information, however most individuals are limited in where they can present their position. Most people will simply not be able to meet the citation conditions that Misplaced Pages requires, leaving links to criticism and to defamatory material unmatched balancing references.
Inherent Unfairness
Misplaced Pages does not accept affidavits as legitimate sources in articles of Biography of Living Persons, yet Misplaced Pages does accept links to websites that use affidavits as a basis for criticism of individuals who may be critics of the subject of a Misplaced Pages Biography of a Living Person. This is manifestly absurd, and clearly advantages the wealthy and powerful and disadvantages the ordinary person.
Misplaced Pages claims to be "The People's Encyclopaedia". My experience is that it is just another tool for the promotion of those who already hold positions of personal advantage.
Misplaced Pages Logic Loop
Bureaucracies frequently employ the Kafkaesque technique of logic looping - an argument is presented at contact point one, the presenter is referred to contact point two - the argument is made - contact point two refers the presenter back to contact point one. Here the Wikimedia Foundation has referred the argument to the Misplaced Pages dispute resolution process, and immediately the presenter has been referred back to the Wikimedia Foundation.
STATEMENT 15.11.06
A Named Critic of Prem Rawat.
As an individual (who appears to be) named in an affidavit published by Elan Vital, I require Misplaced Pages to abide by its claimed code of fairness and accuracy. I have no wish to be an active editor of this or any other article - however Elan Vital is linked profusely from this and other articles and the affidavit which appears to identify me is linked directly. Further these discussion pages and a Misplaced Pages personal page is now being used to promote that affidavit as having legitimacy.
Given the current 'peer review' status I'm willing to place my suggested additional text here rather than edit directly - however unless the text I propose is either adopted in large measure - or all links from wikipedia to Elan Vital are withdrawn, I will not engage in edit wars but rather seek deletion of all the Rawat articles.
To make my position entirely clear I reject any notion that an organised 'Hate Group' of former followers of Rawat exists, and I have certainly never belonged to any group or political party that has done other than campaign for free expression and equality. As a person named in material published by Elan Vital (a degree of notability which I have never sought) I commend two sources which broadly representative of my views of Prem Rawat, and the story of his life and the organisations with which he is associated http://prem-rawat-maharaji.info and http://prem-rawat-critique.org/