Yonteng

"political" editing of New Kadampa Tradition article

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Yonten - please explain what exactly *in the article as it stands* warrants the inclusion of this tag? for an article to be "disputed" there must be some current disagreement amongst editors about its content: what, in the article, is being disputed?

you say "Edoitors from obth sides using Wiki as political tool"; your use of "sides" and "political" here is revealing. what sides? what is disputed?

this article has been worked on by a number of editors for some time to reach its current state. your inclusion of this tag is unwarranted, imo.

i have posted the above on the New Kadampa Tradition talk page - the proper place for discussioon of your proposed edit.Atisha's cook (talk) 11:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

You know the answers-dont come the kokomo

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. -->

Yonteng, you keep adding this tag despite not discussing it with any other editor and just insulting them whenever they try to discuss with you. Please can you stop doing this and try and collaborate. The article is very reasonable and neutral as it stands. If you want to make edits that are well sourced and avoid your obvious bias on the talk pages, then go ahead, and if they accord with the five pillars of Wikipedia they will stick. But there is no call for the tag. (Truthbody (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC))Reply

Also, I can see you are a new user, just starting today, and just working on the New Kadampa Tradition article. I would like to assume WP:good faith with a new editor, but you are making that difficult with your comments to other editors. (Truthbody (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC))Reply

Sorry, I tried to work with you, but you do not seem to be listening to anyone and are just putting the tag back every time, so I have requested the administrators for their input. (Truthbody (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC))Reply

OOOOOH! Lets see what they think, eh?Nice to see you......to see you, nice!PS If neutral means pushing the criticism section right to the end, editing out any new critical material, reverting changes without explaining them and bullying any editors who hold opposing views to yours so they dont return to the page, i guess that makes you neutral. You use the language of reasonableness but for years you have lied and bullied people off this page.Yet when someone else does what you do, you throw all your toys out of your pram and start crying about the injustice of it sll-I sincerely hope the editors do a thorough job-maybe they can google your user names too and see the fanatical anti Dalai lama war you are waging across the internet on numerous sites. Remember, the NKT is probably the most controversial New Buddhist Movement there is and there are many who can see straight through the supposed neutrality of the one sided article you have forced onto wikipedia-How can it possibly neutral? You are clearly not functioning at a normal level of intellectual dispassion. All I have done is engage you at the level you have engaged others on this page to freak them out. Now you freak out and scream injustice. Editors, mail Chris Fynn, mail Kt66, look at th edit historys, see how refenced 3rd party sources are removed without justification and replaced with self justifying propaganda-all I want is non NPOV banners on the page along with a warning that citations need to be validated-the alternnative is for wikipedia to become just another tool in the NKT anti Dalai Lama war, using the medium to promote legitimacy and hide any uncomfortable truths. This demeans wikipdia. Why not let the scientologists run their own page and block any opposing views there/ That is what is happening here.Googlr NKT and 'cult' or 'controversy' Read the reems of info and then read the wik page-spot the subtle difference? Love to all (really!) Yonten G94.192.139.167 (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

for goodness' sake, there is no "NKT anti Dalai Lama war"! many members of NKT (not the organisation itself, despite claims) have protested some of the Dalai Lama's activities, with which they disagree; that's their right. that is *very* different from engaging in an "anti Dalai Lama war". that you perceive one speaks volumes to your motivation in editing the New Kadampa Tradition WP article.

others before you have also tried to promote their own view of this organisation on the wiki, notably Kt66. this cannot reasonably be seen as "neutral" editing. that some NKT - as well as quite independent - editors have tried to prevent this and maintain a neutral and unbiased article is hardly surprising or particularly sinister.

as Truthbody has said (repeatedly) reasoned and reasonable contributions are welcomed and will stand - whether they fit anyone's personal view or not. as you know, the promotion of personal viewpoints is not what WP is for.

unfortunately, it seems that you will never believe this - you will just think i'm being disingenuous and deceitful. that's a shame, but there's nothing i can really do about it. what i *will* do is to continue to try to keep this and other articles straightforward, factual, accurate and free from undue bias and personal animosity.Atisha's cook (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dear all. especially independent editors, Look, at all this stuff below-clear evidence of a propaganda war by the NKT on WP. The assertion above that there is no Anti Dalai war on the part of the NKT???Google NKT Dalai Lama-who co-ordinates attacks on the dalai. NKT founder KG. Who runs demos, NKT leaders. Who populate demos? NKT followers. Who dominates wiki articles NKT members-if this is not a concerted NKT csmpsign to attack the Dalai and establish the NKT as correct, what is?

Many WP editors who followed the WP guidelines gave up: one of them wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_Kadampa_Tradition_(2nd_nomination)

Your recent edits

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

WP:AIV report

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Moved from WP:AIV to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Yonteng. utcursch | talk 12:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Block, warning, advice

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've blocked you for 24h for edit warring and incivility at New Kadampa Tradition. If you don't want this to happen again, then you ned to (a) stop edit warring, (b) slow down a bit and (c) focus on the edits, not the editors. Far too much of your talk page contributions consist of attacks or insinuations against other editors. Don't do it William M. Connolley (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

((unblock-auto|1=94.192.139.167|2=Autoblocked{{unblock-auto|1=94.192.139.167|2=Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Yonteng". The reason given for Yonteng's block is: "edit warring / incivility at New Kadampa Tradition".|3=William M. Connolley|4=1435198))

Original block looks to have expired, so I'd release any autoblocks, but I'm not finding any active ones, which leads me to think they might have expired. Try editing again? – Luna Santin (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Since you're editing, now, I've removed the unblock request; feel free to restore it if you have any further problems. Cheers. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

BANNERS ON NKT ARTICLE

http://westernshugdensociety.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/wikipedia-dorje-shugdens-enlightened-lineage-or-how-to-make-history/ EXPLAINS THE REASONS FOR THESE BANNERS Please make it clear where you want the reasons for the replacement of these banners to appear Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Yonteng.

May 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on New Kadampa Tradition. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

48h. I reiterate my advice of the 10th William M. Connolley (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

William I will post an expalanation on the NKT talk page if you wilud please unblock me as you sadi you would (the block expired about an hour ago but its still on)Yonteng (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Yonteng (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

94.192.139.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Yonteng". The reason given for Yonteng's block is: "edit warring at New Kadampa Tradition".

Blocking administrator: William M. Connolley (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: You were not caught by an accidental autoblocked. You were directly blocked because your behavior was disriptive to Wikipedia. If you wish to be unblocked, you must use the {{unblock}} template instead, and you MUST make an explanation of why you should be unblocked. You request is likely to be declined if you do not explain that you fully understand why you were blocked, and also can convince us that you are not going to continue the same behavior that got you blocked. Please read WP:GAB for more help. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

{{unblock}} Of course iunderstand why i was blocked-Please read the follwing to try and understand what is happening-sorry its lengthy but this is a situation that has gone on for years and I really think these people are screwing wiki{{adminhelp}} {{helpme}}

As you are probably well aware, Wikipedia policy on Conflict of Interest guidelines state: ‘A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest...... The COI then lists the following examples of COI: Campaigning Activities regarded by insiders as simply "getting the word out" may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest. Close relationships Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization.’ I note that all of the contributing editors who are consistently editing this article, as well as the related Dorje Shugden and Dorje Shugden Controversy and Kelsang Gyatso (the NKT founder) ones are members of the NKT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Truthbody states: I am a Buddhist in the New Kadampa Tradition and a student of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Atisha%27s_cook states on that page in relating personal experience of a demonstration in the USA organised by Kelsang Gyatso and NKT seniors :’I saw all this myself and I saw and felt the crowd's vitriol’ indicating clear involvement with the Western Shugden Society, a group populated overwhelmingly by NKT members. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Truthsayer62 states: ‘I'm a practitioner of Kadampa Buddhism for about fourteen years’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Emptymountains states on his talk page ‘My name is Michael-James’ . http://www.dharmaweb.org/index.php/Virginia names Michael-James as principal contact for ‘Kadampa Meditation Group, Location: Norfolk, VA 23517, Contact: Michael-James’ All of these editors are therefore clearly members of the New Kadampa tradition as well as being regular contributors to each of the aforementioned articles. Moreover, a majority of these editors have faced repeated allegations of sock puppetry when editing articles (See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eyesofcompassion&oldid=226226514 & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Truthsayer62 ) and have on occasions been blocked as a result. Other contributors (Kt 66, Rudy, Chris Fynn) have consistently raised the issue of the lack of neutrality of these editors (see, for example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rudyh01#The_never-ending_story_about_Shugden) and some of these long term valued contributors have abandoned their attempts to balance the articles these NKT editors dominate (ie The New Kadampa Tradition, Dorje Shugden. The Dorje Shugden Controversy, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso). See, for example, http://westernshugdensociety.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/wikipedia-dorje-shugdens-enlightened-lineage-or-how-to-make-history/ which states: For more than one year now Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, like Dreyfus, Kay, von Brück, Mumford or Nebesky-Wojkowitz, as well as other qualified scholarly papers on the history of Shugden worship (and / or the Shugden Controversy / New Kadampa Tradition) have been repeatedly deleted or misrepresented on Wikipedia – in almost all cases by a group of engaged NKT editors – or these qualified sources have been blocked by them as being “heavily biased”; and for a long time NKT blogs and anonymous websites made by Shugdenpas replaced Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. Now the academic sources are just not mentioned any more or they are presented only marginal, and in a way that it does not interfere with the World-view of NKT. The history and talk pages of Wikipedia, as well as the notices on the Adminboard, offer everybody the chance to explore this for himself. The last notice on the Adminboard can be read here: Users Emptymountains and Truthbody. Other strategies included the sockpuppets of ‘Wisdombuddha’ or multiple accounts fom the same IP. One year ago an editor, who was not involved in editing these articles, gave already a notice on the Administrators’ noticeboard, stating … these users are deleting sourced information and have a clear POV that they’ve conspired to promote on Wikipedia. They are pretty intransigent when it comes to talking about reverting and they show bad faith in editing. I don’t know the intricacies of this dispute, but you don’t need to in order to see how mass deletions of verifiable and reliable information are a bad idea….’ Since then, nothing has really changed and hence this is increasingly becoming a fruitless case where editors who attempt to place any critical views on these pages are being bullied of them by what to all intents and purposes appears to be a dedicated team of NKT editors.

User Empty Mountains actually uses the phrase ‘We say this because...’ (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dorje_Shugden_controversy under the heading ‘proposed restructure’) indicating a coordinated team effort at work on these pages

When a further possible sockpuppet of these individuals, ‘Eyes of Compassion’ was warned about this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eyesofcompassion the explanation was given that NKT ‘Buddhist practitioners were all gathered for a Festival in England and hence were independently accessing the internet from the same server’ seemingly demonstrating a concerted and coordinated effort on the part of this team to influence WP content, though each purported individual claimed to be acting ‘independently’. A number of issues have also been raised by editors following WP guidelines for articles these NKT editors contribute to, to be examined by administrators (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_Kadampa_Tradition_(2nd_nomination) & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Kadampa_Tradition/Archive_8#kt66_aka_Tenzin_Paljor which states: I worked alongside kt66 on WP for a couple of years, and although he was sometimes furious at himself for having spent so much of his life promoting NKT, when he came here, he learned to balance his opinions carefully with fact. It was mainly due to his efforts that the NKT, DS, KG articles remained reasonably balanced. Of course, now that GKG has told his students to stay away from discussion groups, it is unlikely that his faithful followers would continue to edit and discuss on WP - but it appears this isn't the case. Once more, the said articles are blatantly biased in NKT's favour - so much so that they garner attention as being not much more than promo. material. If you wish to present the NKT, DS, GKG etc in a manner that meets the criteria of an encyclopedia, it is essential that you reflect the facts of these things in an impartial manner. It is apparent that the above editors (Truthsayer62, Truthbody, Atisha’s Cook and Empty Mountains) have a COI and should not be allowed to edit WP articles on these subjects, be it these names or from the same IP under alternative pseudonyms. Since their work on the articles mentioned leads to a clearly imbalanced perspective I am placing the NPOV banners on the NKT page. Moreover, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Blocks states: Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of this guideline should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked. Since these issues have already been raised repeatedly, since a number of the editors named has faced multiple allegations of sock puppetry/ biased editing/ unwarranted banner reversion, non NPOV, and COI, and since the present articles are heavily biased, making little or no mention of the considerable arguments against the NKT and its religio-political activities, as welI as the allegations of sexual abuse and political machinations that are widespread across the internet (see, for example www.newkadampa.com ) and have appeared in various newspapers and periodicals (see previous web ref) I would strongly advise these editors to leave the banner as you are now at a stage where continued editing of said articles will merit your being blocked. I am also alerting administrators to your activities in the interests of neutrality. Empty Mountains reference to ‘Yonteng's edit warring’ is ‘gaming the system’; it is inflammatory and demonstrates a musinderstanding of the term which is defined as: ‘...when contributors, or groups of contributors, repeatedly revert each other's contributions.’ In other words, for edit warring to occur, at least two parties must be involved. In this case, while I am acting alone, Empty Mountains and colleagues, all members of the same religious organisation, are involved in a disagreement over whether the content of the NKT and related pages are neutral in content. EM and colleagues, each of whom have been editing this page for some time, believe they are. I, on the other hand, who have some knowledge of the history of the group but am somewhat inexperienced in WP etiquette believe they are not, principally because of what does not appear on the page rather than what does. In short, this is not ‘my’ edit war; it is ‘ours’. To claim it is mine is to draw attention away from the fact that we are equally responsible for this dispute. There are multiple allegations against the NKT which it would take a long time to delineate. Fortunately, the history of these pages outlines all of the many concerns in full, as anyone who wishes to enquire will see. I am at a disadvantage because I can only place the NPOV banner on the page three times before I fall foul of the 3RR rule. Because my ‘opponents’ are a team of 4 editors, each can revert my banner twice before moderators are alerted. Thus, the NKT team of editors can revert my banners 8 times in a day before questions are raised. Recent assertions of the internet becoming a domain of mob rule rather than one of freedom of speech begin to ring true. Finally, the obliteration of approximately 22 of the 23 allegations I raised concerning the controversial nature of the group, claiming they are appropriately ‘addressed’ without any significant explanation could be construed as an indication of unwillingness to consider alternative views on this article where the main aim is to achieve a neutral point of view. The claim that ‘the majority of allegations are unsubstantiated’ is the viewpoint expressed by the NKT themselves and not their critics, according to whom , if not all of the allegations have been repeatedly substantiated. It is a thoroughly one-sided view

I would like to thank Truthbody, for pointing me to the Obama site ‘Fight the smears’. The remarkable resemblance between it, and the NKTs own ‘Fighting the smears’ page has been noted, indeed the resemblance between the two pages in terms of format, structure and message is almost uncanny. I suppose the only real difference between the two is that President Obama’s campaign was entirely political whereas the NKT’s campaign to clear its good name after widespread criticism of it throughout the International Press and to promote Shugden worship is of an entirely apolitical and solely religious nature (?)

I sincerely hope this helps bring about a more balanced article, Yonteng {{unblock}}Yonteng (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Whoa, think you could be any more wordy? Could you please summarize this using a lot fewer words? I got lost about two sentences in. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 19:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Not sure what else I can say really. I only commented because I was on #wikipedia-en-help. Keep asking, I'm sure someone will get to this. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 20:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Basically, this is a CoI-these people are using wp to post propaganda for their religious sect unopposed-anyone who posts gets editted out and when i put neutrality banners on it, they 3RR me (theres 4 of them0each can revert twice daily=8 without problems. Outside this group lots of people say it is a cult but on WP, they are squeaky clean_they know the rules Idont so the truth gets lost HELP!!!!

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock #1438183 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 19:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

ANI notification

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's another discussion about your editing at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Second_Attempted_Outing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

New Kadampa Tradition banners

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Sorry for all this rant but this is a serious case of WP abuse by what appears to be an organised gang of editors working to promote a highly controversial relgious sect. Please be patient and read once, slowly {{adminhelp}} As you are probably well aware, Wikipedia policy on Conflict of Interest guidelines state: ‘A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest......

The COI then lists the following examples of COI:

Campaigning Activities regarded by insiders as simply "getting the word out" may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest.

Close relationships Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization.’

I note that all of the contributing editors who are consistently editing this article, as well as the related Dorje Shugden and Dorje Shugden Controversy and Kelsang Gyatso (the NKT founder) ones are members of the NKT:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Truthbody states: I am a Buddhist in the New Kadampa Tradition and a student of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Atisha%27s_cook states on that page in relating personal experience of a demonstration in the USA organised by Kelsang Gyatso and NKT seniors :’I saw all this myself and I saw and felt the crowd's vitriol’ indicating clear involvement with the Western Shugden Society, a group populated overwhelmingly by NKT members.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Truthsayer62 states: ‘I'm a practitioner of Kadampa Buddhism for about fourteen years’

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Emptymountains <info meeting suppression redacted>

All of these editors are therefore clearly members of the New Kadampa tradition as well as being regular contributors to each of the aforementioned articles.

Moreover, a majority of these editors have faced repeated allegations of sock puppetry when editing articles (See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eyesofcompassion&oldid=226226514 & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Truthsayer62 ) and have on occasions been blocked as a result.

Other contributors (Kt 66, Rudy, Chris Fynn) have consistently raised the issue of the lack of neutrality of these editors (see, for example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rudyh01#The_never-ending_story_about_Shugden) and some of these long term valued contributors have abandoned their attempts to balance the articles these NKT editors dominate (ie The New Kadampa Tradition, Dorje Shugden. The Dorje Shugden Controversy, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso). See, for example, http://westernshugdensociety.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/wikipedia-dorje-shugdens-enlightened-lineage-or-how-to-make-history/ which states:

For more than one year now Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, like Dreyfus, Kay, von Brück, Mumford or Nebesky-Wojkowitz, as well as other qualified scholarly papers on the history of Shugden worship (and / or the Shugden Controversy / New Kadampa Tradition) have been repeatedly deleted or misrepresented on Wikipedia – in almost all cases by a group of engaged NKT editors – or these qualified sources have been blocked by them as being “heavily biased”; and for a long time NKT blogs and anonymous websites made by Shugdenpas replaced Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. Now the academic sources are just not mentioned any more or they are presented only marginal, and in a way that it does not interfere with the World-view of NKT.

The history and talk pages of Wikipedia, as well as the notices on the Adminboard, offer everybody the chance to explore this for himself. The last notice on the Adminboard can be read here: Users Emptymountains and Truthbody. Other strategies included the sockpuppets of ‘Wisdombuddha’ or multiple accounts fom the same IP. One year ago an editor, who was not involved in editing these articles, gave already a notice on the Administrators’ noticeboard, stating … these users are deleting sourced information and have a clear POV that they’ve conspired to promote on Wikipedia. They are pretty intransigent when it comes to talking about reverting and they show bad faith in editing. I don’t know the intricacies of this dispute, but you don’t need to in order to see how mass deletions of verifiable and reliable information are a bad idea….’ Since then, nothing has really changed and hence this is increasingly becoming a fruitless case where editors who attempt to place any critical views on these pages are being bullied of them by what to all intents and purposes appears to be a dedicated team of NKT editors.

User Empty Mountains actually uses the phrase ‘We say this because...’ (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dorje_Shugden_controversy under the heading ‘proposed restructure’) indicating a coordinated team effort at work on these pages

When a further possible sockpuppet of these individuals, ‘Eyes of Compassion’ was warned about this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eyesofcompassion the explanation was given that NKT ‘Buddhist practitioners were all gathered for a Festival in England and hence were independently accessing the internet from the same server’ seemingly demonstrating a concerted and coordinated effort on the part of this team to influence WP content, though each purported individual claimed to be acting ‘independently’.

A number of issues have also been raised by editors following WP guidelines for articles these NKT editors contribute to, to be examined by administrators (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_Kadampa_Tradition_(2nd_nomination) & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Kadampa_Tradition/Archive_8#kt66_aka_Tenzin_Paljor which states: I worked alongside kt66 on WP for a couple of years, and although he was sometimes furious at himself for having spent so much of his life promoting NKT, when he came here, he learned to balance his opinions carefully with fact. It was mainly due to his efforts that the NKT, DS, KG articles remained reasonably balanced. Of course, now that GKG has told his students to stay away from discussion groups, it is unlikely that his faithful followers would continue to edit and discuss on WP - but it appears this isn't the case. Once more, the said articles are blatantly biased in NKT's favour - so much so that they garner attention as being not much more than promo. material. If you wish to present the NKT, DS, GKG etc in a manner that meets the criteria of an encyclopedia, it is essential that you reflect the facts of these things in an impartial manner. It is apparent that the above editors (Truthsayer62, Truthbody, Atisha’s Cook and Empty Mountains) have a COI and should not be allowed to edit WP articles on these subjects, be it these names or from the same IP under alternative pseudonyms.

Since their work on the articles mentioned leads to a clearly imbalanced perspective I am placing the NPOV banners on the NKT page. Moreover, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Blocks states: Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of this guideline should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked.

Since these issues have already been raised repeatedly, since a number of the editors named has faced multiple allegations of sock puppetry/ biased editing/ unwarranted banner reversion, non NPOV, and COI, and since the present articles are heavily biased, making little or no mention of the considerable arguments against the NKT and its religio-political activities, as welI as the allegations of sexual abuse and political machinations that are widespread across the internet (see, for example www.newkadampa.com ) and have appeared in various newspapers and periodicals (see previous web ref) I would strongly advise these editors to leave the banner as you are now at a stage where continued editing of said articles will merit your being blocked. I am also alerting administrators to your activities in the interests of neutrality.

Empty Mountains reference to ‘Yonteng's edit warring’ is ‘gaming the system’; it is inflammatory and demonstrates a musinderstanding of the term which is defined as: ‘...when contributors, or groups of contributors, repeatedly revert each other's contributions.’ In other words, for edit warring to occur, at least two parties must be involved. In this case, while I am acting alone, Empty Mountains and colleagues, all members of the same religious organisation, are involved in a disagreement over whether the content of the NKT and related pages are neutral in content. EM and colleagues, each of whom have been editing this page for some time, believe they are. I, on the other hand, who have some knowledge of the history of the group but am somewhat inexperienced in WP etiquette believe they are not, principally because of what does not appear on the page rather than what does. In short, this is not ‘my’ edit war; it is ‘ours’. To claim it is mine is to draw attention away from the fact that we are equally responsible for this dispute

There are multiple allegations against the NKT which it would take a long time to delineate. Fortunately, the history of these pages outlines all of the many concerns in full, as anyone who wishes to enquire will see.

I am at a disadvantage because I can only place the NPOV banner on the page three times before I fall foul of the 3RR rule. Because my ‘opponents’ are a team of 4 editors, each can revert my banner twice before moderators are alerted. Thus, the NKT team of editors can revert my banners 8 times in a day before questions are raised. Recent assertions of the internet becoming a domain of mob rule rather than one of freedom of speech begin to ring true.

Finally, the obliteration of approximately 22 of the 23 allegations I raised concerning the controversial nature of the group, claiming they are appropriately ‘addressed’ without any significant explanation could be construed as an indication of unwillingness to consider alternative views on this article where the main aim is to achieve a neutral point of view. The claim that ‘the majority of allegations are unsubstantiated’ is the viewpoint expressed by the NKT themselves and not their critics, according to whom , if not all of the allegations have been repeatedly substantiated. It is a thoroughly one-sided view

I would like to thank Truthbody, for pointing me to the Obama site ‘Fight the smears’. The remarkable resemblance between it, and the NKTs own ‘Fighting the smears’ page has been noted, indeed the resemblance between the two pages in terms of format, structure and message is almost uncanny. I suppose the only real difference between the two is that President Obama’s campaign was entirely political whereas the NKT’s campaign to clear its good name after widespread criticism of it throughout the International Press and to promote Shugden worship is of an entirely apolitical and solely religious nature (?) I sincerely hope this helps bring about a more balanced article, Yonteng

Hi. I've blanked your user page - none of that belonged there. I've removed one duplicate banner from here. You appear to have spammed this onto the NKT page too. Duplication is evil. Make up your mind: put it here or there. I'll remove it from there, pending your decision. Meanwhile, please try to make your problems concise. Quoting large slabs of policy rather than linking to it is a particularly bad way of making your point William M. Connolley (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

C made some comments on t:NKT. I don't think they matter now, but if you need to refer to them, they are [1] William M. Connolley (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your rant above is far far too long. It also appears to be a close duplicate of previous text on this same page. Which you were told is too long. You must understand that we lack infinite patience. Please be concise, state your complaint briefly and do not quote large blocks of policy, or even small blocks. I've read WP:COI William M. Connolley (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Help requested

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

OK, so I've moved this help request down here, where I can see what is going on, and try to help you.

I see the dialogue above, but frankly I'm still not clear how I can help. Please could you give me a specific question, and we can take it from there. No need for another helpme or adminhelp, I'll be watching for a reply below. Alternatively, you might find it quicker to talk to us live. Chzz ► 20:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Chzz I just think these people either need blocking or the article needs to be markes as permanently non-neutral. They really are manipulating WP for propaganda purposes. Loads of editors have tried to present the otherside but they just get deleted out/bullied until they give up. This is all part of a big anti Dalai Lama propaganda war, covert and overt, but nothing seems to be happening to stem their activities. Repeated requests for article deletion, repeated allegations of sock puppetry, criticism of the practices on this page mooted at elsewhere on the net and yet WP carries on regardless. User emptymountains just reported me for 'outing him' when he even uses his real name (Michael-james) on his user page-they just learned the rules and bend them to their advantage-surely something has to happen??? best wishesYonteng (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

You know what? KNOCK IT OFF RIGHT NOW. Stop with the conspiracy nonsense right this instant or I'm blocking you. You will, and I want to make this absolutely clear, you will assume good faith. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please just read the thing I posted before you take sides???I think youll find that if numerous editors report these people repeatedly for the same thing (as they have), there is a chance it might be happening. Remember what they say,'Just because you have paranoia it doesnt mean that everyone isnt out to get you!Seriously, i honestly beleive there is substance to the multiple allegations-If you start SHOUTING and threatening to block that doesnt really do anything to help get to the bottom of this. After all, isnt it important that WP can be relid on as a valid and truthful resource? No hard feelingsYonteng (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC) best wishes Yonteng (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Name one other person then. And please provide a diff. Right now, I only see you ranting and raving against them. And nothing personal, but your honest belief isn't sufficient to continue on this path. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Users Kt66, See section 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Kadampa_Tradition/Archive_8#kt66_aka_Tenzin_Paljor and Chris Fynn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CFynn You might also take a look at http://westernshugdensociety.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/wikipedia-dorje-shugdens-enlightened-lineage-or-how-to-make-history/ Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_Kadampa_Tradition_(2nd_nomination) Please take a look at these and they should give you a picture of the other side. You might compare the contents of the WP page on the NKT to newkadampa.com as well!

Rudy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rudyh01#The_never-ending_story_about_Shugden, I hope you have time to look at these things before proceedingYonteng (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC) For your diff see http://info-buddhism.com/#nkt No hard feelingsYonteng (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

(following 3 edit conflicts, meh)

OK, so. There's a huge community of people here; between us, I think we can sort this out. One step at a time.

Blocking of users - OK, we can do that. First, we need to warn 'em. You can do that yourself, or I can do it, whatever. See Wikipedia:WARN#Warnings_and_notices. For example, if someone has not been neutral, we should put {{subst:uw-npov1}} on their talk page. If they do it again, we can use {{subst:uw-npov2}}, etc. If we use the last one, and they *still* do it, we can ask an admin to block them. We (that is, the community, which includes yourself, myself, the offending party etc) have agreed that this is the best way to proceed. Follow this agreed policy, and we'll do just fine.

Now, regarding the article. Again, follow procedures. If you suspect that your edit might be controversial, it's best to start a discussion on the article talk page. The intent here is to seek the opinion of the community and reach a consensus. It does work, honestly. Stick to the actual content, with clear, short, policy reasons why something should be added/removed; listen to what others have to say; ignore any personal attacks, and stick to the point. If you can't get an agreement, get more input from others. See WP:DISPUTE for ideas.

Sock puppetry. OK, so. Again, we have procedures in place for dealing with these problems. A good starting point is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct.

I hope that the above will help a little; as I mentioned before, you might find it helpful to talk to us live. If that (java) link doesn't work for you, try this one.

I hope I can help you to resolve this; best wishes, Chzz ► 21:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'd be happy if there would be some progress on this issue as well. Although Yonteng may be a little extreme in seeing some anti-Dalai Lama conspiracy behind all this i think i will have to support at least some of his views. I have been watching the controversies around the NKT and the evolution of the articles on WP for quite some time. In fact, the only reason i ever got to know the NKT, and i assume also the reason most of the people will ever look at their wiki page, IS the host of controversies surrounding them. They are widely considered sort of the black sheep of the (Tibetan) Buddhist community (if justified or not is a different issue). If you look at the NKT page it is evident that the controversies are either not present at all or buried back in the article or in some subordinate clause. Also the main editors opposing Yonteng in the ongoing edit war all seem to have admitted being NKT members which clearly does justify at least the suspicion of a conflict of interest. I will look into this subject a lttle closer now...maybe i can be of some help Andi 3ö (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

There are methods for all of this. However, repeated rants about how everyone there has a POV and violating WP:OUTING multiple times will do nothing but get you blocked. Frankly, normally you would be indefinitely blocked for half of the conduct done here. A suggestion would be to head to WP:COIN and file a reasonable calm report discussing the issues. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Banner on New Kadampa Tradition article

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

YONTENG - what is wrong with you? for goodness' sake: grow up. stop this ridiculous behaviour! GIVE SOME EXAMPLES OF DISPUTED CONTENT IN THE ARTICLE *BEFORE* RE-ADDING THE NPOV BANNER. if you can't do so, then the banner has no validity. provide *reasoned* examples - not just another rant full of conspiracy theories about "anti-Dalai Lama campaigns" and "teams of NKT editors" and sock-puppetry. all that is just ad hominem, and, frankly, insane. reason your edits, or don't make them. at the monent, you are contributing nothing of value. Atisha's cook (talk) 23:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

You be civil too. There's no need for insults. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

The reasons are fully explained above, principally CoI. best wishes and may the farce be with you! YontenYonteng (talk) 07:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dear Atisha's Cook H I have just posted an explanation of the reason for the banner on the NKT talk page. Hope this helps clarify things a little. G'day!Yonteng (talk) 08:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

no, it doesn't. i disagree with your reason and i still believe that you're seeing a conspiracy where there is none. this cannot end well - we both need to assume good faith when editing and neither of us has done this wrt the other up til now. the difference is that you've stated your intention to introduce your POV to the New Kadampa Tradition article, which i've never said is my intention, and which i maintain is *not* my intention. i apologise for shouting earlier, but i'm not made of patience! i honestly think that unless you can change your nind wrt this tradition and the other editors on this article, then you're not going to be able to contribute to it in a neutral way. Atisha's cook (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Conflict of interest

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. see nkt talk page

wrt this, please see my comment above, dated 23:51 15th May. Atisha's cook (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

also, for my pov on this (COI, NKT editors, anti-NKT editors, etc.), you could see my comments on the New Kadampa Tradition article Talk, under the heading "Kt66" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Kadampa_Tradition#Kt66 (sorry - not sure how to create wikilink to a subsection of a Talk page...) Atisha's cook (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yonteng - this is from a summary of an arbitration by Durova to a COIN filed against William M. Connolley here.

i find the whole discussion there very interesting; i realize that my conduct on New Kadampa Tradition could reasonably be construed as indicating that i've fallen foul of this tendency described by Durova below, and i believe that yours could also, as could some of your statements.

"...editors who have any vehement POV are prone to construing misconduct into the actions of opposing editors, then once they convince themselves that the other side has breached policies (whether or not it really has), the vehement POVers begin violating policies themselves. Sometimes they violate policies blatantly. Other times they seem to misread policy or fail to appreciate when they apply an unequal standard."

i hope that in future we can both try to abide by WP:AGF. is it possible for you to assume good faith on my part, and that of other editors on this article? you've stated that you wish only to improve the neutrality of this article (New Kadampa Tradition) - that's also my intention. if you now contribute to it reasonably and collaborate and discuss with other editors, then i will assume that you do so in good faith.

best wishes, Atisha's cook (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

AN3

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Please stop putting ill-formatted reports on AN3. If you can't be bothered to work out how to format these things properly, do something else. Besides which, you and Ac are on 1RR parole and the situation is in hand from a 3RR perspective. You don't need an admins attention, you need editors interested in the content William M. Connolley (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Um. And when I said [2] I meant it. 48h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dear Willliam I can see from your approach that you are a stickler for the rules-which is great- but this is a dispute over content which, I can see from your approach, is not something that really interests you. And why should it?This is a boring subject for non-specialists. I would like to ask you if you can contact anyone (an admin not an ed) who is of a similar status to yourself who you think might be willing to look into this a little, for the sake of accuracy and NPOV on WP. Finally, I thought the 1RR rule meant I could only place the banners up once-which is what i did. Your application of the rule seem to be a zero RR application??? Please, try to be a little more patient with newbies like myself-WP is a complex medium for people who find Word challenging PeaceYonteng (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

[3], [4]. Sorry guv - we're out of patience with you, you've used up your newbie allowance William M. Connolley (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Yonteng (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

94.192.139.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

violation of 1RR parole at New Kadampa Tradition

Blocking administrator: William M. Connolley (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: This is not an autoblock; you have been directly blocked for violating your parole and edit-warring. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

My block notice says Ive been autoblocked

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock #1443743 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: Step hen 09:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

WP:Assume Good Faith

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

(bumped from above) Yonteng - this is from a summary of an arbitration by Durova to a COIN filed against William M. Connolley here.

i find the whole discussion there very interesting; i realize that my conduct on New Kadampa Tradition could reasonably be construed as indicating that i've fallen foul of this tendency described by Durova below, and i believe that yours could also, as could some of your statements.

"...editors who have any vehement POV are prone to construing misconduct into the actions of opposing editors, then once they convince themselves that the other side has breached policies (whether or not it really has), the vehement POVers begin violating policies themselves. Sometimes they violate policies blatantly. Other times they seem to misread policy or fail to appreciate when they apply an unequal standard."

i hope that in future we can both try to abide by WP:AGF. is it possible for you to assume good faith on my part, and that of other editors on this article? you've stated that you wish only to improve the neutrality of this article (New Kadampa Tradition) - that's also my intention. if you now contribute to it reasonably and collaborate and discuss with other editors, then i will assume that you do so in good faith.

best wishes, Atisha's cook (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Well i think in truth I will probably not trust you but its nothing personal, its just because of our allegiances. But I can see no reason for us to be rude to one another (Lets leave that to the boys!)I saw someone on the BBC the other day talking about the monstrous personality that the anonymity of the internet can create in contributors. Shall we say, when we get on line, its a bit like Jekyll's potion? All I want is a balanced article that includes a) the good things about the NKT and b)the critical info. If thats what you want, we dont have a problem tBest wishesYonteng (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Conflict of Interest

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

This second wp:coi citation comes about as you have consistently not assumed wp:good faith of other editors on the New Kadampa Tradition page, and have accused us of several strange things, most recently accusing me of a "spying campaign"! These kinds of paranoid and ad hominem statements (attacking the editor rather than the edits) seem to indicate that you are the one who has a strong and personal POV against the New Kadampa Tradition and people in it, and, if that is indeed the case, then you should be careful and follow the wp:coi guidelines above when editing this article. Thanks.(Truthbody (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC))Reply

I've removed the COI tag. It is inappropriate. The tags are there to inform people of policy; since there is already one on this page, another is pointless. Don't tag people unless you know what the tags are for. Moreover, your rationale for asserting COI is very weak; your complaint is different William M. Connolley (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

So you consider it appropriate to replace the NPOV tag?? 94.192.139.167 (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm guessing you must be Y. The answer is: I've expressed no opinion about the tag. And please, will you stop saying everything twice. I obessively watch every page on wiki, you don't need to post the same stuff on my talk page and here as well William M. Connolley (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, could you repeat that? (thats a joke.)Yonteng (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

3RR

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. -->

Dear Yonteng,

Technically, you could be reported for (once again) violating the three revert rule yesterday:

1st revert: [5] at 11:03 on 05/20
2nd revert: [6] at 04:24 on 05/21
3rd revert: [7] at 10:59 on 05/21

Be mindful! is all I'm saying. Emptymountains (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

EM

The banner went back up after WMC removed the COI but left the NPOV. Then Andi and myself both pointed to the guidelines re NPOV banner and I therefore restored it. AC removed it (x2), as did TB on the grounds that i am not contributing, just reverting. As you well know, unlike both of them, I certainly am contributing and trying to keep things civil and balanced.

So, this little 'warning' is unwelcome and IMO inappropriate. It might be more appropriate to speak to AC and TB and tell them that if they wish to contribute, reverting banners on the basis of personal animosity and an unwillingness to conform to WP guidlines is inappropriate. Moreover WMC is keeping a close eye on me after my temporary block so, if you have a concern over the banner being there, please feel free to contact him. I am sure he will read this as he has told me he is keeping an eye on the situation but, should you do so, please feel free to copy this passage to him. I must say, the manner in which we are now approaching things is a big step forward; this little aside has detracted from that however. In future, please AGF as I am trying to bear tha in mind at this time PeaceYonteng (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I did AGF, which is why I didn't report you for a mere technicality (since your 3rd revert was just a few minutes shy of being outside the 24-hour range). If anything, it was a friendly reminder that you protect yourself. Emptymountains (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the concern. After all, where would we be without me!Yonteng (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Good Lord... Emptymountains (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

YT, please undo your last few changes to the NKT article, so that I don't have to report you for 3RR. Thanks! Emptymountains (talk) 08:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Check discussion page pleaseYonteng (talk) 09:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

My bias according to user Atisha's Cook (see edit history)

Latest comment: 15 years ago17 comments2 people in discussion

< moved from Talk:New Kadampa Tradition >

attending the NKT's Spring Festival in the UK this weekend, then, Yonteng? ]:) Atisha's cook (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, Ive been practicing Dharma;)Yonteng (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

and that bias, clearly stated right there, is why you currently cannot edit this article in a neutral fashion. for me to AGF, you have to stop holding, or at the very least stop *stating* that you hold, such a clearly negative view. with this view, how can your intention be anything other than to influence WP readers toward your negative POV? why *are* you so intent on editing this article, if not to promote your POV?

you can ask me the same question, but i've answered it before: to inform WP readers about a subject i have some knowledge and experience of, and, more particularly, to prevent this article being used to spread a negative POV rather than simple information. Atisha's cook (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Gosh, AC; how serious you take things Just relax!-please make edits WITH proper citations-do not edit out banners without discussion and do feel like an equal (perhaps look at how EM is apporaching things)-you lost it for a quite a while now but Im sure if you stick to WP guidelines, youll be fine-WE are trying to work together here Please dont spoil it.Ad Homs are no longer kosher here.

AC If you want to understand the way we are now working, I think a good place would be not to consider any info critical of the NKT to be 'negative prpaganda' and non-NPOV and simultaneously, stop considering all information which is 'positive' about the NKT to be 'simple information;some of it IS propaganda. We are trying to gain a balance between the positive and negative here, and eradicate propaganda from EITHER side, in the interests of neutrality BTW, with respect to my little joke,when you say 'you have to stop holding, or at the very least stop *stating* that you hold, such a clearly negative view' are you advising me to lie? Such behaviour is unbecoming in a buddhist and anyone who demonstrates such devious,political mindedness would not be held very highly in my estimation.It is akin to misusing WP rules to manipulate article content and I am sure you would not want to me to be accused of that. I advise all contributors to -1) be truthful -2) Develop a sense of humour (are you German? [Sorry Andi-its a joke])Yonteng (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

that is all very witty, but it doesn't solve the problem of your apparent strong bias, and its effect on your suitability to edit this article. while you accuse me and others of also having a strong bias, i would contest this: i've stated that i am a Buddhist practitioner within the NKT, but this doesn't make me a fanatic, nor does it render me incapable of acknowledging faults within this organisation: after all, this is samsara. all organisations and all individuals within samsara have faults, by definition. however, this doesn't mean that every encyclopaedic article about every samsaric topic needs to include every single minor flaw; that would make encyclopaedias completely unusably bloated!

what i have seen, ever since NKT practitioners began to speak out against the Dalai Lama's ban on Dorje Shugden practice, is a small minority of, mostly Western, mostly somewhat zealous, supporters of the Dalai Lama (whether direct disciples of his or not) who have developed a strong antagonistic attitude towards NKT, working hard to defame and criticise it, for whatever reason. they tend to focus on the few scholarly accounts (like Kay - again, mostly Westerners following the Dalai Lama's view) that are critcal of NKT and the online complaints of a vociferous few disgruntled ex-NKT students (and, let's face it, there are a few, vociferous and disgruntled, ex-students of *every* religious tradition on earth posting on the internet!), and give these a vastly exaggerated credence. on WP, the last notable example was Kt66 - and, yes, i opposed his biased editing strongly too. *not* because he disagreed with my POV, but because his editing was so clearly biased and POV that the article he (almost single-handedly) produced on NKT bore little or no resemblance to the existing tradition with which i am very familiar: the article was inaccurate and unrepresentative.

Yonteng, i am *not* opposed to any mention of flaws within the organisation appearing anywhere in this article. what i *am* opposed to is strongly biased editing that skews the article and gives undue and unrepresentative weight toward this antagonistic POV. it's unrealistic and inappropriate.

i have said that i will try to assume good faith on your part, but it is very hard to do so when you continue to espouse such a strong POV, and to talk about "sides" and "balancing the positive and the negative" (whilst contributing only critical/antagonistic information). i'm sorry, but i feel you, like Kt66 before you, are presently unsuitable to edit this article. your POV prevents you from editing in a neutral way. you can call this ad-hom. - perhaps it is. but i'm not anti-you: i'm anti-bias. if you would only change your mind to a more neutral state with regard to this organisation, or at least decide not to allow your POV to inform your editing quite so transparently, then i would have no problem with you as an editor. Atisha's cook (talk) 09:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Wow, my own section-fame at last! many thanks for your interesting perspective. I have already set out my views on the need for balance in the article above and I would therefore refer you to the answer I gave earlier. Best wishesYonteng (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC).Reply

learn how to format correctly, and sign your posts.

please answer: how can you possibly edit neutrally when you have such a striong, stated, antagonistic bias against the article's subject? in my view, you can't. i'd be interested to hear how you can justify yourself. Atisha's cook (talk) 12:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please dont be so antagonistic and try to calm down. I do not have to justify myself to you.One might just as easily ask the same questions in relation to yourself If you wish to contribute to the ediiting of the article, please do so. As long a your edits are 3PS, that will be fine. Best wishesYonteng (talk) 12:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

you don't *have* to, no. but in the interests of decency, you might consider it. and as far as being antagonistic goes - you started it! you're the one with the agenda to introduce your POV. and just because you've finally learned the WP lingo doesn't mean that you're now editing according to its ethos, just like Kt66 before you (Kt66 was an expert in WP rules, which he too misused to try to push his POV in this article). where your intention is to influence rather than simply to inform, then no amount of quoting WP best practice guidelines or finding RS to support your POV will make your edits worthy of this encyclopaedia. you're on a mission, are you not? WP is no place for propaganda, as you've said yourself.

if i'm wrong (and i can tell you honestly that i hope i am, here), please help me to understand this and to assume good faith on your part. so far, however, unfortunately, you've repeatedly implied that you *aren't* editing in good faith. Atisha's cook (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I fully agree that WP is no place for propaganda. I hope that can be borne in mind by all concerned. Other than that, i have nothing to say in response to what are basically ad homs. Please feel free to edit the article on the basis of valid sources.Yonteng (talk) 07:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Your quote from above seems relevant and can be applied to both sides of the debate "...editors who have any vehement POV are prone to construing misconduct into the actions of opposing editors, then once they convince themselves that the other side has breached policies (whether or not it really has), the vehement POVers begin violating policies themselves. Sometimes they violate policies blatantly. Other times they seem to misread policy or fail to appreciate when they apply an unequal standard." Please bear your suggested quote in mind before any further communication11:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

once again, with respect - i'm not construing, or convincing myself of, misconduct: you've baldly *stated* that you distrust other editors, such as myself, and that your intention is to introduce material that you feel is "negative" in order to "balance" the article (apparently without regard to its relevance), rather than simply adding pertinent facts according to WP principles.

you cannot claim to be editing in a neutral fashion until you change this intention, and simply throwing this request (and it is just that: a request to be guided by WP principles, *not* the ad-hominem attack you insist on perceiving) back at me is disingenuous, to say the least. please understand: all i want to see is a good, clear article, and as far as i'm concerned, you and anyone else are perfectly entitled and welcome to contribute to this, whatever your personal view. but in your case you've strongly implied that you have an ulterior motive, and this, simply, is not appropriate for a WP editor; therefore, i'm requesting you to change. Atisha's cook (talk) 12:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

All things being impermanent, I'd have a hard job not changing. I suggest you stop wasting your time here-its all far too personalYonteng (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

"its all far too personal" - quite. WP's not about your personal POV of NKT, or any other topic. i'm just trying to keep such POVs off this article. i *might* be somewhat less motivated to fight a highly positive POV, but in truth, i think in fact i *would* oppose such editing also, as it would be counterproductive in the long run, and wouldn't represent the subject accurately.

i'm arguing this here, on your Talk, to avoid edit-warring with you on the article itself, which is even *less* desirable.

"its all far too personal" - absolutely right. shame. Atisha's cook (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

AgreeYonteng (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

you agree? you know what: i *cannot* assume good faith with you. this is because you've precluded assumption by *stating* that you're not editing in good faith, you refuse to disagree when accused of this, and your edits continue amply to demonstrate your lack of good faith.

i may get slapped for saying this, but so be it: your behaviour's appalling. you call yourself a "Buddhist" - what kind of Buddhist are you? you're clearly no Kadampa. you know: i have no idea what tradition you practise, and i have no interest in finding out. i have no interest in finding out the controversies and "negative" information about your tradition and "balancing" your tradition's Wiki with it. one could find scraps of negativity and controversy concerning every single religious tradition on earth, if one were so inclined, but unlike you i have no interest in digging it up and giving it exaggerated importance on their resective wikis.

why not? because i have some respect and basic decency, and no wish to defame anyone or to try to destroy anyone else's faith. do you understand that this is what you're trying to do, you "Buddhist"? NKT-IKBU is *not* defined by controversy; aside from the Dorje Shugden controversy (which has its own article, not being a solely NKT-IKBU issue) there *is* no real controversy worth appending to its wiki. but you're on a mission, and that mission is just to spread negativity. take a look at yourself; ask yourself what Lord Buddha woiuld make of all your activity over the last few weeks.

so maybe i get banned for saying all that, but really: you need to hear it. Atisha's cook (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dear AC Thanks for that. Please, you do seem to be confusing my 'mission' with the tradition(s) I practice. I am sorry to disappoint but this is a misconception, probably born of the old addage, 'the faults we see in others would not be visible if we did not have them within ourselves'. My only wish is that the public are aware of ALL the facts about the NKT wherein, everything in the garden is not rosey, let us say. To deny this would be inaprropriate and deceptive.Please, do not protest for the human right to freedom of whatever when you would deny the public the same basic human right to freedom of information. This could be likened to demonstrating for the religious freedom to practice a deity that is complicit in sectarian efforts to restrict the religious freedom of others to practice as they wish.I will not be reporting you for your outburst; I have been subject to such childish and manipulative behaviour and have no wish to emulate it. Finally, I would remind you that the Dharma is a mirror with which we examine our own faults; to turn it towards others means we see nothing of ourselves AND obscure the reality that lies before us. I hope you pass through your anger quickly and wish you peace and happiness. Sorry you are burning so much at the moment.Please rest a littleYonteng (talk) 07:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Kt66 had the same agenda, and used the same kind of Dharma/wiki speak to try to hide it. but in the end, you can't hide your bias, and ultimately WP won't stand for it. nothing more to say to you. Atisha's cook (talk) 09:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your recent edits

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Blocked

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You're on 1RR parole (Talk:New_Kadampa_Tradition#1RR_sanction) and Reverts made without explicitly including the word "revert" "undid" or "rv" or anything else will result in an extended block. So [8] is a vio, as were your edits as an anon earlier. 72h William M. Connolley (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

WMC Hello

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Hi Still stuck in edit warring with NKT eds. recently i have placed a reference in the intro section and supported it with numerous 3PS in the text plus on the discussion page (see bottom of that page) NKT editors (4 of them) have responded repeatedly by reverting without any 3ps supporting reasons, only personal opinion. As before, they can RV 8 times before 3rr kicks in, me 2 times (or with 1rr once). If you look at the evidence and 3PS you can see my 'cult' quote is valid and also that all 4 eds have provided no substantial support for their RVs.They simply dont want the public to know that there is a strong belief in the big wide world that they are a cult. I would therefore ask that you consider your decisionYonteng (talk) 12:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes. So the lesson is, you cannot win revert wars, especially if you're outgunned. Attempting to do so will only irritate everyone, and you will wind yourself up to the point of overstepping bounds and getting yourself blocked. You need to read WP:DR William M. Connolley (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

It seems the law is more important than morality on WP-4 combined eds get 8 edits before 3rr, 1 ed gets 2. I will follow your advice though I believe it would be in your and WPs interest to look a little more deply into issues behind this edit war rather than simply applying rules.All that suffers is the crsdibility of WP. Please dont forget to lift my block. have good oneYonteng (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

You're blocked. Don't evade it [9]. I've reset the block William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

'So the lesson is, you cannot win revert wars, especially if you're outgunned' In other words, on WP mob rule is the law and truth takes a back seat.94.192.139.167 (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've reported you for incivility and disruption - also I believe you are evading a block that has already been placed on you. [10] I'm sorry it's come to this and you have the right to defend your actions to the Admins. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 08:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've blocked User:94.192.139.167 and will reset Y's block, again. Y: read WP:DR William M. Connolley (talk) 08:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've spend an amusing quarter-hour reviewing this editor's edits. It seems to be a single-purpose account pushing a specific point of view, edit-warring and making personal insults. And this, of course, which is stunning in its inappropriateness. I'm impressed with your generosity in not already blocking this editor indefinitely. I've added New Kadampa Tradition to my watchlist. There may well be problems in that article, but this editor's methods aren't going to get them solved. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

COI

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Rather than engaging in fruitless edit warring, if you beleive there is one, consider adding a COI tag to NKT related articles and clearly explaining your reasons on the talk pages. NKT members may stand in conflict of interest if advancing the cause of the NKT or their beleifs is more important to them than advancing the aims of Wikipedia. Similarly ex-NKT memebers may stand in COI if dissing the NKT is more important to them than advancing the aims of Wikipedia. Lodru (talk) 06:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Add topic