Anuttamadasi
)
Anuttamadasi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi, Wikidas has claimed that Roupa Manjari is a sock puppet. As a vaisnava, I swear to Krishna that I have no control over Roupa Manjari's edits. I have met her and she is a member of a forum that I participate in, but her contributions are her own. I have sent her an e-mail suggesting that if she wants to edit wikipedia, then she needs to keep wording neutral and back up statements with references. Wikidas has allowed the ISKCON article to be untruthful in several instances: he refers to ISKCON as being Hindu, although the founder repeatedly said it was not (I'll be putting in numerous references to that); he said that the eleven "closest disciples" were appointed gurus, and I intend to cite references to the letter that appointed the eleven as "ritviks" rather than gurus; and although he cites the authority of the GBC as coming from a "letter", he refuses to allow a link to the legal document, (not a letter) that gives the GBC its authority. In addition there was a huge amount of research done into the question as to whether the founder of ISKCON was poisoned. The evidence includes transcriptions of conversations with the founder, audio clips of the same, forensically enhanced audio clips that are incriminating, hair samples that confirm poisoning, etc. In fact there are several books written on this matter. Please unblock my account and I'll be good, I promise. I'll discuss every change and do them gradually, starting with getting rid of the untruthful Hindu references. These changes will be backed up with loads of references from reliable sources, particularly writings from the founder. Thanks!
Decline reason:
If you've contacted other people in other forums (e.g., the one you're referencing) and encouraged them to come here to support your edits, it is still treated as a violation of our sockpuppetry policy, as those editors are considered meatpuppets. slakr\ talk / 23:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Statement of intent for truthful, substantiated edits
edit- Personal accusations by Annutamadasi
According to the above explanation the user's single purpose is the 'truth' and she disregards the fundamental principle of Wikipedia of reliance on secondary sources. The above is a guarantee that she intend to continue with disruptive edits, because she does not care for a neutral point of view. I trust that the above is the proof that the user and the sock are determined to continue POV pushing and do not intend to respect other editors assuming good faith. None of them have added a single good source and claim that their interpretation of primary or blog sources is the 'truth'. Unblocking such disruptive users could create a very unstable situation and should not be allowed. Wikidās ॐ 20:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC) I fully intend to respect other editors. My prior mistakes were due to being new to Wikipedia and being amazed that the current article about ISKCON was so biased. My intention is to have really great sources which are primarily the actual texts of the documents in question. For instance I'll be quoting from the Science of Self Realization by Srila Prabhupada (the founder-acarya of ISKCON) where he says that he is not a Hindu. It is a crime that the current article says that he is a Hindu, without having any references substantiating it (probably because it isn't true.) In addition where the article currently says that the GBC was formed due to a letter, I'll point to the actual document (not a letter as is said in the current article) that forms the GBC. This document is in the public domain, being available from at least a dozen sources, including photocopies of the original. If I do decide to include the poisoning issue (a matter that should be discussed amongst people who care), it will have references to forensic studies and links to actual audio clips where a listener can hear Srila Prabhupada express concern that he is being poisoned. There is a wealth of real information on this subject from extremely credible sources. It is wonderful that Wikipedia has such a powerful procedures that makes final articles be something that a reader can accept to be written by authority. I am looking forward to being a part of it. Anuttamadasi (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC) P.S. I'm not Roupa Manjari:) she is a 22 year old girl living in California. I was initiated in 1977 and live in Washington state. I intend to be a super-exemplary Wikipedian.
Anuttamadasi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Oh! I hadn't realized that only people who already edit on Wikipedia are considered qualified to give support for an article. I can respect that. My intention is to improve the ISKCON article by providing references to the information that is already there. For instance, in the section about "Influential Leaders since 1977" it needs a reference to the letter (July 9, 1977) that appointed the eleven chosen disciples. And it needs to stop referring to ISKCON as being Hindu, because that isn't true. I can explain and give references in the talk section that substantiate that ISKCON is not, or at least was not intended by the founder to be Hindu. The current article is subtly biased and does not support a neutral position. The claim of Hinduism is used for fund-raising with the Hindus, while the statements in Srila Prabhupada's books such as Science of Self Realization contradict the claim in the ISKCON article. Thanks. Oh, and I'm not and have never been Roupa Manjari.
Decline reason:
This doesn't really address your block reason. You know RoupaManjari outside of Wikipedia; if she is a different person but effectively was editing on your behalf, that makes her a meatpuppet, which we don't distinguish from sockpuppetry. If you want to be unblocked, you'll have to address that behavior, as well as the edit warring that led to your earlier block and which RoupaManjari continued. Mangojuicetalk 12:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
{{unblock|Asking other people outside of Wikipedia help me make changes to the ISKCON was obviously a mistake and backfired in a big way: there are so many experienced editors within Wikipedia who are much more qualified and experienced. So I was bad, but I'll be good now and you won't see new wiki members doing the necessary changes, but rather the proper neutral, mature editing assisted by veteran editors whom I hope will help me. Please unblock me so that I can share information that will make the ISKCON article truly neutral and scholarly. I won't make any changes without finding a wiki mentor, whom I hope you can recommend.}}
- Examples? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
In the current ISKCON article, under the heading "Influential Leaders since 1977" is says "Before his death, Prabhupada "deputed"[40] or appointed following eleven of "his closest disciples to serve as gurus"[41][42] or to continue to direct the organization:[43]". The actual reference for that statement is the July 9th letter [1] The current major editors on this article, Wikidasi and Gauri79 have removed any reference I tried to put to this important July 9th letter. There is a huge difference between what is written on the current article and what really happened. As a result of the GBC hiding the July 9th letter for years, the eleven appointed as ritvik representatives managed to obtain an unprecedented control of the properties and money of the International Society for Krsna Consciousness. With the help of a mentor, I hope to be able to introduce the July 9 letter and clean up the wording on that particular sentence. Anuttamadasi (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
July 9th letter: [[1]]
- I'm going to leave the unblock decision up to others, but it is a good idea to seek mentoring if you're interested. See WP:ADOPT for the procedures, if/when the block is lifted. Mangojuicetalk 19:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think this user and her puppet (that remained 'silent' and only pressed undo button???) can not understand what is WIKI and how her primary sources should not normally be used if they are not discussed by reliable secondary sources. She keeps presenting links to unreliable attack sites as a basis of what she calls 'neutral' and 'truthful' view. User can not understand that it is not about truth but about verifiable sources. A guarantee of a constant edit war is in her above method where she presents a letter by Tamala Krishna Goswami as some important document to her, however no independent sources quoted verbatim support this as something notable or even mentioned. A complete disregard to all the policies of wikipedia, including consensus as she is not even considering asking for consesus on inclusion of this material, it is 'given'. Apparent complete lack of desire to follow the pillars of Wikipedia -- No neutrality; No reliable sources and not even a desire to look at the good academic sources that are already at the article; just an intent to spam using an attack site. This site should be blacklisted on Wiki. Wikidās ॐ 21:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikidasi, while the July 9th letter was written by Tamala Krsna, it was signed by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada: [[2]] (You can see the original in the link), and was pursuant to a conversation which took place on May, 28, 1977 as follows:
"Our next question concerns initiations in the future, particularly at that time when you're no longer with us. We want to know how first and second initiations would be conducted."
Srila Prabhupada answered: "Yes; I shall recommend some of you. After this is settled up, I shall recommend some of you to act as officiating acharyas."
Tamal K.G.: "Is that called ritvik-acharya?"
Srila Prabhupada replied: "Ritvik yes."
Satsvarupa: Then what is the relationship of that person who gives the initiation and the...
Prabhupada: He's guru. He's guru.
Satsvarupa: But he does it on your behalf.
Prabhupada: Yes. That is formality. Because in my presence one should not become guru, so on my behalf, on my order... Amara ajnaya guru haia. Be actually guru, but by my order.
Satsvarupa: So they may also be considered your disciples.
Prabhupada: Yes, they are disciples. Why consider whose?
Tamala Krsna: No, he's asking that these ritvik-acaryas, they're officiating, giving diksa. Their... The people who they give diksa to, whose disciple are they?
Prabhupada: They're his disciple.
Tamala Krsna: They're his disciple.
Prabhupada: Who is initiating. He is grand disciple.
Satsvarupa: Yes.
Tamala Krsna: That's clear.
Satsvarupa: Then we have a question concer...
Prabhupada: When I order, "You become guru," he becomes regular guru. That's all. He becomes disciple of my disciple. That's it.
I just need a mentor so that I can get this information presented in a neutral, wikipediaistic manner. I'm sure you must have been unaware of this conversation and the July 9th letter, otherwise why would you object to having references to them as they are what gives validity to the continuity of ISKCON? Perhaps you'd like to be my mentor? Best wishes, Anuttamadasi (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- If you think that every conversation or any conversation should be mentioned in the Wikipedia you should not be here. You keep making confirmations to the style of disruptive editing that you aim to produce -- you are being tendentious to a point, and you fail to satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; you do not cite sources (the selfpublished sources are not acceptable see 'WP:SPS) and keep citing unencyclopedic sources, ignore reliable sources and insist on your own manufactured original research. I do not think anyone wants to be a mentor to an editor who is by purpose is a disruptive editor. As far as i know I could have been present during this conversation but that will be completely irrelevant to the Wikipedia. Inclusion of the conversation or reference to it will be only considered if academic/reliable sources confirm it being notable and critical to an article. So far it is just distruptive editing proposal. How do you expect such edits should even remain on Wikipedia.
- Based on the above I suggest write protection of this talk page. Wikidās ॐ 01:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikidasi, you must have misunderstood what I intend to do. First of all, a reference to the July 9th letter should not take up too much space. A simple link will do. The letter is in public domain and available on a zillion sites. Secondly, the sentences just need to be slightly reworded to reflect what was actually written in the letter that gave instruction about how initiations would occur in the future. The word in the July 9th letter was "ritvik" not "guru" as in the current version. I'm just trying to be concise, although the words are similar:) In the current version it is a little nebulous about how and to what the eleven disciples were appointed, and this should fix it. See, it is easy to work this out between us. Just change a word or two and add a link, and I'm happy. As far as finding a mentor, I take your comment to mean that you don't want to adopt me:(. Maybe you'll reconsider as you see how easy I am to work with.
- Anuttamadasi, I think you misunderstand. The point is, as I understand it from briefly skimming the situation, that the letter discussed in the article is mentioned in many reliable secondary sources, whereas the July 9th letter is not. It is not appropriate for inclusion at all if other established authors have not thought so, because on Wikipedia, we present the state of knowledge as represented in reliable sources, and we do not go beyond that. You are not going to find a mentor to help you push these edits into the article; at best you can find a mentor who will help you understand Wikipedia's policies better. Right now you aren't showing an openness to the idea that you need to do some adapting. Mangojuicetalk 14:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, Mangojuice, now I see the discrepancy! You think that Wikidasi refers to a second letter. That is not true. We are referring to the same letter and I just want a link to the actual letter. Wikidasi just doesn't want to tweek the words to reflect what was said in the letter. The letter says "ritvik" and the current sentence in the article says "guru".
Mangojuice, in the ISKCON article, under "Influential Leaders since 1977", it is stated,"Before his death, Prabhupada "deputed"[40] or appointed following eleven of "his closest disciples to serve as gurus". There is only one existing document that names those eleven disciples, the July 9th letter. So it is the primary source that could give validity to the above statement. But in fact the statement is incorrect because that letter does not appoint the disciples to serve as gurus. If you go to the secondary sources, they cite the July 9th letter as being the source of the appointment as gurus, equating the term guru with ritvik. I just want to change the word guru to ritvik to be as accurate as possible. Wikidasi should produce a written document signed by Srila Prabhupada that names those eleven as gurus. Citing a book available on Amazon doesn't help Wikipedia readers because they'd have to buy the book to verify the information. I'm sure they'd like to see the actual document that gave control of millions of dollars and influence over thousands of people. Not having that reference would be like having an article about the United States but not allowing any link to the text of the Constitution, only links that analyze the Constitution. In the meantime, I'll e-mail the authors of the books and have them verify their source, but I already know that it is the July 9th letter.
BTW, ISKCON recently lost a multi-million lawsuit against the Bangalore ISKCON temple that follows the July 9th letter and the Direction of Management. The case was won in large part because of the evidence of these two documents. The Bangalore (Ritvik) temple serves over a million lunches per day and is a source of enlivenment for the loyal followers of Srila Prabhupada. Oh, another item that needs to be in the ISKCON article is the bankruptcy due to the Turley lawsuit that requires each temple to pay a huge tax every month. People who donate to ISKCON need to know where their money is going.
This account appears to be a special case. Where it ignores what is already in the article, for example Issues within the society third paragraph (ref 66 [3]) Ignores the fact [4] is
on the page already. I find it very worrying. Not reading the article and not responding to any arguments is that same special case. Can you reason with it? Wikidās ॐ 16:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikidasi, just because there is a link to ISKCON's own site with admission of child abuse problems and a link to a reform site for ISKCON doesn't solve the problem that it also says, "Before his death, Prabhupada "deputed"[40] or appointed following eleven of "his closest disciples to serve as gurus" which isn't true and cannot be verified with any documentation other than a secondary source that readers cannot access. Why not put a link to the document that orders the eleven disciples and tweek the wording to reflect what the document says? What is so hard about that?
Good news! I've been accepted as an adoptee by Gimme Danger! So I've been instructed to find secondary sources and contacted an author listed on Amazon. She is sending me transcripts of her book with references to the July 9th letter. Oh and I noticed that there is, in fact a conversation in the footnotes of the current article. I think I can provide a much more concise conversation to replace that primary reference. Hope this attitude change convinces some kind Admin person that I'm really trying to work within the guidelines and am completely reformed.
- "An author listed on Amazon"? That's about the most meaningless "distinction" a writer can claim. Any piece of self-published garbage can get listed on Amazon. We need reliable sources, not self-published transcripts of conversations. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Reasons for concern about this unblock request
editI have considered responding to this unblock request, but have two concerns:
- Anuttamadasi recently removed from his Talk page a large number of messages complaining about his recent edits. This doesn't appear to reflect a sincere desire for dialog with other editors. It would be better to restore all the messages you've received recently, so the unblocking admin has a more complete picture.
- Right here on your Talk page, there is a disturbing suggestion that you plan to start fighting for your version of the truth when you are unblocked. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I'm not inclined to lift this block unless either (a) you have a plan to patiently seek consensus for your changes, that sounds diplomatic and fair, or (b) you agree to confine yourself to articles where you don't have a strong personal point of view. EdJohnston (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ed -- I feel confident in allowing an unblock now, given the feedback I've gotten at WP:AN. Anuttamadasi says he's been adopted now, and has already promised to do his best to learn from more experienced editors. Anutta -- I've unblocked you. Please do be cautious and be sure to base your claims on reliable secondary sources, and avoid edit warring and continuing to fight losing battles. Be aware, though, that you're going to be on a short leash for a while, until you've established a history of appropriate editing after the block. Mangojuicetalk 20:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Look, I know you work with some religion-based content, and I know how difficult that can be. Trust me. I work with a lot of it to. If you ever need any help, let me know. You can leave me a message on my talk page or e-mail me. I'm not sure I'll be able to do anything, but I can try. John Carter (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- No such user as User:Gimme Danger. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Gimme danger: [5] Apparently capitalization counts.Anuttamadasi (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think she spells everyone names wrong:-) there is one but no record of adoption...
I've written you a letter of apology--it had to be e-mailed because I was blocked, otherwise I'd have posted it to your talk. Let's start fresh and I promise to be respectful: [6] What do you think of this?Anuttamadasi (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think she spells everyone names wrong:-) there is one but no record of adoption...
- User:Gimme danger/Adoption records and no record of any communication with this user on Wiki. Wikidās ॐ 16:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I was blocked, so we correspond via e-mail. Perhaps he's embarrassed that he's taken on such a wayward adoptee:)Anuttamadasi (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- User:Gimme danger/Adoption records and no record of any communication with this user on Wiki. Wikidās ॐ 16:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)