Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-16 Sahaja Yoga

[Guest guest]

Dear Devotees of the Adi Shakti,

 

i received a FYI email concerning John Noyce, the official WCASY

watchdog of this forum, who colludes with council members/country

coordinators to remove any Sahaja Yoga links to www.adishakti. org.

 

This is not the first time that John Noyce has been caught committing

an indecent act in public. It is no point trying to shame him because

he is too thick-skinned for any remorse or guilt feeling. The fact

that he pretends to be a scholar doing research on the Adi Shakti,

and yet continues deliberately deleting/editing evidence supporting

Her incarnation Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi, leaves me flabbergasted.

 

Appended below is a request made by Will Beback to stop Sahajhist

(John Noyce) and Sfacets (JN's clone) from removing Wikipedia links

to www.adishakti. org. It is but a reminder of the negativity that,

fully swollen and blinded by its own power (ego), has not only

_first_ silenced and then taken over Her Will, but is also trying to

prevent the truth of Her Advent and Divine Message from reaching

humanity. And i keep warning the faithful and those keeping vigil to

sustain Shri Mataji's incarnation and legacy - DO NOT EMPOWER THIS

NEGATIVITY THAT IS NOW FULLY SWOLLEN AND BLINDED BY ITS OWN POWER! We

are passing through the Tribulation and nothing short of unswerving

and fearless dedication to Shri Mataji will see us through. Each of

us must individually and collectively utilize our minds, bodies and

wealth to defeat this negativity. And my pranaam to Will Beback who

is doing just that. Those who fight for the Adi Shakti's victory on

Earth will surely be rewarded by Her in the Spirit World! This _is_

the Last Judgment and Resurrection. So have absolutely no doubt of

the Adi Shakti's eternal gratitude for battling for Dharma!

 

Jai Shri Ganapathy,

 

jagbir

 

Thanks Will Beback, whoever and wherever you are! Hope you will be

back or have the will to be back monitoring JN's removal of links. On

my part i will be backing, and have the will to back you back to

back, Will Beback. So keep on coming back at John Noyce till he has

no will to be back. In the meantime all members are invited to enjoy

this Wikipedia: Mediation Cabal/Cases/ 2006-12-16 Sahaja Yoga

 

i too will be back!

 

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------

 

Request Information

Request made by: Will Beback · † · 23:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

 

Where is the issue taking place?

Sahaja Yoga and Nirmala Srivastava

 

Who's involved?

Sfacets, Sahajhist, Will Beback

 

What's going on?

Sfacets and Sahajhist push a particular POV and engage in ownership

of the articles about a guru and her organization, topics with which

they have conflicts of interest.

 

What would you like to change about that?

Editors should not remove properly-sourced critical information while

inserting poorly-sourced or unsourced self-serving material.

 

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

Any method is fine with me. I can be reached on my talk page or by

email.

 

Mediator (Somitho) response:

I've accepted the case, and remind all parties to try to remain

civil. Somitho 17:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC) I also would like to

remind all parties to sign using ~~~~ Somitho 17:54, 18 December 2006

(UTC)

 

Ideogram:

Is this dispute still active? Do you need another mediator? --

Ideogram 00:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

 

Somitho:

Mediator is active, as well as dispute. I am awaiting ideal solutions

from all parties before I move along.

-Somitho 00:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

 

Sfacets:

At this point I can say I more or less agree with the state the

article is in. The main points of contention appear to be external

link/source related, apart from the disagreement arising over whether

the chakra table should be included in full or merely highlight the

differences betwen the SY system and that followed in Hinduism.

-Sfacets 16:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

 

Will Beback:

Sfacets - are you back? Can we resume the mediation now?

-Will Beback · † ·

 

Sfacets:

Hi Will, yes I am back (on and off), I don't know where Sahajhist is

though - maybe we should wait for his return before continuing?

-Sfacets 09:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

 

Will Beback:

If he's returning then we can wait.

-Will Beback · † · 18:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

 

Somitho:

Shall we give him 14 days, and if he does not respond. Continue

without him, if needed; allowing him to reopen or come back at any

moment?

-Somitho 07:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

 

Sfacets:

I'm not sure that is very fair, both because of the number of editors

involved in this case, and because Sahajhist should not be left out

of the discussion.. .

-Sfacets 10:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

 

Will Beback:

Sahajhist appears to be back and editing one of the articles.[1] .

-Will Beback · † · 17:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

 

Will Beback:

I'm concerned about editing like this: [2]. Sahajhist is adding

unsourced assertions that appear incorrect on their face, and

removing sourced material that does not agree with the official

viewpoint. This is the type of behavior that I think is unhelpful and

that we keep seeing from this group of editors.

-Will Beback · † · 09:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

 

Sahajhist:

Yes I'm back (tho not on a regular basis as I'm a writer/publisher in

the Real World) and my edits to the Nirmala Srivastava page are

intended primarily to add references as requested by someone else.

There is also some light editing to improve text. I dont see anything

controversial in this.

-Sahajhist 22:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

 

Will Beback:

Two of your edits in this new batch [Now retired from public life,

Nirmala Srivastava from 1970 to 2003 travelled extensively across the

world spreading Sahaja Yoga, giving numerous public lectures, and

interviews to newspapers, television and radio.] that I am concerned

about are when you deleted a sourced assertion: She is also

worshipped as " Shri Adi Shakti " .[3]

And when you added an unsourced assertion that appears to be

contradicted by various sources:

Now retired from public life, Nirmala Srivastava from 1970 to 2003

travelled extensively across the world spreading Sahaja Yoga...

I have seen videos of her travelling in 2006, and I haven't seen any

source that says she's now retired. Can you please explain why you've

deleted the first item, a source which has been deleted many times by

Sahajist editors? Can you explain how we can verify that she is now

retired and wasn't travelling from 2003-2006 despite video evidnece

to the contrary?

-Will Beback · † · 00:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

 

Sahajhist:

The last public lecture given by Shri Mataji was in Delhi, March

2003. The last lecture to Sahaja Yogis was also in Delhi, March 2003.

All visits by Shri Mataji and Sir C.P. since then have been private

family visits. I can understand cynicism on your part at that

statement given that there are well-documented and extensive

photo/video archives of their Australian, UK, Italian and US visits

in 2006, on various websites. However, these are still primarily

private visits. With regard to your first point, it is indeed true

that Sahaja Yogis regard Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi as an incarnation

of the Goddess. However in this context 'Shri Adi Shakti' is only one

of her Divine aspects. So any statement in the first para needs to be

wider. btw, shouldnt we be discussing this on the appropriate talk

page?

-Sahajhist 02:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

 

Will Beback:

There's no way I could have known your reasoning because you didn't

give any of that explanation in your edit summaries. What is your

source for the information about the travelling and retirement? The

issue is not so much the edits as the editing behavior. Pro-Sahaja

editors, you and Sfacets in particular, add unsourced information and

remove sourced info. Regarding the 'Shri Adi Shakti' if it is

incomplete then why did you delete it instead of adding to it? The

repeated deletions of sources and external links without adequate

explanation I requested this mediation. Is that an adequate source or

not, and if not then why not?

-Will Beback · † · 03:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

 

Sahajhist:

This discussion should be on the relevant talk page.

-Sahajhist 07:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

 

Will Beback:

No, only discussion of content should be held on article talk pages.

This is a discussion of the editing behavior that is the subject of

this mediation.

-Will Beback · † · 08:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

 

Sahajhist:

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. If I can widen this

slightly: I would suggest that the Nirmala Srivastava page be a

straight-forward biography, leaving matters of theology such as 'Shri

Adi Shakti' to be dealt with on the Sahaja Yoga page. What is your

view on this?

-Sahajhist 00:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

 

Will Beback:

The editing problems that we need to address here are that you

deleted that assertion without comment, and what sources we can use

to reference the theology. Why did you delete it? A complete section

on theology, whether in the Srivastava article or the SY article

would have to include using " Shri Adi Shakti: The Kingdom Of God " as

a source, but that link has been removed countless times from the

articles. Can we agree to use that as a source for Sahaja Yoga's

theology and for views of Srivastava?

Also, I gather from your statements that both you and Sfacets are

residents of Melbourne, and hence members of the Melbourne

collective. There have been problems with several unregistered

editors from Melbourne. (most recently user:211.28. 128.27). Is there

a discussion of Wikipedia articles among the Melbourne Collective? Do

you know the individuals who are editing? They are a part of the

problem and their editing behavior reflects poorly on all pro-Sahaja

editors.

-Will Beback · † · 22:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

 

WikiPossum:

Why not ask them directly: symelb[at]. com.au

-WikiPossum 11:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

 

Will Beback:

OK, let's start with you. Are you rsponsible for any of the

unregisted edits? What is your involvement here? Would you like to

participate in a useful manner in this mediation?

-Will Beback · † · 12:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

 

Will Beback:

PS: Since user:211.28. 128.27 added a link to Sahajhist's blog it

appears that the user is that editor. Sahajhist has been warned

previously about adding links to his blog.[4][5] Is there something

about our policies which isn't clear? Do you think they don't apply

to you?

-Will Beback · † · 23:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

 

Sfacets:

I like your assumptions, misguided as they may be... there is no

Cabal. (*looks at title*) oh.

-Sfacets 00:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

 

Will Beback:

Perhaps you and Sahajhist can clarify matters by indicating if any of

the unregistered edits were made by either of you. Or perhaps there's

one unregistered user in Melbourne making all of these edits.

user:211.28. 128.27 appears to be an experienced editor.

-Will Beback · † · 04:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

 

Sfacets:

The http://www.adishakt i.org website is a separate interpretation of

SY (although the author continues to use SY as a center point, he

goes off on all kinds of tangents) and so cannot be used to draw

information about SY theology from.

That there are one or more editors from Melbourne editing the article

without signing in means nothing, and especially does not imply that

they are " part of the problem " or that their " editing behavior

reflects poorly on all pro-Sahaj editors " . Does that mean by

extension, that every time an anti-Sahaj anonymous editor makes a

change it reflects poorly on yourself and other editors? You seem to

be implying that any edits I would make would be to push a POV, which

I have denied from the beginning.

-Sfacets 06:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

 

Will Beback:

The worship of Srivastava as Shri Adi Shakti is documented both on

www.adishakti. org and on SY websites. Sahajhist suggests covering the

matter in the SY article. You seem to suggest that it would not be

appropriate there, which puts us back at the Srivastava article. Is

there are an orthodox theology in SY, and if so who are the keepers

of the orthodoxy?

Do we know that the unregistered users are not either you or

Sahajhist? Sahajhist has remoevd info from an IP talk page on at

least one occasion.[6] These unregistered users are the source of

many problem edits, including ones which promote the scholarship of

Sahajhist. If they are one person it'd be helpful if they'd register

and even join this mediation. Maybe it's Sahajhist, maybe it's a

third party. At least you can help us narrow it down.

-Will Beback · † · 06:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

 

http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Wikipedia: Mediation_ Cabal/Cases/

2006-12-16_ Sahaja_Yoga# Mediation_ Case:_2006- 12-16_Sahaja_ Yoga

 

NOTE:

John Noyce and company seem to have lost this case and cannot remove

www.adishakti. org from http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Sahaja_Yoga as

is

evidenced at the bottom of page under " Other sites " :

 

Other sites

Shri Adi Shakti: The Kingdom Of God

Sahaja Yoga at the Religious Movements Homepage at the University of

Virginia. Not updated since 2001.

 

This is what the mediator Somitho concluded:

 

" I've added articles I want you each to work on, and let us know why

you feel they should be this way. Please do not edit each others

articles or have outside assistance. The purpose of this is to find

out exactly what originality you wish to contribute, along with

handle the dispute at hand in a civil fashion. Hopefully the

compromise we come to will include a piece of the old, and the

new; by rewriting portions of the article. Please follow all current

guidelines and policy when doing this, remembering WP:NPOV and WP:REF

when doing so. "

-Somitho 08:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)