User talk:Nik Wright2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
My interest in Wikipedia is limited to the circumstance that a Wikipedia 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.
Wikipedia has adopted policies related to the "Biography of Living Persons" which provide 'protection' for those individuals who are deemed significant enough to warrant a Wikipedia biography, but those same policies provide no protection for those who may be incidentally named in, or linked from Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia has created rules which favour the rich, famous and powerful, while at the same time placing the ordinary person at huge disadvantage.
[edit] The Prem Rawat Wikipedia Article
The article [[1]]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 Wikipedia 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.
[edit] 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 [2] 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 Wikipedia 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.
[edit] 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 Wikipedia's connection to this defamation, if links are made from Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.
[edit] The claimed Affidavit
Wikipedia 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.
[edit] The Publisher of the Claimed Affidavit
In the Mediation Case: 2007-01-07 Prem Rawat Named Critic [[3]] the proposition was advanced by User Jossi [[4]] that the claimed affidavit published on an Elan Vital site was somehow divorced from Elan Vital, a proposition that seems quite absurd given that the claimed affidavit names as Applicant the CEO (George Laver) of the Elan Vital operated IRCC. User Jossi [[5]] also advanced the notion that Elan Vital is somehow divorced from the responsibility of publishing the 'affidavit' on its web site. 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' , any entity which exercises editorial control and which publishes an 'affidavit must be assumed to be taking ownership of the claims made in that affidavit.
[edit] Status of Editors involved in litigation
The claimed affidavit has been tested in a Court although the full documentation is unavailable online. Within the case where the affidavit was actually lodge, one User Jossi [[6]] sought protection from having to give evidence. The affidavit along with other documentation was rejected by the Judge. Party to this action was one - Wikipedia User [[7]] which resulted in Staker having to issue an apology for defamation. A link from the User Gstaker Wikipedia talk page links to Staker's own site where the claimed affidavit is also published.
[edit] Amendment to article sought Novemebr 2006
(criticism)[[8]]
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.'[98]
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 [1] (Prem Rawat Talk Forum.Wright [[9]] 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 [2] (Prem Rawat Maharaji Info) and [3] (Prem Rawat Critique)
[edit] Attempted Resolution 1
Mail Sent to Wikimedia October 2006.
Core article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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. Wikipedia 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.
Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia (as explained at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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/wiki/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/wiki/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 Wikipedia.
Yours sincerely, Scott MacDonald
[edit] Attempted Resolution 2
Sought mediation via Mediation Cabal Mediation Case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)
[edit] Unacceptable Sources
It is demonstrably unfair for Wikipedia to link to material which defames an individual, and then for Wikipedia to set up impossible hurdles which prevent that same individual having any opportunity to have their position given equal standing. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia requires, leaving links to criticism and to defamatory material unmatched balancing references.
[edit] Inherent Unfairness
Wikipedia does not accept affidavits as legitimate sources in articles of Biography of Living Persons, yet Wikipedia does accept links to websites that use affidavits as a basis for criticism of individuals who may be critics of the subject of a Wikipedia Biography of a Living Person. This is manifestly absurd, and clearly advantages the wealthy and powerful and disadvantages the ordinary person.
Wikipedia 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.
[edit] Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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/
Nik Wright2 13:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitration
I have fixed the formatting of your request somewhat. You copied your statement into the hidden template, rather than making a copy of the hidden template. You also left out two important elements, a list of involved users, and links to prior attempts to resolve the dispute.
Arbitation does not consider content problems, only editor behavior. If you believe that other editors have behaved incorrectly, you need to list their names in the place shown (using the format *{{userlinks|name}} as I did). You also need to inform all the editors you list that you have filed an arbitration request against them by posting a notice on their talk pages, and then put a diff link on the arbitration request showing they were notified. If there was a mediation cabal case on the issue, please provide a link to it as well, in the "prior attempts at dispute resolution" section. Thanks. Thatcher131 15:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please see the comments so far on your arbitration case. You need to notify the other users of the request for arbitration and provide the additional information that an arbitrator has requested. Let Thatcher131 or me know if you need any assistance from the Clerks. Newyorkbrad 22:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
