This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) There's currently some edit warring going on at Criticism of Prem Rawat; see also #General discussion below and Talk:Prem Rawat#Criticism of Prem Rawat. The edit warring appears to be by anons, so I'm suggesting semi-protection. If I have to take this to Wikipedia:Requests for protection, I'd happily do so, but thought it better to notify here first.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Object. See Wikipedia:SPROT#Semi-protection. There is not enough activity to warrant semi-protection, and Semi-protection should not be used to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users. You can always ask at WP:RFPP if you feel otherwise,. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Some (former) adherents of religious movements are able to contribute to the article about their (former) religious teacher or their (former) religious movements without strong bias. Or at least they allow other contributors to correct their bias. Some (former) adherents are unable or unwilling to allow the latter, though they probably have formally no conflict of interest (apart from the very vague and subjective "strong relationship") or at least deny having so. In such a case the Duck test should apply. If the (former) adherent behaves as having a WP:COI then the COI guidelines should be followed. Andries (talk) 10:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Wikipedia is religiously and ideologically neutral. Editors are free to contribute regardless of their religious or ideological beliefs. Jayen466 11:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Re. "Wikipedia is religiously and ideologically neutral": not quite,

• This is a goal, it should not be presented as fact. That would create a dangerous precedent: there are currently (for instance) hundreds of articles listed in Category:NPOV disputes. Claiming that Wikipedia "is" neutral would make that category redundant.
• Wikipedia has ideologies, for instance striving to make knowledge widely available, or adhering to open source (see User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles for more examples). That is not "ideologically neutral" in a broad sense. What we do is present facts as ideologically neutral as we can, that is called Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Re. "Editors are free to contribute regardless of their religious or ideological beliefs.": not quite,

• If your ideological belief is that all means are justified for turning Wikipedia in to Inciclopedia, or whatever other trollish belief, or if you honestly believe that Jimbo Wales is an incarnation of God in our times and you put yourself on a mission to make every Wikipedia page reflect that, then, umm, you're not free to contribute, probably. You're free to contribute with whatever religious or ideological background, provided you contribute to Wikipedia's ulterior goals and can live with its ideologies (keep knowledge as free as possible etc...). Commonly known as: leave your personal beliefs at the door when contributing to Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are fundamental policies that all editors have to abide by that deal with such deviancies. What I am trying to get at is that we cannot exclude people from working on certain articles on the basis of their religious, ideological or otherwise held POV. We do not and should not exclude homosexuals from working on the article on Same-sex marriage (though I am sure you could find editors who would be in favour of it.) We do not exlude muslims from working on the article on Sharia. We do not exclude Marxists from working on Karl Marx. I am sure you see what I am getting at. Each of these topics represents a focal point where inside and outside views meet, and perhaps clash. At each such focal point, there should ideally be a symmetrical distribution of editors and perspectives. I'd like both Christians and atheists to work on the article on Christianity, not just either party. In that sense, as an institution, Wikipedia should be, and is, as far as I can discern, neutral, giving each such group equal access to make their input, of course with due regard for WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and all the rest of it, and enforcement where necessary. Jayen466 22:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:COI. It's still not clear to me whether you want to include or exclude that guideline as a principle for this case. In short, the principle you proposed above seems to fail imho for lack of focus. It's a "wishful thinking" variety of principle if I may say so, not directly mandated by our policies and guidelines. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your proposed principle. Editors' religious or ideological beliefs are irrelevant on Wikipedia if people edit within the policies and guidelines. Editors' religious and ideological beliefs are not an issue concerning this case. What's at issue is conflict of interest and behavior, although the current Wikipedia COI guideine is problematic as it's written because it doesn't treat COIs as they would be treated in the world. It's a poorly written guideline, in other words, that is in dire need of attention. My hunch is that you're trying to make it a principle that adherents of Prem Rawat should not be excluded from editing because of their adherence or beliefs. Again, no one's proposing or recommending that that be considered by the committee. I would think that Wikipedia already honors everyone's basic human right to religious/ideological beliefs and Wikipedia would be hard-pressed to deny editing rights based on that kind of discrimination. Wikipedia is a U.S. non-profit organization, so it had better not be discriminating against anyone or it could be sued or lose its 501(c)(3) status. If there isn't already such a statement of Wikipedia's practice of not discriminating against people based on their race, gender, creed, color, ethnic background, or sexual orientation, etc. you might want to consider finding the appropriate place on Wikipedia and write that policy yourself. And it should be a Wikipedia policy. For purposes of this ARB, however, this is a review of editing behavior and COIs. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

2) Good articles result from representation of all POVs among editors and from negotiating consensus on article content across the POV divides. Jayen466 11:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Re. "Good articles result from representation of all POVs among editors": this is a critical misunderstanding of one of Wikipedia's core policies, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The accidental distribution of numeric strenght of editors furthering their POV is in no way the same as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. An article that is in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view can be written by a single editor, whatever his or her personal POV, see e.g. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Writing for the "enemy". I called this misunderstanding of the NPOV policy "critical", because as such it is a recipe for power struggle among editors, the kind we have been witnessing in connection to Prem Rawat: instead of solving any of the problems we're trying to solve with this ArbCom case, you're fueling these power struggles among editors if that would be set as a principle here. The NPOV policy page has: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." (bolding added) - the critical misunderstanding is that you can not replace "published reliable source" in this sentence by "(Wikipedia) editor". These two concepts are not interchangeable (see e.g. also WP:NOR).
• Re. "negotiating consensus on article content across POV divides": yes and no. True, Wikipedia:Consensus is the major process with which article content is negotiated fundamental model for editorial decision-making. The neutrality of the article content can however not be trumped by (local) consensus among editors: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors." (from the first paragraph of the lead section of WP:NPOV) - you see the "non-negotiable" right in the lead section of WP:NPOV? --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Consensus is required to ascertain NPOV. That is, editors strive to reach consensus about what would an article that complies with NPOV is. NPOV does not live in an hypothetical limbo. WP:CONSENSUS: Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Updated, but remains also true that nor consensus nor negotiation are means with which to trump neutrality. This has always been in the WP:NPOV policy, from before you started editing Wikipedia, till this very day. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In practice, it does not work this way, since most everyone I meet in Wikipedia has some degree of bias, and a different idea of what sources represent "significant views". We have seen this: one editor thinks a tabloid article is highly significant, another thinks it is not significant at all; one editor thinks certain academic articles should be excluded as biased because of the author's religious affiliation, others see it differently, and so forth. I think you need a healthy mix of editors. Jayen466 22:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether or not there is a healthy mix of editors what is most needed is a healthy mix of sources. Really Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Writing for the "enemy" is part of policy and has been for as long as anyone taking part in this ArbCom debate can remember, and that's how it works, in practice. I've written for the "enemy" by the terms of that policy page, and I've thus far not seen anything from you that made me expect you couldn't also. For Jossi, Momento and Janice Rowe that is different: for them I have thus far not seen anything that could make me expect they could in the context of Rawat-related content. And that's a fundamental reason for the acerbated tension around the Prem Rawat article that brought us to this ArbCom page.
  I'm not neutral, I've never contended to be, never given the impression to be, I don't believe in that stuff: no editor is neutral. Yet I've written pages virtually on my own, "representing views fairly", with no talk page discussion or whatever (would I need to discuss with myself then?). I've contributed to contentious articles writing things I personally hated: I defy you to find such stuff: I've represented views fairly to the best of my abilities, so that makes it very hard to find what I personally like or dislike – without claiming perfection either, of course. But anyhow, the point I try to make is that the mix of editors should be less important than the mix of sources. If it isn't, something's wrong, and needing to take time from all those involved in ArbCom, means seriously wrong. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Some observations:

1) I have contributed to the Rawat page for the past month or so. I welcome Jossi's presence on the talk page. Some observations:

• It seems Francis Schonken (talk · contribs) misunderstood the 1RR rules (one revert per editor per day), assuming he could perform several reverts where these concerned different sections of the article.
• Janice_Rowe (talk · contribs) has made a number of edits over the past few weeks bypassing the discussion process on the talk page; it would be helpful if all editors discussed their edits on the talk page.
• Nik Wright2 (talk · contribs), John Brauns (talk · contribs) and PatW (talk · contribs) appear to derive all their Wikipedia experience from editing Prem Rawat-related articles and talk pages. Such a situation naturally makes it difficult for them to assess the actions of an admin known to have a POV opposed to their own. I see no evidence that Jossi has abused his admin powers or his knowledge of WP rules. The fact that he has a POV does not speak against him; he is entitled to have one and to reflect this in his contributions. Jayen466 11:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Re. "It seems Francis Schonken (talk · contribs) misunderstood the 1RR rules (one revert per editor per day), assuming he could perform several reverts where these concerned different sections of the article." - I didn't. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence#Jossi's evidence on me. Jossi's frivolous evidence on me is in itself evidence that he "abused [...] his knowledge of WP rules", currently plain to see for all on the /Evidence page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate, my understanding of the 1RR rule was different from yours. I saw it as a means to reduce the number of edits made to the article on a daily basis. As far as I was concerned, an editor had the right to make a single revert edit a day, regardless of whether that one single edit would revert a dozen changes made by someone else, or just change back a single word. And after that revert, whether big or small, step back, and wait 24 hours and see what other editors do. Jayen466 23:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and in that form it is a recipe for disruptive editing patterns. It results in major unexplained reverts, including in the revert things one would normally not revert. Or people not being honest about reverts in edit summaries, like Momento most of the time when he did a revert.

Reverts are defined in WP:3RR#What is a revert?, which includes: "Consecutive reverts by one editor are generally treated as one revert for the purposes of this rule." — of course, because otherwise it's a scam.

I knew the rules (whether literally, or by experience, or primarily by spirit), and acted accordingly. Jossi cherry-picked something from an essay (that was about 0RR regarding your own edits - see WP:1RR) and combined it with "one revert per editor per day" without referring to the definition of "revert" that has to be acknowledged in that case. That was inexcusable.

An article that still needs major improvements, like Prem Rawat still today while protected, is not necessarily helped by just reducing the number of edits. That's no goal by itself. Unless, when trying to protect a biased version of course. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) I think the 1RR probation and the presence of neutral editors like Msalt (talk · contribs) and Will_Beback (talk · contribs) (currently on a short wikibreak) have been helpful and brought results. I would be in favour of continuing with that framework, with the added assurance that all active editors will be held to participate in the article discussions. Contributions from more uninvolved editors to the articles and their talk pages would be welcome.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) This is not and should not be allowed to become a personal issue about any one editor; it is about getting all the various POVs under one hat, and building consensus. This is what we should be focusing on. Jayen466 10:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill 19:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Endorse ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, of course. Rumiton (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

2) Editors at Wikipedia are expected to work towards NPOV in their editing activities. It is not possible to simultaneously pursue NPOV and an activist agenda.

Comment by Arbitrators:

A key point. Kirill 19:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Trying to define and identify 'activists' is a minefield. EG. Is someone with a strong POV automatically an 'activist'? Arguably both opposing sides of the Rawat debates have strong POV's. The question is how capable they are of making edits that demonstrate NPOV. I would suggest that discussions on a Talk Page are necessarily going to reflect POV's ie. one side of an argument. So one should not judge people as 'activists' for presenting opposing points of view there.PatW (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think "activist" becomes just another meaningless insult, of which we have seen too many. Rumiton (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agreed; very important to this case I think. Shell ^babelfish 12:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill 19:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for any type of struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive and absolutely unacceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might consider rewording -- as this sits, it implies that using Wikipedia as a tool in one's struggle is OK as long as you don't harass opponents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msalt (talk • contribs)

Comment by others:

2) The purpose of talk pages is to aid in encyclopedic collaboration. In keeping with the purpose of Wikipedia, talk pages may not be used for displaying religious, anti-religious, ethnic, national, or racial propaganda, advocacy, for furthering external conflicts, or to discuss matters unrelated to improving the encyclopedic content of articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly concur, though in the light of WP:BLP it seems something of a motherhood statement.

Comment by others:

When disputes about an edit arise, an effort to try to negotiate the most favorable compromise is needed. It may include a mixture of these that that largely agree, some who disagree without disaffection, those that don't agree but give low priority to the issue, those that disagree but accept the outcome, and those that cannot reconcile their opinion with a compromise.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is this going to work when user:jossi is unable or unwilling to assume my good faith in dispute resolution? Andries (talk) 11:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

4) Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, a guideline, discourages editing of articles concerning matters editors have a substantial personal interest. However, such editing is not prohibited, if editing is responsible.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

To avoid situations exactly like this, perhaps it's time to go back and look at the wording of that guideline. Clearly, a simple discouragement is not effective. The guideline may need to be strengthened so that those with a close personal interest can clearly see when they have a COI and they can avoid it. ArbCom could suggest this to the powers that be.-- Maelefique ^(talk) 05:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5) Neutral point of view is the foundation of our work. Assertions, especially controversial ones, should be sourced. An important element of NPOV is that critical material should not be given undue weight in the overall context of any article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

6) Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons states that unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material, whether negative, positive, or just questionable, about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

7) Wikipedia articles are owned by the community at large, which comes to a consensus version by means of discussion, negotiation, and compromise by its editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1) PatW, a single purpose account, has frequently personally attacked other editors in violation of policy on personal attacks. He has also been uncivil in violation of policy on civility.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been officially warned 3 or 4 times over 2 years for incivility by Jossi. Last month I committed to future civility responding to Kim Bruning's request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatW (talk • contribs)

Comment by others:

2) Francis Schonken did not pursue dispute resolution and boycotted the community-enforced 1RR and disruption probation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frivolous complaints, not backed by evidence. The diffs provided by Jossi on the /Evidence page are either lacking or not supporting such allegations. See also comments by myself and other editors on the /Evidence page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs speak for themselves. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which means that in all honesty you should remove most of the text surrounding these diffs, and certainly remove your assertions where you didn't even care to provide diffs. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the value of the continued bickering between these two editors on this point, and am not sure what this proposal adds to the process here, especially when proposed by one of those two editors. Msalt (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) When editorial disputes cannot be resolved in talk page debates, editors are strongly adviced to follow dispute resolution, such as request for comments, and mediation, as well as request community input via peer review and WikiProjects.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

2) User:PatW subject to civility supervision (formerly civility parole). He may be banned by any administrator from editing any or all articles which relate to Prem Rawat should he fail to maintain a reasonable degree of civility in his interactions with others concerning disputes which may arise.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

3) The Prem Rawat and related articles are subject to editing restrictions including: revert limitation of one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism); civility supervision (formerly civility parole); and supervised editing (formerly probation). A prominent notice of these restrictions shall be placed at the header of talk pages as advisement.

Comment by parties:

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1) Violations of limitations, restrictions, supervision, or bans imposed by the remedies in this case may be enforced by brief blocks of up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block period shall increase to one year. Blocks and bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem Rawat#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Jossi is a dedicated follower of Prem Rawat.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, based on evidence presented on the evidence page. Cla68 (talk) 03:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2) Jossi incorrectly redirected the "Criticism of Prem Rawat" article back to the main Prem Rawat Article without merging the content of the "criticism" article, apparently in an attempt to hide criticism of Rawat.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, based on evidence presented on the evidence page. Cla68 (talk) 03:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect, no such evidence. See the history of the article at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat/Evidence/History ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2) Momento has used sock puppetry and other bad faith tactics to try to win content disputes concerning the Prem Rawat articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Never been a sock puppet.Momento (talk) 04:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that the person behind Momento is running sockpuppets. Andries (talk) 12:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, based on evidence on the evidence page. Cla68 (talk) 03:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) Jossi is desysopped and must reapply for adminship through regular nomination procedures if he desires to try to regain adminship.

Comment by Arbitrators:

What do article mergers/redirects have to do with adminship? Unless there was some actual abuse of the tools here, I can't see mere editorial actions of this sort rising to the level of unseemly conduct that justifies a desysopping. Kirill 02:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, because of the improper attempt to use the redirect to hide criticism of Rawat. Cla68 (talk) 03:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply to Kirill) I guess I should have said, "based on the totality of the evidence presented". Because of Jossi's extensive participation and involvement with various process and policy forums around the project, he should have known better than to engage in the type of behavior that he has engaged in related to the Rawat articles, including the attempts to suppress any criticism of Rawat from being presented in the articles, no matter how well sourced. The fact that he is an administrator in Wikipedia makes it look like his bad-faith actions are officially sanctioned and that hurts the project's credibility, including negative press reporting like the Register article. If we desysop Jossi, we send a message that this type of behavior by our admins is not tolerated. Cla68 (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"based on the totality of the evidence presented" There is nothing there to substantiate a claim that my behavior was unacceptable: a substantial amount of smoke, but no fire. Hurting the project's credibility? According to The Regiter's Cade Metz, Wikipedia does not have credibility, it is a cult and it is run by a cabal. In short, Wikipedia is a cult. Or at least, the inner circle is a cult. We aren't the first to make this observation. On the inside, they reinforce each other's beliefs. And if anyone on the outside questions those beliefs, they circle the wagons. They deny the facts. Cade Metz ^[1].

It would be a sad day for the project when it allows biased opinions masqueraded as "reporting" on the project, its editors, and the principles upon which it stands, influence editorial and/or policy decisions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've only ever seen you talk negatively about the Register's article, are you now saying it's a credible source? If so, I may need to go back to the evidence page. If not, why are you quoting it to bolster your argument (something about a cake, and eating it?)? For the Record, I am against desysopping jossi. In other areas of WP he seems to do a great job, it is only in this sphere of articles I have concerns regarding his actions. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 02:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2) Momento is banned from participation in Wikipedia for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I would support a temporary topic ban for Momento at least, because he has been uncompromising, often misinterpreting (or distorting) Wikipedia policies and guidelines and unreasonable over a long period of time. Andries (talk) 08:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, based on evidence presented on the evidence page. Cla68 (talk) 03:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2) Jossi is prohibited from participating in any of the Rawat-related articles, including the associated talk pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, based on evidence presented on the evidence page. Cla68 (talk) 03:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) The scope of this arbitration case is user conduct with regard to the article Prem Rawat and related topics, broadly defined.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of this arbitration is user conduct in the article Prem Rawat and related articles. ArbCom dos not deal with content disputes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated proposal "in" the article(s) is too narrow of course, it would for instance exclude the user conduct here [1] --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Where a source of information is in use in other parts of wikipedia, that is to be taken to signify a consensus by the wikipedia community that that source is of adequate quality to be used in the Prem Rawat article, provided that the context is similar. (The proviso is to deter people from using, say, something from a list of disreputable sources elsewhere in wikipedia with this principle.)

Where following a particular admin's involvement in a particular page or category or series of related pages over a specified period, an issue arises whereby it becomes clear that processes that operate effectively in other parts of wikipedia are not operating effectively in regard to this issue, then the admin concerned should be placed on probation until it can be shown that he has understood why he was ineffective and demonstrated the skills necessary to prevent such issues arising in future, or that admin should cease to be an admin. "With power comes responsibility."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Can't say I find myself impressed by either of these proposals. There are some awful transgressions of the Wikipedia rules and guidelines for sources on existing articles, either because no one has found them yet or because nobody much cares about the subject. The requirements for reputable sources are well thought out and work well in practice, and the existence of rule breakers in no way negates them. The second proposal, effectively "blame the admin" when things prove difficult, seems petty and vindictive. Admins don't have any special "power", just a superior knowledge of the way Wikipedia works. "Support the admin who supports the rules" seems more logical. Rumiton (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Contributors whose actions over a period of time are detrimental to the goal of creating a high-quality encyclopedia may be asked to refrain from those actions, when other efforts to address the issue have failed, even when their actions are undertaken in good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance. Vassyana (talk) 07:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The problem which led the justified criticism of the register article is that dispute resolution was repeatedly tried and always failed and this gave Momento who had no problems with POV pushing and repeatedly reverting other people's edits free play in the article. What should I have done within Wikipedia? I have no idea. May be alerting external media myself about how bad Wikipedia is. This seems to be the only thing that works. Andries (talk) 11:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Copied from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding. Vassyana (talk) 07:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3) A history of bad blood, poor interactions and/or heated altercations between users can complicate attempts to reach consensus and disrupt the editing atmosphere. Inflammatory accusations and sarcastic messages aggravate grudges and poison the well. Editors who need to comment on the actions of someone with whom they share an antagonistic history should seek impartial advice and allow uninvolved users to address the situation. If a neutral editor is not immediately available, a polite, neutral and concise notice on the administrators' incident noticeboard asking for uninvolved users to review the situation is recommended.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Based on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC#Bad Blood. Vassyana (talk) 07:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4) Editors sometimes have extensive, long-term and/or intimate associations with religious groups and other tight-knit organizations. Membership, former membership, long-term association and similar circumstances do not prevent editors from contributing to related articles. Fellowship, disaffiliation, ardor, disillusionment, or other such measures do not automatically impede editors from constructive contribution. The community has established Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest to provide advice and boundaries for such users, in addition to the commonly accepted content and conduct standards. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (particularly WP:SOAP, WP:FORUM and WP:BATTLE) also offers relevant guidance and limitations for such editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed. Except in the circumstance where an editor or Talk Page participant is also an Administrator. Reason: Administrators are privy to tools and privileges in Wikipedia that others are not. The perception therefore is that such privileges introduce an extra inequality which tips the balance in the favour of editors with the same POV as the administrator. This 'unfairness' inevitably amplifies or is the direct cause of suspicion, resentment and tension. In other words it makes it hard if not impossible to 'Assume Good Faith'. PatW (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed without exception. Rumiton (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Vassyana (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5) Good faith is dependent on editors acting in an honest and forthright manner. Misleading (or purposefully vague) edit summaries, misleading claims regarding sources, and related deceptive behaviors are unacceptable. They are an abuse of the assumption of good faith and destructive to the wiki process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Based on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Workshop#Good Faith includes honesty in editing and Talk page discussions. Vassyana (talk) 11:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) Editors are strongly urged to work collaboratively and constructively with other users on Prem Rawat and related articles to develop consensus and resolve the underlying content dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Adapted from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters#Parties urged. Vassyana (talk) 07:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) That no User should act as administrator to an article for which they would be compromised as an editor under WP:COI

Proposed, based on evidence presented on the evidence page.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) That no User should have talk page access for an article where the editor is compromised under WP:OWN.

Proposed, based on evidence presented on the evidence page.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) User:Jossi is established as compromised under WP:COI - Close relationships. Additionally and compounding WP:COI - Close relationships User:Jossi is compromised under WP:COI – Campaigning, WP:COI – Promotional article production on behalf of clients and (in 2006) WP:COI – Legal antagonists. Despite being multiply compromised User:Jossi has made numerous edits to the Rawat articles which even as a talkpage contributor he has sought to defend.

Proposed, based on evidence presented on the evidence page.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

You seem to be trying to invent a category named "compromised by..." to beat Jossi with. If Jossi has worked against any Wikipedia rules the diffs should reveal this. I don't believe they do. Rumiton (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

2) User:Jossi has acted in a manner such as to be compromised under WP:OWN

Proposed, based on evidence presented on the evidence page.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3) User:Jossi, prompted by WP:COI - Close relationships, WP:COI – Campaigning, WP:COI – Promotional article production on behalf of clients and WP:OWN has failed to Assume good faith, has acted partially as an administrator, has engaged in ‘tag team’ behaviour, has promoted the use of a Narrow Field of Academic Reference serving a particular POV, has linked to an attack site, has inserted material into a WP article concurrently with that material being submitted in a legal case in which Jossi named.

Proposed, based on evidence presented on the evidence page.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

All opinions, apart from the allegation re court evidence, which is nothing to do with this article. Rumiton (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) That the arbitrators make a clear statement that it is expected good practice that a) no User should act as administrator to an article for which they would be compromised as an editor under WP:COI and b) no User should have talk page access for an article where the editor is compromised under WP:OWN.

Proposed, based on evidence presented on the evidence page.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) User:Jossi should be banned from access to the Rawat articles, including talkpages for a period of three months.

Proposed, based on evidence presented on the evidence page.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3) The arbitrators examine what action they can reasonably take in future cases of Narrow Field of Academic Reference serving a particular POV.

Proposed, based on evidence presented on the evidence page.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

That is a content dispute, which ArbCom does not deal with. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) When Wikipedia Policy is used -- even correctly -- to further an editor's point of view rather than a neutral point of view, this is disruptive editing. Editors who use a policy to further their POV but ignore it when it harms their POV are engaging in this behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Msalt (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree, since it is strongly evidenced in this situation, this is nicely summed up as a problem. Maelefique ^(talk) 19:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2) Misleading or purposely vague edit summaries, misleading claims that sources are fair and representative, and other less than forthright behaviors in the editing process are a violation of good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Msalt (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I have made a proposal with a bit more elaboration and altered wording, based on this idea. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Workshop#Basis of good faith Vassyana (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's flattering and I like yours much better. I'm completely green on how to write these types of principles etc. and frankly wrote these faster than I would have liked, since the train seemed to be leaving the station, so to speak. I just hoped people would take anything good and change (or ignore) the rest. Msalt (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. :) I am glad that my version still reflects your intent, as I did not mean to diverge from the essential point of the proposed principle. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3) Contributors whose actions over a period of time are detrimental to the goal of creating a high-quality encyclopedia may be asked to refrain from those actions, when other efforts to address the issue have failed, even when their actions are undertaken in good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - from Franco-Mongolian Alliance case - Msalt (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I'd agree, but then again, I proposed the exact same principle: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Workshop#Problematic editing. :) Vassyana (talk) 11:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Hey, I'll support yours if you support mine. :) Msalt (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4) Certain Wikipedia policies (such as BLP and Sockpuppets of Zoe Croydon) provide exemption from edit-warring and 3RR rules for editors enforcing them. However, the exemptions presuppose that these rules clearly apply. Disruptive editors are not protected by claiming these rules for borderline or inappropriate cases. Signs of disruptive editing include using these exemptions to justify deletion of material when only part of the is implicated by the policy -- instead of removing just the offending part -- and defiance and continued abuses despite good faith warnings or blocks by administrators.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Msalt (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

5) The exemptions to rules against edit-warring and 3RR, such as BLP and Sockpuppets of Zoe Croydon, are not a free pass to edit war. Just as technical adherence to 3RR does not prevent sanctions for edit-warring, technical adherence to these rules does not prevent sanctions for edit-warring. [insert clarification here, I defer to the ArbCom's wisdom as to what it should be.)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Msalt (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

6) Administrators have extra responsibilities as well as extra rights, since they represent Wikipedia management.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Msalt (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agreed - Who can argue with Jor-El? ("With great power comes great responsibility") :) Maelefique ^(talk) 19:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7) Administrators represent Wikipedia management, especially when performing quasi-administrative actions (such as reciting Wikipedia policy, threatening sanctions, starting Administrator Noticeboard proceedings, and defending or attacking editors in Administrator's Noticeboard proceedings). They must act with scrupulous neutrality toward editors who share or oppose their POV in these actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Msalt (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agreed - If admins are not supposed to be role models, is it merely about the amount of edits they've done? Maelefique ^(talk) 19:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

8) Regular editors are discouraged but allowed to edit despite a conflict of interest. Because of their heightened status, however, admins should never edit an article on which they have a conflict of interest. Talk page participation, however, is appropriate and encouraged.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Msalt (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with a "two sets of rules" idea, however there does need to be something, possibly along the lines of "Additional Guidelines" for admins? Maelefique ^(talk) 19:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) The various articles concerning Prem Rawat have been disrupted by entrenched factional edit-warring and Talk page argument, led by factions composed primarily of current followers, and bitter ex-followers, of the article subject. All of these editors have been putting their personal interest in the subject ahead of Wikipedia's interest in a neutral and correctly weighted article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Msalt (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

2) A major contributor to edit-warring has been the aggressive and questionable use of exemptions to 3RR and edit-warring rules by several editors, notably Momento.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Msalt (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

3) Momento has been disruptively editing Prem Rawat and related pages, including edit-warring, and abuse of exemptions to rules against edit-warring. Momento is disrespectful of good faith warnings about his or her behavior, refuses to accept the validity of blocks imposed on him or her, edits in violation of WP:POINT, and openly proclaims an intention to continue editing disruptively.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Msalt (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

4) PatW has been repeatedly uncivil in Prem Rawat Talk page discussions despite repeated warnings.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Msalt (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

5) Jossi has scrupulously adhered to the letter of Wikipedia Policy (with the exception of violating WP:AGF), but his actions and selective omissions have consistently pushed a POV in favor of his teacher Prem Rawat, toward whom he has an acknowledged COI. Whether or not this behavior would constitute actual violations of WP:GAME or WP:LAWYER by a regular editor, it is incompatible with his role as administrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Msalt (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Strongly Agree - Both to the fact that jossi has adhered to the letter (if not the intent) of policy, and the fact that he has successfully managed to steer his POV into the article anyway.Maelefique ^(talk) 19:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) Prem Rawat and related articles are under 1RR per week probation indefinitely. (Spell out exact rules - 1 revert of anything? of a single edit? What about reverting several things in one edit?)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Msalt (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

2) Where the applicability of exemptions to edit-war rules (under BLP or Sockpuppets of Zoe Croydon) are used to justify an edit on Prem Rawat, and that edit is reverted, editors must not keep edit-warring even given those exemptions until they have requested and received support on AN:BLP. (define details)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Msalt (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

3) Topic Ban on Momento for 1 year, to be reviewed at that time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Msalt (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

4) Topic ban on PatW for 1 year, to be reviewed at that time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Msalt (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

5) Jossi's voluntary recusal from editing Prem Rawat and related pages is made mandatory. The ArbCom warns Jossi to avoid unequal treatment of those who oppose his POV in quasi-administrative actions (reciting Wikipedia policy, threatening sanctions, initiating Administrator's Noticeboard proceedings, and defending or criticizing editors in Administrator's Noticeboard proceedings.)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Msalt (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I would add that these restrictions should be removed, if at some time during this ban jossi either becomes an ex-premie (in the general sense, ie, was a premie, now is not), and/or is no longer in the employ of any Prem Rawat related company. I might also leave the length of the ban up to ArbCom, as long as it has a definite end date. Maelefique ^(talk) 19:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

==Proposals by User:Windscale (talk) 11:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) Wikipedia aims to produce truthful balanced articles

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) It is very difficult to have much confidence that this has been fairly achieved in the case of biographies of living persons and even more so when the person is leader of a small but nevertheless controversial NRM and where there are few undisputed high-quality sources. The current framework of Wikipedia policies and ways of working appears inadequate for such cases.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) {If Wikipedia is to credibly embrace such topics then new bespoke rules and policies are needed. In the meantime it would make sense for Wikipedia to acknowledge the inherent difficulty and flag all such articles with a 'Neutrality in Dispute' flag. If nothing else the single fact of there being a dispute is likely to remain constant! }

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Purposes of these general references:

• Bring anyone interested in the case up to speed on prior actions;
• Those editing pages of this ArbCom case can find here easy links to several places where they might find diffs for evidence.

The only analysis beyond providing these links (not even mentioning the over 30 pages of talk page archive and over 15 other talk page subpages containing content discussion [2]) that I propose here is that this is evidence of great commitment by all parties involved, including commitment to leave no dispute resolution recommendation untried. (This has been doubted by Jossi, I disagree: commitment to dispute resolution has been overwhelming by all parties involved, and that is probably the major reason why RfAr, last resort in dispute resolution, was not deemed necessary earlier in the process).

Yet, when overviewing all this information, the central question that pops into my mind is: why and how is it possible that after all that comittment to do whatever it takes to get disputes settled, the issue remains without solution? If we can find an answer to that question, even if it is only part of an answer, I think this ArbCom case has been worth it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation

• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat (closed 11 June 2007 - blanked due to start of ArbCom case 18 March 2008)
• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 2 (closed 26 July 2007 - blanked due to start of ArbCom case 18 March 2008)
• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected/28#Prem Rawat 3 (rejected 31 July 2007)

(note: there has been some discussion between Andries, Jossi and others as to what were the true reasons for Mediation to yield virtually no tangible results in the sense of coming closer to solutions accepted by all parties)

Informal mediation

• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-27 Prem Rawat (closed 9 August 2006 due to inactivity)

(note: currently only discussions later than the publication of Cade Metz' 6 February 2008 article are listed: this is no principal choice, only that I'm less confident I would be comprehensive for earlier noticeboard postings: feel free to complete!)

• WP:AN3#User:Momento reported by User:24.98.132.123 (Result: semi-protected) (initiated 6 February 2008)
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 22#User:Jossi and Prem Rawat (initiated 7 February 2008)
• WP:AN3#User:Momento reported by User:Cirt (Result: Blocked 24 hrs) (initiated 8 February 2008)
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive40#Prem Rawat (initiated 8 February 2008)
• WP:AN3#User:Momento reported by User:Francis Schonken (Result: 24 hours ) (initiated 12 February 2008)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive370#Francis Schonken (initiated 17 February 2008)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive129#Slightly disruptive editing of Momento (talk · contribs) (initiated 19 February 2008)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive128#Article probation - proposal (initiated 19 February 2008)
• WP:RS/N#Los Angeles Times as reference for Prem Rawat (initiated 26 February 2008)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive130#Prem Rawat 1RR parole proposal (initiated 28 February 2008)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive383#User:PatW (initiated 10 March 2008)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive385#1RR on Prem Rawat (initiated 14 March 2008)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive386#Disruptive editing by user:Janice Rowe despite article probation (Prem Rawat again) (initiated 16 March 2009)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive386#1RR article probation violation by User:Francis Schonken (initiated 16 March 2008)

Note, although not formally a noticeboard, these archived discussions from Jimbo Wales' user talk page are probably worth mentioning:

• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 33#Wikipedia is run by a Hindu cult. Apparently. (most of the actual discussion in subsections of that talk page section).
• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 35#Jossi Fresco still 'A Great Wikipedian'?

(for the time being this list does not include periods of protection / semi-protection of the Prem Rawat article prior to February 2008, see Protection log, nor blocks before that period - where data are incomplete, or contain errors, I'd welcome anyone who can help to complete or otherwise improve - precise scope information not yet provided in this table for all listed restrictions: I suppose "Articles in category:Prem Rawat", per 1RR probation, would apply unless otherwise indicated, e.g. protections and semi-protections listed here thus far apply to the Prem Rawat article exclusively)

Affected user(s)	Restriction	Type	Time	Ref	Comments
IP editors	sprotect [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]	Enforcement by (uninvolved) admin	from 2008-02-09 to 2008-02-13	Protection log	Reason given by protecting admin: "Vandalism by IPs". See also WP:AN3#User:Momento reported by User:24.98.132.123 (Result: semi-protected) (note: short period of full protection, immediately corrected to semi-protection)
Momento	Blocked 24h	Enforcement by (uninvolved) admin	from 2008-02-09 to 2008-02-10	Block log	Reason given by blocking admin: "Disruption: Prem Rawat". See also WP:AN3#User:Momento reported by User:Cirt (Result: Blocked 24 hrs)
Jossi	" [...] intention to refrain from editing these articles directly for now, limiting myself to talk page discussions only. If I see any disruption or ill-intended behavior that cannot be resolved in talk by active editors, I will report these to the appropriate boards so uninvolved editors can take a look."	Self-imposed	from 2008-02-10 to 2008-05-20	(1) User:Jossi/Response#Declaration of intent (2) [3]	Reason: usually referred to as COI, see User:Jossi/Response and User:Jossi/Disclosure
PatW	Has committed not to edit the article	Self-imposed	(?) from February 2008 at the latest	(see comments for the time being, still looking for the earliest actual commitment statement by PatW)	Reason: (place holder) PatW's self-restriction was known by Feb 26, see e.g. "PatW, an ex-devotee, and Jossi himself -- have voluntarily agreed to limit themselves to Talk discussions and not edit the article itself, at least for the time being." (see comment by Msalt at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive129#Slightly disruptive editing of Momento (talk · contribs))
Sylviecyn	"I [am not] interested in editing the Rawat articles now or in the future"	Self-imposed	from 2008-02-11 at the latest	User talk:Francis Schonken#Prem Rawat/Jossi Fresco	Reason: "I’ve been beating my head against that brick wall for years with no success. It’s not worth the aggravation for me." (see ref); Sylviecyn is a former follower
Momento	Blocked 24h	Enforcement by (uninvolved) admin	from 2008-02-14 to 2008-02-15	Block log	Reason given by blocking admin: Edit warring. See also WP:AN3#User:Momento reported by User:Francis Schonken (Result: 24 hours )
Andries	"[...] I will not edit the article for time being"	Self-imposed	from 2008-02-24 to 2008-03-14	(1) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive129#Slightly disruptive editing of Momento (talk · contribs); (2) [4]	Reason: "[...] the disruptive behavior n the past years by Momento and to a lesser extent Rumiton and esp. the talk page support (or at best silence) of admin Jossi (who should know better) has made me so angry that I will not edit the article for time being" (see first ref)
All editors	protected [edit=sysop:move=sysop]	Enforcement by (uninvolved) admin	from 2008-02-26 to 2008-03-04	Protection log	Reason given by protecting admin: "Pervasive, sustained edit warring". Discussed at Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 31#Protected for one week.
All editors	Probation, including 1RR	Community enforced, following WP:ANI discussion	from 2008-03-04 to 2008-06-04	[5]	Prior discussion (among others): Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive130#Prem Rawat 1RR parole proposal
Jossi	"I will refrain from archiving discussions there, and leave that to the archival bot"; "[...] committed not to archive comments from talk"	Self-imposed	from 2008-03-11	Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive383#User:PatW	"there" in restriction description probably only refers to talk:Prem Rawat Background: see ref and User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 35#Jossi Fresco still 'A Great Wikipedian'?
All editors	protected [edit=sysop:move=sysop]	Enforcement by (uninvolved) admin	from 2008-03-16	Protection log	Reason given by protecting admin: "Edit warring". See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive386#Disruptive editing by user:Janice Rowe despite article probation (Prem Rawat again) and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive386#1RR article probation violation by User:Francis Schonken

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Started. I think it is always good if an ArbCom case has some general reference, which I tried to provide without taking sides. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Is there a need to copy over here what is already in the evidence page? I mean, it is a click away. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is no longer on the /Evidence page. I *moved* it here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

I did some analysis of the full history of Prem Rawat using the History Flow visualisation tool, and posted some observations here. I've tried to get an understanding of the basic development history of the article. I'd welcome input from any of the editors who have spent some time on this article, to check I haven't missed anything major. --bainer (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

My assessment is that it is an accurate account of the history of the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I, Francis Schonken (talk · contribs), import the data below from Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence#Wikidashboard.

For myself I don't think such numerical analysis weighs very heavily in an ArbCom case, as I expressed (for instance), on the Prem Rawat talk page, [6] (see last bullet of my comment in the "Technical Question" section).

Others have opposed such numerical analysis in even stronger terms, for instance Jossi: "I forcefully object to this "combined" approach"; John Brauns: "I agree with Jossi - looking at combined numbers is unfair [...]" (etc, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence#Wikidashboard)

Please don't quote me out of context - my quote continued with pointing out that Jossi had contributed almost a quarter of all edits on the talk page. Jossi didn't need to be included in a group as his workload justifies him being a group all by himself. --John Brauns (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That I present this "raw" analysis of evidence here nonetheless has to do with:

1. The work has been done, and it gives some prima facie insight in activity on the Prem Rawat article (e.g. also ratio of article edits vs. talk page edits);
2. Basically, arbitrators can decide for themselves whether or not they give any weight to this.

There are however a lot of ifs and buts to apply when reading these data (apart from the appropriateness to present such analysis, as mentioned above),

• The tool used (ultimately not Wikidashboard but user:aka's Wikipedia Page History Statistics) does not differentiate between periods of time. For instance several editors self-restricted their edits to the article: the tool totalises edits for the page from the very first to the very last);
• The tables contain only edits that were not marked "minor" by the respective editors: threshold for self-indicating an edit as minor may vary among editors: e.g. some editors would nearly never mark a revert as "minor", while others would do so more liberally. This also fluctuates in time: there have been periods (covered by the data below) that there was, generally, no problem with marking reverts as minor, current guidance (Help:Minor edit#Disputed page) rather discourages.
• The accuracy of the presented data has not been checked by me: the work was Msalt's, assisted by many others (Jayen needs to be mentioned), but there were initial problems to make the tool work. Whether the tool itself produces reliable data has been questioned, but eventually the results were experienced as not contradicting the data retrieved via Wikidashboard (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence#Wikidashboard for discussion).
• I provided table titles, but see also remarks below.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Table 1

Edits by self-confirmed students of Prem Rawat (including minor edits)

--	Article	Art %	Talk	Talk %	Total	Total %
Total	4982		11480		16462
Jossi	1019	20.5%	2848	24.8%	3867	23.5%
Momento	774	15.5%	1401	12.2%	2175	13.2%
Rumiton	488	9.8%	502	4.4%	990	6.0%
Zappaz	175	3.5%	235	2.0%	410	2.5%
64.81.88.140	130	2.6%	76	0.7%	206	1.3%
Janice Rowe	48	1.0%	15	0.1%	63	0.4%
Rainer P.	21	0.6%	57	0.6%	78	0.6%
Combined	2676	53.7%	5143	44.8%	7819	47.5%

Table 2

Edits by self-confirmed former adherents of Prem Rawat (including minor edits)

--	Article	Art %	Talk	Talk %	Total	Total %
John Brauns	34	0.7%	173	1.5%	207	1.3%
Sylviecyn	24	0.5%	364	3.2%	388	2.4%
PatW	20	0.4%	746	6.5%	766	4.7%
Combined	78	1.6%	1283	11.2%	1361	8.3%

Table 3

Edits by others (including minor edits)

--	Article	Art %	Talk	Talk %	Total	Total %
Andries	473	9.5%	1476	12.9%	1949	11.8%
Francis Schonken	144	2.9%	382	3.3%	526	3.2%
Jayen466	65	1.3%	169	1.5%	234	1.4%
Msalt	62	1.2%	276	2.4%	338	2.1%
69.251.176.184	47	0.9%	21	0.2%	68	0.4%
61.247.228.221	41	0.8%	0	0.0%	41	0.2%
Mael-Num	43	0.9%	170	1.5%	213	1.3%
Will Beback	21	0.4%	310	2.7%	331	2.0%

Notes:

• I'm not sure whether users like Jayen466 or Rainer P. are "self-confirmed" students of Prem Rawat, so probably safest to include in this third table.

Jayen466 is not a student of Rawat's (he has indicated a taste for the works of Osho, among others.) Rainer P. is a self-confirmed student of Rawat's, [7] so I moved him into that category. Msalt (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Andries is not a former student of Prem Rawat, according to his own declaration on the /Evidence page. Andries is a former student of an Indian guru (not related to Prem Rawat or any of his family members), which is of course common knowledge I suppose.
• Will Beback uses two accounts, for reasons explained at User talk:Francis Schonken#Alternate account: the data pertaining to this user are incorrect, unless the data for both accounts are added. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the figures to combine Will's 2 accounts, and updated the numbers as of about 10 minutes ago. Msalt (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now combined 3 accounts onto Will's line: Will Beback, Will Beback NS, and User2004. Msalt (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I created this data and revised it with input from Jaren466 and Jossi on the Evidence Talk page. [8] After the presence of minor edits was noted, I created an Excel spreadsheet to subtract them from everyone's numbers, and posted the results. I can upload the spreadsheet if someone can show me how, or will email it to anyone who wants. Msalt (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I updated this table per Will Beback's suggestions on the evidence Talk page, as follows: 1) include minor edits 2) move Zappaz and 64.81.88.140 into the Rawat group 3) included Will's other sockpuppet User2004 on his line. I also re-sorted, moved Rainer P. (an acknowldeged devotee of Rawat's) into that group, and updated to current time (no way to go back and redo statistics at a point in the past.) The earlier version of the table, excluding minor edits, is on the Evidence Talk page under "Wikidashboard". Msalt (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Useless information. It says nothing, it proves nothing, it shows nothing. Francis forgets that whatever the outcome of this case, editors will have to work together, regardless of who they are, what they do , and what their affiliations are. This type of grouping is divisive, against the principles of Wikipedia, and creates more animosity than there is already. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi noted on the Evidence Talk page that these numbers (covering the entire life of the article) overstate his recent editing (he is currently self-recused from article edits, after all, though he has threatened to resume editing [9]). This is true; by the same token, these numbers understate the editing of Momento and Rumiton, who didn't start editing Prem Rawat until February 14, 2006 and March 13, 2007 respectively, and of all recent editors, really, including me. I have asked for suggestions for tools that narrow the time frame, and for which time frame to use, with no response. [10] Msalt (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Useless information, and perhaps mischievously inserted. I have made a lot of single edits that only involved inserting or removing a comma. Others have made single edits that inserted hundreds of words. Nothing should be based on these tables, and they should be removed from this page. Rumiton (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Well, for "useless information" it has certainly created an excited response from some of the authors mentioned. While I don't think these tables are the be all and end all of "facts", I think they do speak a lot towards the point WP:Own, intentionally or not, this appears to be what is happening in this article. To turn a blind eye to the fact that the current system is not working seems naive at best. Some issues need to be resolved here so we can move forward constructively. jossi's suggestion above that this chart is divisive, etc, is not true. These charts only give quantitative data to what the other editors on this article have been saying all along. I also noted on the evidence page, that despite jossi's claim to the contrary, of course all one's edits are cumulative, they shape the article all the way along its path. Regarding Rumiton's statement that he has made many edits that only involved commas, may I suggest a "measure twice, cut once" approach, I save many of those problems myself by using the Preview button -- Maelefique ^(talk) 05:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Putting "Criticism of" (in quotes) into the search edit box returns over 8000 WP articles, scores of which have titles that begin "Criticism of..." and relate to living persons, e.g Criticism of Osama bin Laden, etc. There are over 40 wikipedia categories containing "Criticism of" in their category titles, and many living people are included in most of those categories. Providing explicit criticism and labelling it as such is a well-established part of wikipedia. Matt Stan (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A general comment regarding WP:merge practices. I think one of the lessons of this case is that we may need a specific guideline regarding Merge/Split practices for various pages. Being a bit of a contrarian myself, I almost always dislike when articles like "Criticism of X" are merged with "X" and then disappear. While discussing fringe views is often inappropriate in the main article about "X" because of WP:UNDUE restrictions, it is allowed to cover such fringe views in the articles about themselves, assuming sufficient reliable source coverage is available. Of course, if such a separate article about fringe views is merged with the main one, the information about fringe views would have to be deleted per WP:UNDUE. While I am far from sympathetic to the Flat Earth idea, I would not want to see Flat Earth merged with Earth and then to have the Flat Earth info disappear. I feel the same regarding various conspiracy theories, which I find personally distasteful. Thus, my strong negative feelings about the 9/11 conspiracy theories non-withstanding, I would not want to see that article merged with 9/11 and then "disappeared". My feeling is that in many instances various WP:BATTLE problems (particularly discussions about how significant a particular minoritarian view is) could be avoided by moving such fringe info to separate articles and keeping them there (of course, making this into an explicit recommendation would require setting up a merge/split guideline that addresses issues other than just the question of article length). Perhaps this would have helped (or maybe can still help) in the case of the Prem Rawat article. Nsk92 (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have been many discussions about this in Wikipedia, namely issues related to WP:POVFORK (a guideline), and how to address Wikipedia:Criticism in articles (an essay). POVFORK has wording and recommendations that are widely used in the project. Also note that WP:UNDUE would apply across spin-off articles as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks, I see your point. I must confess that I am relatively new to Wikipedia and have not read WP:POVFORK before, although I think I have seen it mentioned. I still feel (although this is getting off the topic of this page) that it would be useful to have a central page (a guideline or maybe an essay) discussing various content and substance related issues regarding merges/splits, and not just the purely technical ones, as WP:MERGE does currently. I recently participated in a merge discussion regarding a subguideline of WP:N and at the time I felt that there was a distinct lack of guidance in relation to non-techical issues related to merge/split matters (e.g. WP:MERGE, which was the place where I looked for guidance then, does not even have a link to WP:POVFORK). I have just read WP:POVFORK and I found it useful but a bit insufficient. Specifically, I think it would help to include a more detailed discussion about when it may be appropriate to have articles whose subject is a POV, especially if this point of view is clearly a fringe one but still satisfies WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 02:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with "criticism of.." articles is that they can be a vehicle for bypassing BLP policy. At the time there was a "Criticism of Rawat" article, Rawat was one of only about 6 living people in the whole of Wikipedia to have one. The others were serving policiticians and Noam Chomsky.Momento (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Special:PrefixIndex/Criticisms of shows 12 articles currently beginning with "Criticisms of ", and Special:PrefixIndex/Criticism of shows 78 articles currently beginning with "Criticism of ". John Vandenberg (talk) 10:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only three are biographies of living persons; Hugo Chavez, Juan Cole and Noam Chomsky. All three have been and remain battlefields, and the Chomsky article has needed protection. It seems that criticism sections and articles invariably turn into maelstroms of POV, and that way a stable article does not lie. Rumiton (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are quite a few more. Took me ten seconds to find Criticism of George W. Bush and Criticism of Cindy Sheehan. Lawrence § t/e 15:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are three living people with "criticisms of..." articles. 2 redirect to "criticism of.." articles and one to the subject's article. There are 9 living people with "criticism of.." articles, 5 of the 9 are politicians, the other 4 are Cindy Sheehan (her article is titled "Criticism and support of..), Naom Chomsky, Sylvia Browne (psychic and medium) and Bill O'Reilly (reporter).Momento (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "criticism of" articles are susceptible to becoming battlefields and POV pushing forums. However, in the cases of Hugo Chavez, Juan Cole and Noam Chomsky it seems very likely, that if these "criticism of" articles were merged with the main ones, the battlefield and POV problems would have followed them there. I have some doubts about "criticisms of" articles. However, my general concern is about fringe (rather than significant minority) movements and POVs that, despite being fringe, are notable in the sense of WP:V and have substantial coverage by reliable sources. The problem is that, while the info related to POVs of significant minorities would probably be kept after merges, the info about notable fringe POVs can easily disappear after merges, for WP:UNDUE reasons. The Flat Earth and 9/11 conspiracy theories are good examples of such pages about notable fringe views, where in case of merges substantial amount of notable and verifiable info would be lost. I think that, as a general principle, if considerable coverage by reliable sources is available on some notable subject, sufficient coverage of that subject must be included somewhere in Wikipedia (even if that subject itself is a clearly fringe group or concerns a POV held by only a small minority). I would hold such a principle slightly above the (important but more procedural) WP:UNDUE considerations. I am not sure what this means in practice. Possibly "criticism of" articles are not the best way to go, and it may be better to create separate articles regarding particular fringe but notable views or maybe about specific organizations promoting such fringe views. Of course, one would still have to satisfy WP:N, WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc.

I don't know if any of this is applicable to or could help in the case of the Prem Rawat article. Perhaps one could consider creating a page "Ex-premies groups" (or maybe a page about a specific ex-premies web site or an organization). But I have no idea if such pages by themselves could pass WP:V and if there are enough reliable sources that covered the activities of such ex-premies groups/sites (after doing a quick Google News search my initial impression is that the answer is probably negative). Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reading this discussion reminded me of the existence of the Criticism of Prem Rawat page. (the link on the Prem Rawat article just redirects now). As I recall there was a lot of information on there. I can't find it anywhere. Can someone direct me to where is it now archived please?PatW (talk) 01:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat&oldid=195503964
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&oldid=190923935#Reception --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nsk92, I think your analysis, while thoughtful and well-intentioned, neglects a major problem that all here are facing. This is not an article about a "fringe movement" or on a "notable subject." It can in no way be compared to other contentious Wikipedia articles such as the Flat earth or 9/11 conspiracy theories. You refer to WP:UNDUE, WP:N, WP:V, WP:NPOV etc, but you omit the most important and overriding policy, WP:BLP. This is the life story of someone who is alive and can be hurt by gossip and sloppy compilation, just as you and I could be. Please become more familar with BLP's special and stringent requirements. Rumiton (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly did not mean to imply that Prem Rawat is an article about a fringe movement. I was talking about the general problem of how to deal with views of small minorities where these views, in spite of minorities being small, receive substantial coverage in reliable sources. As I said, I don't know enough about the subject of Prem Rawat and the related controversies, and in fact I am quite uninterested in this subject as such. But from the little I have seen of the discussion on the Prem Rawat talk page, it seems that one of the points of contention was how small a minority the ex-premie movement represents and to what extent their views are supposed to be reflected in the main Prem Rawat article, in view of WP:UNDUE. I was thinking that one possibility of making sure that WP:UNDUE requirements are respected and yet notable information be included in WP, might be to create a page about the ex-premies groups themselves (or maybe a particular website of theirs). Of course, you are right that even if this is done, BLP considerations (for all the living persons involved) would be a substantial concern and one would have to be rather careful about what information and how is included in these pages. Moreover, it is not clear (at least not to me) if there is enough coverage by reliable sources of the ex-premie groups activities for such a page to pass the requirements of WP:N. Plus, as Jossi pointed out, there are POVFORK concerns to be taken into account. So I am not at all sure that creating such a separate page would be appropriate here. But coming back to my general point, I do have a concern about keeping sufficient coverage of very minoritarian but notable views/organizations present somewhere on Wikipedia. I would apply this even to various hate groups, such as Neo-Nazi groups (and no, I most definitely do not mean to compare anyone involved in the current dispute to them), very small but notable fringe groups like Westboro Baptist Church, etc. As much as I personally dislike them, I would not want to see the WP articles about them merged and then "disappeared". Nsk92 (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the difference is that this is a living biography, not the story of the religions and philosophies that impacted on the living person. Sources tell us that when he first came out of India, Prem Rawat was severely criticised, even mocked, by church groups, especially European Protestants. The father of US marine, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, was mocked by Westboro Baptist Church members at the funeral of his son. I realise that Westboro is an extreme fringe religion, but the analogy holds. The religious beliefs of the WBC made Snyder an enemy without their feeling the need to know anything real about him. The religious beliefs of some Protestants made Prem Rawat an enemy in the same way, their animosity to his Hindu background was automatic. Should the criticism by the WBC be included in a biography of Mr Snyder? Rumiton (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Prem Rawat hurt by the things people say or by everyone knowing about the things people people say? If he was hurt by the notable professor of psychology Jan van der Lans allegedly saying that Maharaji is an example of a guru who has become a charlatan leading a double life, are there any references that show that Prem Rawat was hurt and what he did about it? If what Professor der Lans is alleged to have said is true then we wouldn't expect Prem Rawat to be hurt. If what the professor is alleged to have said is false then we would expect to find evidence of what Prem Rawat did to redress the hurt caused. Absence of evidence of the latter tends toward a balance or probability that the former is true, i.e. that Maharaji really is an example of a guru who has become a charlatan leading a double life. Matt Stan (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ex-premie 'group' is amorphous to say the least. As far as I can see there are quite a few websites that oppose Prem Rawat - and they not all owned by John Brauns contrary to what Elan Vital (Prem Rawat' related organisation) say on their FAQ about opposition. The arguments about including their views in the article originally centred around the fact that both Prem Rawats biography 'Peace is Possible' and Elan Vital websites characterise critical former follower activities as a somewhat singly co-ordinated 'hate group' and take the approach of demonising them and generally denying the criticisms and accusations that former followers have brought up in 'ex-premie' forums and the like. Several editors considered that ex-premie critics viewpoint thus warranted mentioning (see here) because of the fact they were attacked by Rawats organisations and (at the time) in the article itself-or links from it. The question of how small the number of people who have left Prem Rawat and who criticise him remains one of contention. John Brauns may be able to enlighten us as to how many separate ex-premies have passed through his site over the years. What is clear is that it is a lot more than the figures claimed by Jossi/Momento and Elan Vital and that only a very few of them have done more than voice complaint and discuss their woes. In short the ex-premies are not a hate group - they are simply an amorphous group of individuals some of whom actively oppose Rawat through their own designs and some of whom do not do anything at all. As Sylviecyn pointed out, the only people who characterise ex Rawat followers as a 'group' or 'hate group' are Rawat followers themselves.PatW (talk) 09:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a count of ex-premie forum posters, white pages entries, and journeys, a couple of years ago and it came to over 400. I would estimate the current total to be near 500. --John Brauns (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody emailed me the following question (who is not on WP). It seems relevant to this discussion:Question: Why does Andrew Cohen's WP article have external links that are highly critical of him whereas Rawat's does not? I thought BLP forbade this type of external link? [11] Another example of the non level playing field that the Rawat article suffers from: [12]PatW (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just read through the Andrew Cohen article and some of its links, and while I had never heard of the chap before, I found it all fascinating. The links were mostly intelligent, eloquent and colorful as well as often poignant, and as such they made compelling reading. They also failed just about all of the Wikipedia guidelines we have been discussing for the last several months, by representing the personal opinions of unqualified people. There are many Internet outlets for non-experts to be heard, and that is where they should stay. You might tell your friend that many articles on Wikipedia are imperfect, some seriously so. Hopefully time and the dedication of Wikipedians will sort them out. Rumiton (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. As far as I can tell, only 4 or so sentences of what can be termed criticism can be found in Prem Rawat, an 11-page article. This is on the extreme low side as far as BLPs of controversial people go. Furthermore, they all appear to be followed by rebuttals, several of which are original research (i.e. material not actually intended as a rebuttal by the source, AFAICT, but presented by the editor as such). There is plenty of good, well-referenced material in the criticism page (which seems to be continually fluctuating into and out of existence as of late) that deserves to be in the main. Why and how the article was turned into a redirect, but the material not actually merged (or merged and deleted), should be a key question here. - Merzbow (talk) 08:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested by the clerk I moved the "evidence" enclosed in my first approach to Merzbow's "key question" to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence#The merging of Criticism of Prem Rawat. The non-evidenced parts of that approach are given here: they represent opinions, like those of Rumiton, PatW, and others contributing to this section.

ad #1 (evidence that I performed the January 2007 merge)

ad #2 I was part of the "tandem" there. There's a technical glitch while Metz doesn't differentiate between "deleting" and "turning into a redirect". For a lay-man in Wikipedia editing these distinctions would understandably go unperceived. Anyhow: Did I work in tandem with Jossi for the merge? I contend I did, though somewhat remotely. I can't demonstrate that with diffs, because Wikipedia:List of POV forks has been deleted. (Jossi contributed to that page, I did, and the intent of that page was to get rid of almost all pages beginning with "Criticism of..." - note that I refer to that now deleted project page in both of my edit summaries of the merge).

ad #3 (my participation 19-26 January - backing out on the latter date).

ad #4 (virtually all criticism had disappeared from the article by February 2008 - I reinstated the "Reception" content in the Prem Rawat article on 8 February, redoing the "merge")

ad #5 (Jossi had nothing to do with the February 2008 merge of the Criticism)

ad #6 In the mean while the criticism of Prem Rawat included in the Prem Rawat article was desintegrating rapidly and/or salted with original research (as pointed out by Merzbow), after a lot of back-and-forth editing and additional procedure (see e.g. above #Prior discussions at various noticeboards). I do contend that indirect influence by Jossi was overwhelming from 8 February until today, and far too tendentious to be considered "monitoring by an admin with reduced involvement". --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merzbow, the article has bloated up to 11 pages because a lot of irrelevant nonsense from 34 years ago about house purchases and the Los Angeles Fire Department has recently been added to it. I disagree that the current contents of the Criticism article might be described as "good, well-referenced material." It is nearly all quoted from otherwise insignificant European Protestant church researchers, writing highly slanted stuff intended for their congregations in the 1970s. It seems to me quite acceptable to say something like, "On his arrival in the West, Prem Rawat was met by a hostile reaction from the establshed Christian churches." It is quite another, in a living biography, to quote them in detail. These points were all argued point by point, and the deletions proceeded following the discussions. Rumiton (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most, if not all the sources on that old article have been used in the current article. Material that did not make it to the article after the re-write can be looked at and re-added if suitable. This is an arbCom case that focuses on editor's behavior as per evidence presented, not on content disputes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But see this 147.114.226.175 (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi, I tried to re-insert a small fraction of the deleted material, but failed, mainly because of objections by Momemnto, supported by you. Andries (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you failed, and you were unsatisfied, you could have asked for help via WP:DR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know very well that I tried this extensively and repeatedly. Andries (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jossi. Although ArbCom's formal powers are mainly about sanctioning users, one of their important functions in the community is to untangle knotty problems, creating consensus in situations of heavy dispute. If an article is, like Merzbow suggests, unbalanced, that may be material if it leads them to spot bad behavior or helps them to articulate why the behavior is bad. Even if not, it may be useful in finding the true source of the problem, which will make people comfortable that it is not a question of editorial misbehavior. Either way, it seems like Merzbow's comment is appropriate. William Pietri (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree partially with what you said, but would argue that creating consensus is not the ArbCom's responsibility. That is for the editors to seek. OTOH, ArbCom can, and hopefully will, impose some remedies and restrictions so that editing can resume without disruption, and in an atmosphere that is conducive to seeking and finding such consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creating consensus is everybody's responsibility, and I would suggest that consensus-building is the whole point of the dispute resolution process, of which ArbCom is the pinnacle. Whether or not they are formally charged with it, their analyses often do create consensus, or at least provide a nucleus around which a post-dispute consensus forms. So again, I think looking at the broad picture of a case is valuable, and your attempts to limit it to only the aspects you want adjudicated make me uncomfortable. William Pietri (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)i[reply]

I have no ability to limit the scope of this or any other ArbCom case, William. I can only propose a scope in the Workshop page, or make some comments here, that's all. ArbCom members are highly experienced and carry the support of the community to assist in complex cases such as this. They will look through the evidence, and I am sure they will do the best they can to provide a framework through remedies and/or restrictions, to assure an orderly debate and the resumption of editing without further disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly what makes me uncomfortable is the fact that Jossi brought us all to this Arcom obviously perfectly confident that they will rule in his favour against opponents. I see a lot of faith expressed here in the 'fairness' and 'wisdom' of these pinnacle representatives of WP community. How do we know how much Jossi's friend-making here has biased the higher echelons to favour him? How do we know what stuff he's been telling them in private emails about us? I confess I am not comfortable about the fairness of this court by default. My experience so far has been that the good guys get reprimanded and the bad guys get away. I found that disappointing since I like to think I have reasonably high ethical and social values and I came here inspired by the concept of a community working together towards fairness and neutrality. (Yes I know I sound like Ruminton-gag now if you like). If WP does not demonstrate very clear justice here the inevitable result will be an expansion of the debate and I will be there in support. The buck of justice does not necessarily stop in this court of Wikipedia. If it can demonstrate very clear even-handedness then it will have gone some way to publicly proving that it takes corruption more seriously than it's critics suggest and there will be no need for any more soapboxing from me or anyone else. PatW (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read your comment to Merzbow as discouraging participation around and consideration of issues other than the one you want people to focus on. I read some of your comments on the talk page similarly. Although you are stating things politely and in a way that sounds neutral, you have a strong interest in the outcome of this arbitration. It could be, of course, that you are totally right, and your interest in the outcome is leading me to misperceive your comments. Or it could be that your strong interest is throwing off your judgment. This is, in miniature, a fine illustration of the problem that I hope ArbCom will address: having a serious conflict of interest makes it hard to be neutral, and almost impossible to be seen as neutral. William Pietri (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no control on how others see me. I only have control of my actions as reflected by my participation and my edits. That is why we have diffs, William. There is no other online community in which one's edits and comments are all stored for posterity and accessible to anyone. That is the Wikipedia way: you can be assessed by your contributions and not by perceptions, and that is a good thing. As for your comment about my way of "sounding neutral", again: judge me by my edits and contributions in talk, and accept the fact that unless there is proof to the contrary (again: contributions and talk debates), we should assume good faith. I invite you to do just that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you do have control over the way others see you! Your edits alone are not what people judge you by. What they judge you by and what you might want to change is your hectoring, officious and 'hall-monitoring' tone. That is arguably an abuse of your position as an administrator. And it is the cause of much more indignation when you add the factor of your unneutrality. Anyway how can you suggest that people are assessed "by your contributions and not by perceptions"? Especially when you are plainly marching us all into this Arbcom by the ear, proclaiming we are disruptive, hateful of Wikipedia and members of a hate group who hate your boss - which is obviously a pet perception of yours! PatW (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further to your comment "That is the Wikipedia way: you can be assessed by your contributions and not by perceptions, and that is a good thing. You obviously rely on a potential loophole in the 'Wikipdia Way' whereby as long as your edits and contributions in Talk do not cross certain regulatory lines you can basically do whatever the hell else you like. ie. be officious, unfair, filibustering, etc. For you it seems the criteria isn't the 'perception' of your crimes but whether you can escape being caught or game the system. You seem to be one of those rare people zealous enough not to find this sort of prolonged, calculated activity utterly soul-destroying and unethical. And Wikipedia seniors so far seem to be the only people sad enough to award you a medal for that dubious achievement. 'Jossi the Great Wikipedian'. If Arbcom assess you not for the sum of your officious, biased behaviour but just for the fact that never on one occasion did you 'technically' cross the line then they they will badly need to be drawn into question. I've absolutely no doubt about it. Just because Arbcom are supposedly the pinnacle of Wikpedia justice does not mean they are infallible. If they get this wrong they will invite Wikipedia itself to be judged outside it's own realm and regulations. So please Arbcom - get it right! Personally I share Sylviecyn's alarm that Arbcom's first proposals seem to indicate that they are in danger of failing. PatW (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, get it right, Arbcom. And if you have any doubt what "right" is, PatW will tell you. Rumiton (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn right I will say what I think. I am saying this because so far I am alarmed at what seems to have been missed in the proposals. I don't know if the Arbcom members who have not commented share those views. Note I am at pains to explain what I think their members have so far overlooked. I am trying to encourage them to not overlook such important contentions. I also warn them that to not address such glaring unfairness would be an invitation for Wikipedia's reputation to be drawn into question. This concern is not just mine. It has been expressed by a number of other editors who are also concerned about Wikipedia's reputation. PatW (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruminton argues on the discussion page that 'All admins "act as both player and referee." It's the name of the game. The question is how well they succeed in putting Wikipedia first.' So far in their proposals Arbcom seem to also overlook the glaring and important point that Ruminton has missed. Jossi (as the referee in this case) is playing for one particular side. Please factor that into your thinking. And I would challenge you to conclude that, for this reason alone, the Prem Rawat articles have been anything but a blatantly unfair playing field heavily biased in favour of Prem Rawat supporters.PatW (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And just in case anyone is still impressed with Ruminton's latest (and hopefully last) attempt to diminish the pertinence of the sports game analogy: "The admin needs to put Wikipedia first. As Jossi has done." may I point out how absurd it would be to have a referee who is an employee and supporter of an involved team's football club? This is surely the nub of the problem you/we are facing here. If you think that the players are revolting maybe you should first consider the prime cause of the provocative situation here and factor that in as in some way excusing the brawling behaviour of the players. ie. don't take it out on the team players. Solutions to bringing calm to the Prem Rawat article could be to either ask Jossi to step down as an administrator or better (IMHO), introduce the strong suggestion (or rule) that administrators who work for related organisations do not participate in any way in contentious articles about their employers. The other important ingredient is harder to arrange. That is that neutral editors and administrators are invited by non-partisan editors to participate and referee. (That would be to avoid the existing perception that Jossi has invited 'New Religious Movement' friendly but non-partisan mediators to the table.) Otherwise I would suggest that the existing Wikipedia guidelines are pretty much sufficient. PatW (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prime cause? Provocation? This is provocation, and this, and this, and this, and this. Chutzpah. And ah, there are no referees in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this comment moved to a separate page by itself? [13] I've never seen that done before. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall why, Will. Please delete it. I can look for and find the diff I have replaced that with the diff. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The operative word here is 'prime'. Of course there are examples of provocative behaviour that are not directly attributable to your adminship. However I contend that the privileges and tools that are available to you as an administrator are a significant, indeed primary cause of raised tensions here generally. Effectively that position makes you appear as a referee and I don't see how you can possibly argue otherwise. In fact I take your last response as merely an expression of your frustration at not having a reasonable counter-argument to this analogy. I also take your frequent use of the word 'Chutzpah' as confirmation of your belief in yourself as a higher authority who is appalled at the insolence of an inferior. I would go further to suggest that anyone who frequently cries 'chutzpah' 'the gall of it', 'what cheek' etc. is displaying the classic symptomatic behaviour of someone who is in a position of power that they truly do not deserve. We all recognise that language from stuffy Victorian aunts to upstart hall-monitors (bullying school prefects) to corrupt court judges. Usually those who cry 'Look at the gall of that miscreant' are looking towards another senior to approve their judgement and administer the punishment they seek to bring upon the audacious wretch. In short, is 'Chutzpah' the best argument you have? PatW (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PatW (talk · contribs), it seems to me you are looking at Wikipedia through a very limited key hole. In two years of participation and over a thousand edits, you haven't once tried to edit an article that did not relate to Prem Rawat, as far as I can see. How do I know that you would not cry "foul" in any other Wikipedia context? Because in my experience, in most cases where an admin warns a user with a strong POV over WP:NPA, WP:SOAP, WP:AGF etc., the admin is immediately accused by the "warnee" of being partisan, a fascist, throwing his weight around, censoring free speech, acting in bad faith, etc. This is true no matter how clear the violation is – in fact, the more egregious the violation, the more vociferous the complaint that follows the warning. By the way, I hope you know that User:Will_Beback is an admin as well, just like Jossi, so you can consider him the referee, if you prefer. ;-) Jayen466 22:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) You say: that the privileges and tools that are available to you as an administrator are a significant, indeed primary cause of raised tensions here generally. Care to explain which tools and privileges you are referring to which created these tensions? FYI, these are the tools and privileges I have as an admin: page deletion, page protection, blocking and unblocking, and access to modify protected pages and the mediawiki interface. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen: Maybe I am looking through a limited keyhole compared to you. But my eyes are open and I am appraising the situation as best I can from my position. If people are suspicious of my motives for only participating in the Rawat Talk page as I have done, then may I suggest that my original declaration of intent was not inappropriate. I explained from the outset that I was a busy man who came to Wikipedia primarily, and with limited time, to address a considerable amount of misrepresentation about a subject I was particularly familiar with. Until recently I had no idea that it was frowned upon to not extend ones participation to more than one article. I am not about to suffer guilt about that either. If people want to know why I have no time left for other interests they can look at my website or ask me directly. My edits to the article by the way are very few indeed. I gave up on that because I felt it more important to establish ground rules about what material could be included. This was obviously an act of prudence since that is now exactly what other newcomers are trying to do on the Talk Page. Maybe I would cry 'foul' in other Wikipedia contexts if I found them wanting. I am not crying foul as some sort of nervous speech impediment or to deliberately disrupt the proceedings. That is what Jossi maintains but I deny it. I have presented evidence here which I consider sufficient to indicate I have good reasons to complain. I welcome the presence of any administrator who is not a Rawat follower like Will.PatW (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that website looks interesting, thanks. :-) Still, I feel it would have been helpful if you had had wider experience; it might have put some things in perspective, and made them appear less "kafkaesque" (a word that James Heller, or the IP attributed to him, also appears to have used). No need to be afeared of Jossi; if you buy into the authority thing, don't forget to question yourself as to why you are buying into it. Generally speaking, neither Jossi nor any other admin has any personal authority; whatever authority they have (especially with things like blocking users) derives from the policies and guidelines. If that makes sense. Good night. Jayen466 00:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi: Has it occurred to you that to a newcomer, someone who is proclaimed as an administrator and who issues warnings more than others and who has an amazingly officious tone, and who seems to have a overbearing habit of Wikilawyering, might just appear as someone a little obsessed with their authority? And is not being an administrator a badge of authority? You yourself admit that you have these special privileges like blocking etc. Surely you can understand that this itself sets you apart as an authoritative figure. You don't seem to grasp that someone in a position of power may not have to actually abuse that power in obvious ways to be seen as more threatening by opponents. This is simply because you behave in a very authoritative way and also are accused of exerting far more influence on this article than others. In short defending it very aggressively. That would be fine except that a) You work for Rawat b) You are authoritative and can block people, protect Pages, delete etc. c) The article has become heavily Pro Rawat under your watch. So in answer to your question, yes, all those privileges that you yourself list, contribute to the raised tensions here. Plenty of people are testifying to that.PatW (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(a) I have not used by admin privileges in these content disputes; (b) Any editor can issue warnings to others (See WP:TUSER); (c) I can only influence an article in my capacity as an editor; (e) I have not used or abused my admin privileges, if you feel differently, you can always post a notice at WP:AN/I; (f) You may see me as authoritative, but I can't exert any authority that you cannot exert yourself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I believe the degree you have exerted your authority is too much. I am tempted to use the term Wikilawyering but then I'm sure you have prepared a defence for that accusation. Trouble is you've spent far longer than anyone else becoming a Wiki expert and you use that superior knowledge all the time against opponents of your POV. Maybe there is something about Wikipedia that makes it a Kafkaesque breeding ground for would-be power freaks. I'm going to sleep on it. Night night.PatW (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

or are Wikipedia's 'best and brightest' entirely given to stretching the boundaries of belief to flatter themselves Jossi is some kind of conscientious priest concerned with painting an accurate picture of sex-abuses in his church! As we all know nothing could be further than the truth and Jossi is at pains to present a revised rosy picture of Prem Rawat where criticism is marginalised, and he is utterly unconscionable in doing so! Where are these guys coming from? I've never heard anything so ill-considered in my life where one would hope to find some wisdom! Sam if you are reading this (which I'm afraid I rather doubt you are) kindly look at all the evidence before spouting such offensive nonsense. You might want to consider the superior wisdom of the football analogies that we have made on these discussion pages. Right now you are badly missing the point and I amongst many other apparently wiser and brighter, am appalled. PatW (talk) 10:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have received a promise from a highly articulate and intelligent impartial associate from the UK that if Arbcom do not judge this fairly and take it more seriously the next letter to the Times will be from him and it will not be a joke. Even to impartial observers the moves to protect Jossi by Wikipedia in this case look like a travesty of justice and responsible ethics. Not smiling :-( PatW (talk) 10:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pat, have you noticed that almost everything you write sounds either peevish, abusive or threatening? Rumiton (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just terminally frustrated that nobody is interested enough in Prem Rawat apart from former followers, to ensure that the truth is told here. Who cares about the truth in Wikipedia right? And my writing expresses perfectly how I feel right now. I have a right to say I think Blacketers analogy is wishful-thinking inappropriate highly ill-timed day-dreaming don't I? God knows how many people including myself have apparently wasted spent hours of our lives presenting evidence that obviously is NOT considered by those who are supposed to be demonstrating even-handedness. I have every right to be angry. If things carry on as they are I will waste no further energy on this article and will leave it to you apologists to smarm your lies into that article. I believe it was you Ruminton who argued that Rawat never advocated a renunciate order - remember that? I call that lies. Outright lies. And Jossi always turns a blind eye to this kind of stuff. Jim Heller was right that this is a Kafkaesque joke. Should I pretend to be delighted at this sorry state of affairs? I think not.PatW (talk) 11:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hhmm, well there you have managed to get peevish, abusive and threatening all in the one paragraph. I believe I said he did not demand renunciation as a condition for receiving Knowledge, or that is what I meant to say. He obviously maintained a system of renunciate ashrams for quite some time, and finished it off when it was apparently creating more problems for people than benefits. You say you have every right to be angry as if anger were a special treat for you. To each his own. Who is Sam Blacketer? I can't find his contribution. Rumiton (talk) 11:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No! that is NOT what you said! I quoted you correctly. Blacketer says: "those who did the most valuable work were members of the Church who were disgusted about what was revealed about some Priests." Well maybe so but Jossi has nothing but contempt for people who criticise Prem Rawat and cares nothing for people who have been abused by Rawat's priests. What have you or Jossi done to include stuff about Rawat's instructor abusing children or the way the 'Church' dealt with it? Or about a whole further raft of accusations? Admit it. You are here as someone who thinks that all 'exes' are trying to do is be 'snakes trying to bite your baby' and all Jossi is doing is trying to bend the article to hide as much criticism of Prem Rawat as he possibly can. The scales are rapidly falling from my eyes about the fairness of this Arbcom.PatW (talk) 11:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam is one of the arbitrators. These are the people who are on the arbitration committee. They have been asked to look into why things keep getting deleted from the Prem Rawat articles, in case you hadn't heard of any of these things either, User:Rumiton. Matt Stan (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rawat's instructor? In the singular? One of hundreds world-wide, that's why mentioning that situation would be grossly unfair. The scales are also falling for me. I don't believe you will ever cooperate constructively on this article. Rumiton (talk) 14:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]