Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2/Evidence

I researched and compiled all of the noticeboard threads, mediations, and RfCs that are relevant here. It's not evidence one way or another, just background for the benefit of theArbCom and other interested parties. If clerks think it's better on this page that's fine too. Anyone is welcome to add anything I missed.   Will Beback  talk  03:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder for people to add comments to their own sections so the arbs can keep track of who is adding what and where. MBisanz ^talk 05:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't regard it as "my evidence" - it's simply a listing of all of the noticeboards filings, etc, about this topic in the last year. It doesn't support anyone's side - it's just background.   Will Beback  talk  05:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that is not how it works. The committee asks that for ease of reading everyone only edits in their own section. Tiptoety ^talk 05:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be helpful, perhaps in future cases, if clerks or someone uninvolved provided similar listings. It's useful information for the committee and all the parties. For this case, I'll move it to this page if that seems more appropriate.   Will Beback  talk  06:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a great suggestion - although in a way your posting is very true to the original arbitration model, where all participants simply generated neutral information.--Tznkai (talk) 02:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for your second question Will, if you are interested in generating a more "open" list of relevant noticeboard threads, mediation cases, ect... that anyone can add to then yes, that would need to be moved here. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 04:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeboards, mediation, and RfCs since 2008

This is a list of all the threads on noticeboards, mediations, policy talk pages, and RfCs related to this case since 2008.   Will Beback  talk  22:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:MFD#User:Nik Wright2/Sandbox 3 January 2008 - 3 January 2008
• WP:AN#Heads-up on possible trolling 7 February - 9 February 2008
• WP:COIN#User:Jossi and Prem Rawat 7 February - 8 February 2008
• WP:BLPN:#Prem Rawat 8 February- 15 February 2008
• WP:PUI#Image:Prem Rawat's Property.jpg 8 February - 8 February 2008
• WP:IFD#Image:Prem Rawat's Property.jpg 9 February - 21 February 2008
• WP:ANI#Prem Rawat and talk page 11 February 2008
• WP:3RRN#User:Momento reported by User:Francis Schonken (Result: 24 hours ) 13 February - 14 February 2008
• WP:ANI#IP reverts on Prem Rawat 15 February - 16 February 2008
• WP:ANI#Francis Schonken 17 February- 17 February 2008
• WP:AN#Article probation - proposal 19 February - 22 February 2008
• WP:AN#Slightly disruptive editing of Momento (talk · contribs) 19 February - 28 February 2008
• WP:AN#Asking uninvolved admin to close IfD ASAP 21 February - 21 February 2008
• WP:RSN#Los Angeles Times as reference for Prem Rawat 26 February - 3 March 2008
• WP:NORN#General Question: OR in External Links 27 February 2008 - 28 February 2008
• WP:AN#Prem Rawat 1RR parole proposal 28 February - 4 March 2008
• WP:ANI#User:PatW 10 March - 11 March 2008
• WP:ANI#1RR on Prem Rawat 14 March - 15 March 2008
• WP:AN#Disruptive editing by user:Janice Rowe despite article probation (Prem Rawat again) 16 March - 16 March 2008
• WP:ANI#1RR article probation violation by User:Francis Schonken 16 March -16 March 2008
• WP:RFAR#Prem Rawat 16 March - 12 May 2008

• WPT:BLP#Criticisms of 3 April - 7 April 2008
• WP:FAC#Lord of the Universe 4 April - 10 April 2008
• WP:RFC#Should LOTU be categorized as satire? 11 April - 16 April 2008
• WP:FTN#Prem Rawat 13 April - 12 May 2008
• WP:RSN#James Randi 15 April - 17 April 2008
• WP:MC#Cases/2008-04-20 Prem Rawat 20 April - 11 August 2008
  • User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat Archive 1 4 June - 5 July 2008
  • User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat 10 July - 6 August 2008
  • Proposal1 27 May - 13 June 2008
  • Proposal2 27 May - 17 June 2008
  • Proposal3 30 May - 1 July 2008
  • Proposal4 30 May - 5 July 2008
  • Proposal5 1 June - 13 June 2008
  • Proposal6 13 June - 15 July 2008
  • Proposal7 30 June - 14 August 2008
  • Proposal8 5 July - 11 July 2008
  • Proposal9 15 July - 23 July 2008
• WP:AE#Momento edit-warring over criticism section at Prem Rawat 17 May - 26 May 2008
• WP:AE#Jossi launching subtle personal attacks 19 May - 19 May 2008
• WP:AE#Sylviecyn 20 May - 21 May 2008
• WP:RSN#Memoir: how to use? 21 May - 21 May 2008
• WP:ANI#Uninvolved admin 26 May - 26 May 2008
• WP:ANI#Prem Rawat Dispute 13 June - 13 June 2008
• WPT:V#Exceptional claims: Is a change of heart exceptional? 15 June - 17 June 2008
• WP:RFC#revert removal of sourced material 28 June - 5 July 2008
• WPT:EL#Unlinked domain names 28 June - 7 July 2008
• WP:BLPN#A new media report about the Prem Rawat article 21 July- 22 July 2008
• WP:AFD#Ex-premie.org 16 July - 24 July 2008
• WP:RSN#Affidavits 16 July - 19 July 2008
• WP:AE#Rumiton 31 July - 1 August 2008
• WP:RSN#Rolling Stone 1 August - 4 August 2008
• WP:BLPN#Prem Rawat 2 August - 2 August 2008
• WP:MCQ#Links to copyrighted material at rickross.com 8 August - 8 August 2008
• WP:RFM#Prem Rawat 3 11 August - 17 August 2008
• WP:AN#Steve Crossin, Chet B Long, PeterSymonds, and inappropriate account sharing 22 August - 24 August 2008
• WP:AE#Personal attacks by Jossi at Talk:Millennium '73 11 September - 14 September 2008
• WP:RFC# Talk:Millennium '73#RfC: Pronunciation 11 September - 27 September 2008
• WP:AFD#The Prem Rawat Foundation 15 September - 20 September 2008
• WP:AFD#Bibliography of Prem Rawat and related organizations 19 September - 23 September 2008
• WP:AFD#Words of Peace 19 September - 22 September 2008
• WP:AN#Procedural question - admins recovering deleted article content... 20 September - 24 September 2008
• WP:AE#Jossi and Prem Rawat 20 September - 26 September 2008
• WP:RFD#The Prem Rawat Foundation → Prem Rawat 1 October - 5 October 2008
• WP:RSN#Bibliographic articles 3 October - 9 October 2008
• WP:FAC#Millennium '73/archive1 27 October - 27 November 2008
• WP:RSN#Marjoe Gortner in Oui 28 October - 31 October 2008
• WP:BLPN#Prem Rawat: beating incident 26 November - 2 December 2008
• WP:AE#Prem Rawat 21 January -24 January 2009
• WP:AE# Momento at Prem Rawat (continued) 26 January - 6 February 2009
• WP:RFC#Balyogeshwar RfC 31 January - 22 February
• WP:AE#Momento at Prem Rawat (continued, again) 7 February - 17 February 2009

A new editor User:99.245.228.162 added a link to a website that contains much critical material about Prem Rawat, the addition was reverted without explanation [[1]] – there may have been sound reasons why the reversion should have been made, but in my view WP:CIVIL should have required adequate explanation be given to a new editor. I reinstated the link twice, asking on the talk page for the removal to be justified. After the fourth unexplained reversion I posted a request for intervention at [2] Sandstein acting as Administrator [[3]] concluded that I was in error in terms of WP:EL and that "the website http://ex-premie.org “appears to be operated by private persons and dedicated to making allegations against him [Prem Rawat], including claims of criminal or immoral conduct. It thereby fails Wikipedia:EL#In biographies of living people ….” Sandstein further concluded that my two reinstatements of the link to ex premie website amounted to an edit war. A different interpretation of WP:EL was put forward [4]] by Will Beback who contended that I was not wrong because of WP:EL, but because of WP:COPYVIO.

If Sandstein is correct then the summary and unexplained reversions of the links to [5] from the non BLP Rawat related articles would have merit in policy, if not in practice of WP:CIVIL; if however by Will Beback is correct in refutation of Sandstein’s interpretation of WP:EL then the disputed link would be appropriate for inclusion in the non BLP Rawat articles. Yet, should Will Beback be correct in invoking WP:COPYVIO the disputed link could not appear in any WP article, and the site would be subject to the blanket censorship sought by some editors, who seem to wish to prohibit any acknowledgement that Prem Rawat has active detractors, from appearing in WP articles.

The effective censorship of the ‘fact’ of active detractors’ is a problem for Wikipedia because it places WP in a position of providing positive promotion of a subject, (in this case Prem Rawat, Hans Rawat, Prem Rawat’s teachings and supporting organisations) without a matching acknowledgement of dissent, in a circumstance where the fact of that dissent maybe tested by an Internet search engine result. Thus Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia denies the ‘fact’ of a result from a process that brings every reader to Wikipedia in the first place. No where does it seem that the Wikipedia community has ever agreed to such censorship, but the absurd cross cutting of half baked and wikilawyered interpretation of ‘policy’ inhibits any means to address the anomaly and Wikipedia sets precedent by inaction for the unalloyed promotion of BLP subjects. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of sources can, of course, be difficult. For many subjects the use of websites or press releases by the subject in question is necessary in order to fill in important details for the article. Thus, the need to use Rawat-related websites for information for the Rawat articles. The use of these sources, however, should be limited to basic information, not for qualitative statements. For example, if the article says, "Rawat is the Master of the Universe" and uses a Rawat site as the source, that probably won't work. If, instead, the article states, "Rawat's followers believe him to be the Master of the Universe" and cites Rawat's website, that is ok. "Ex-premie" isn't a reliable source as it stands right now, but if more secondary sources mention it then I believe that would give it some status for being used or mentioned in the article, within reason per our BLP policies. Cla68 (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nik raises several issues. Starting at the end, there is an inherent bias on Wikipedia concerning living people. We allow self-published sources by the subjects (so long as the assertions aren't excessively self-serving), but we do not allow self-published sources created by critics (or fans). NPOV requires that we include all significant viewpoints, but they have to be verifiable with reliable sources. There are reliable sources for the existence of active detractors, so it isn't necessary to link to EPO for that reason.

As for Ex-Premie.org (EPO), it contains a mix of materials, including both signed and unsigned articles created for the website, and numerous copies of relevant materials from scholars, journalists, and the Prem Rawat organizations. The latter material is all copyrighted and so if we link to it we have a copyright violation issue. Aside from the copyrighted information, there'd be some question about whether the website is self-published or not. The fact that the website contains negative assertions is irrelevent to the decision, in my opinion. Finally, there has been a long-standing consensus to only have one link, mostly to avoid these disputes. So, in my opinion. It was wrong to add the link, and it was also wrong to edit war over removing it.

It should also be mentioned that a compromise was attempted by including the domain name without hyperlinking to it. Uninvolved editors at WP:EL agreed that the guideline does not apply to unlinked domain names.[6] However some editors at Prem Rawat wouldn't allow that compromise.   Will Beback  talk  04:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments reminded me of The Smoking Gun website, which we often allow to be used as a reference because the documents posted there are usually verifiable. If the ex-Premie site posts primary source documents I assume those could be used as references within the boundries of our BLP policy. I also assume that this subject has probably been discussed numerous times as it relates to the Rawat articles, so I'm not treading any new ground here and this, of course, shouldn't be the focus of the case, which instead should be the behavior of the editors involved with those articles. Cla68 (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the articles posted at the site are used as sources, even being cited by editors who refuse to link to them. While the website itself isn't central to this case, the behavior of editors here concerning that site is an important issue.   Will Beback  talk  06:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, Cla68 and Will, that rationale runs smack into the contributory copyright infringement clause of WP:COPYRIGHT. This is the first I've heard of The Smoking Gun, but links to other copyvio hostings get removed regularly. We even got a couple of topic bans last year spring following the Bluemarine case, partly over the contributory copyright infringement issue. Durova^Charge! 06:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a misunderstanding. If I understand correctly, Cla68 and I are both saying that editors can cite the sources without linking to the website.   Will Beback  talk  06:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, well in that case is this accepted as a reliable source? That is, can their hostings be trusted for accuracy and fidelity to the originals? What vetting process do they have? Durova^Charge! 06:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is, of course, no way for us to completely vouch for the accuracy and reliability of most of the sources we use as allowed by our policies and guidelines. We leave it up to the reader to check the sources and determine how much credence they want to give them. In "The Smoking Gun's" case, most of the documents posted are publicly available court documents, which presumably means that others can verify that the documents are genuine, and allows editors to use the document as a primary source without having to link to the Smoking Gun website. Cla68 (talk) 07:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Publicly available court documents are certainly verifiable; that's understandable. Is it publicly available court documents the anti-Prem Rawat site is hosting? Please be patient if this question seems naive; until a year ago I didn't know Prem Rawat existed and other than a couple of lengthy Wikipedia dispute resolutions, the subject is still pretty mysterious and not to my taste. I'll be taking notes on eighteenth century French aeronautics while you answer. ;) Durova^Charge! 08:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RSN#Docstoc.com for another document hosting question. Regarding this topic, the site in question hosts copies of articles or excerpts from journalists, scholars, and official sources. There aren't any notable court cases or legal documetns concerning this subject. I did my own research before looking at what was in the critical sites and I haven't noticed any errors in the hosted copies, though I've never made a study of it. Also, as mentioned above, even the "pro-" editors rely on it for sources. They just don't link to it. So the use of sources on the "EPO" site aren't the problem. The dispute has revolved around the simple matter of whether to link to it, mention it, or exclude it entirely.   Will Beback  talk  08:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to WillBeBack's claim, the EPO sites contains more than just "articles or excerpts from journalists, scholars, and official sources". It contains pages of derogatory and misleading opinion pieces by anonymous writers who are neither journalists nor scholars. It certainly doesn't contain this publicly available court document.[7]Momento (talk) 10:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I said: it includes signed and unsigned articles created for the website. It's got all kinds of stuff. The fact that it has negative materials shouldn't be a factor in whether it's linked or used as a source - just like we don't discount weblinks or sources just because they're positive. Anyway, the relevant issue for us here is whether it's appropriate to have edit warred over linking to it. I'm astonished that Momento, at the same time as he's complaining about linking to one website that has derogatory material on a living person, links to another website hosting a derogatory and misleading document. It gives the impression that he doesn't think BLP applies equally to enemies of the movement.   Will Beback  talk  18:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) This is odd. I was skeptical of the site's appropriateness, but not for any of the reasons Momento articulates. Will hasn't claimed that the site's only purpose is to host articles or excerpts from journalists, scholars, and official sources. Nor does the absence of one court document have any bearing--positive or negative--on whether other hostings are appropriate. POV and reliability are separate concepts. For example, opinion pieces at The Wall Street Journal are consistently quite far to the political right; it's also one of the most reliable newspapers in terms of its article coverage. This example doesn't imply that the site we're talking about here is as trustworthy as WSJ (I'm pretty sure it's not), just an illustration of the difference between WP:POV and WP:RS.

The key question here is whether this site's reproductions of texts are reliable. There's a factor that editors often overlook in disputes over this type of question: it's not enough to say the original source is reliable; the reproduction needs to be reliable also. An extreme example of unreliable reproduction was the furor a couple of years ago over the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons. The cartoons themselves were provocative--probably intentionally so--and the newspaper was reliable. But what contributed to the furor was that additional material that was more inflammatory but not published in that newspaper was added to a presentation that circulated in the Muslim world, to an audience that trusted the integrity of the presentation.

Our default position at Wikipedia is no, we do not trust the reliability of an unvetted rehosting unless it comes from an expert in the field who may be regarded, even when unvetted, as a reliable source. The burden of evidence rests with people who want to include material. If what Will says about both sides of this debate citing the same source, while one side also challenges its reliability, then that's an unusual but ultimately irrelevant twist. And if I understand Will and Cla68 correctly, it also looks a little bit like sometimes people are citing this site's rehostings but not naming that their information comes from an intermediate source. The safe solution is to contact the original publishers and get one's information from them. Although it it's possible to cut that corner, there's also a substantial risk involved: if an unvetted site does alter its purported rehostings, then eventually someone is going to get caught with their pants down for improper citation practices, misattribution, and several other serious ethical breaches. It is the editor's responsibility to check these things when they create a citation, not the reader's afterward. Durova^Charge! 20:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You raise some good points about using materials found on unofficial website, but that's not what this dispute is about. The disputed claim is that linking to, or even just mentioning, the website is a BLP violation, not that it is reliable (or unreliable) provider of copied materials. Nik was topic banned for adding it three times,[8][9][10] while Momento deleleted it three times[11][12][13] (if I've counted correctly). Other accounts or IPs were also involved and perhaps a checkuser should check to make sure that none of them were socks. To my view, they both edit-warred and they should have received similar remedies.   Will Beback  talk  20:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone doubts that most material from reputable newspapers and magazines reproduced on EPO are legitimate. This issue is all the other material on the site. According to WP:VER "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions". Since EPO contains "unsigned articles created for the website" it is undoubtedly a "questionable source" and as such EPO fails "to meet the standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability". WP:BLP policy states that "material about living persons available solely in questionable sources should not be used as an external link". And according to WP:BLP "Any contentious material about living persons that fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability should be "removed". That's what I did and that is why no one objected to WillBeBack's edit war to remove some of the undiscussed links twice in twelve hours.[14][15] As for linking to the MacGregor affidavit, I provided it to refresh your memory because you claimed "There aren't any notable court cases or legal documents concerning this subject" and I assumed that since this is an Arbcom issue and no one had objected to NikWright2 linking to the EPO for this discussion, linking to Macgregor's affidavit was acceptable in these circumstances.Momento (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then the closest analogy to this would be last year's request for clarification over the MONGO case when the issue was whether links to Encyclopedia Dramatica were acceptable. That was a far more extreme example than this site in terms of BLP, and the Committee decided to allow external links. We're getting into BADSITES territory. Durova^Charge! 21:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has proposed using EPO as a source in and of itself, at least not recently. The dispute is solely over whether it's allowable to link to the site, to mention the site, and if not, whether mentioning it violates BLP. The Macgregor affidavit is a dubious document and isn't connected to a notable court case. If Momento applies the same criteria to the Elan Vital site as he does to EPO (unsigned derogatory information about living people), then it might be in the same category as EPO. Incidentally, it occurs to me that there may be at least one notable legal cases involving Rawat, the fight with his brother, but it's not part of this dispute. Durova, do you mean this: MONGO#Amended_decision? It doesn't seem to address adding links - just over whether there can be an article. I'm not sure what the status of "bad sites" is. The current BLP language in WP:EL is uselessly vague, in my opinion.   Will Beback  talk  22:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The actual discussion was more nuanced than that summary implies. But without getting knee deep in the details of that instance, try Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites. Durova^Charge! 23:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to take a look at this as a presumptive BADSITES expert. However, this isn't exactly BADSITES in action, though it's got some aspects in common. BADSITES was aimed specifically at squelching criticism of Wikipedia and Wikipedians ourselves, while this edit war is over a link to something critical of somebody outside Wikipedia; I suppose if we did this sort of link removal more often, then that would blunt the argument that it's hypocritical when it's done specifically to links that criticize us, if we do it for others too. But I remain anti-censorship in temperament and dislike overblown link removal no matter who it's trying to protect. Where the links are in mainspace, editorial judgment applies, so the link might not be appropriate if it's not a reliable source, or a proper external link by the rules for non-source links. If it's known to host copyvios, linking specifically to those things would be against policy, though perhaps not all links to anything in the site, and this would only apply to known copyvios, not just speculation that they're too loose in copyright compliance. But the mere fact that it's critical of somebody isn't sufficient reason to insist it not be linked; a balanced article should have links to notable criticism sites as well as favorable ones. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's known to host copyvios then only the links to the copyvios would be disallowable. Wikipedia has many legitimate links to YouTube (where record companies have uploaded songs, etc.); it's only the copyvio pages that get disallowed per WP:COPYRIGHT. Durova^Charge! 03:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I find the guidelines and policies ambiguous. WP:ELNEVER and WP:COPYLINK go back and forth between referring to pages and to sites. In this case that's a key difference.   Will Beback  talk  03:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find the guidelines and policies absolutely clear in this case. Much of EPO violates WP:COPYRIGHT and if there isn't another RS for the material it can't be used. EPO violates WP:VER "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions". EPO violates WP:BLP "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link. Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article". EPO violates WP:EL "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research".Momento (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For sake of discussion, Momento, The New York Times runs discussion forums that contain unverifiable assertions about living persons. By your reasoning, does that fail WP:EL also? Durova^Charge! 06:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And returning to Will's point, MySpace is rampant with copyright violations, yet Wikipedia has over 45,000 links to it. If the prohibitions of WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:EL disallowed entire sites as opposed to individual pages, then someone would have written a bot by now to do massive amounts of delinking. So the policy wording you observed appears to have been nonstable: either not totally thought through, or else lacking consensus. Durova^Charge! 07:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the size and complexity of many websites, it'd probably be unworkable to ban links on the basis of there being copyright violations somewhere else on the site. However, while most policies should be descriptive rather than prescriptive the copyright policy is based on U.S. law so the actual practices on Wikipedia may not be the sole determinant. The policy could probably be made clearer on this point. I've posted a question on that talk page to see what folks think.   Will Beback  talk  08:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US law doesn't require one to be pro-active in removing anything that might possibly be a copyright violation; the DMCA take-down provision is only activated when a copyright owner actually complains. The individual who puts up a violation might be liable from the time it happens, but the site as a whole escapes liability if the takedown procedure is followed upon complaint. Wikipedia/Wikimedia policy goes beyond the law in many ways due to the core value of seeking a "free" site without copyright problems. As for whether linking to a copyvio is itself a violation, I think (IANAL) that this is still not fully settled; it's one of those areas that courts could decide either way on. Sites whose primary purpose is to aggregate copyvios, like ones that link to pirated music sorted by artist and title, are probably illegal, while sites that might happen to have links to other sites that in turn contain violations are probably not, though there may be a large gray area where there might be trouble if you don't comply with take-down notices when they occur. (for instance, Google links to everything until they get a takedown notice, but complies with such notices.) *Dan T.* (talk) 13:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, I would argue that if the New York Times runs a readers' discussion forum on, say, George Bush, then that forum would fail WP:EL and WP:BLP for the bio of George Bush just as a Usenet newsgroup or topical blog would. What matters according to our policies and guidelines, as I have understood them, is whether there is a reputable publisher exercising control over the material or not. To give an example, this is from the website of El País, a very reputable Spanish newspaper. However, despite the address, it is in fact the personal blog of the head of the Church of Scientology in Spain, hosted in a section of the El País site that offers the Spanish-speaking Internet community a service that is much like blogger.com. El País exercises no control over this content. Hence it shouldn't be used as an EL (except in our article on the Spanish Church of Scientology and/or the Scientologist writing the blog, if they are notable enough to have a WP article devoted to them). Of course, the presence of such blogs does not make the El País website as a whole an unreliable source, but I say we wouldn't link to elpais.com to point people to the content of any private topical blog hosted there the way we would link to articles that appeared in the paper.

Many prominent people have opponents who run websites devoted to criticising or disparaging them. Often, these sites are in poor taste, filled with conspiracy theories and trenchant criticism.

For the purposes of comparison and to enable discussion of editorial standards, here are a couple of sites on George Bush:

• http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm
• http://www.thedubyareport.com/

Here a page on the pope:

• http://atheism.about.com/od/benedictxvi/Pope_Benedict_XVI_Joseph_Ratzinger_Life_Biography_Ideas_Doctrines.htm

Here a site on the cult expert Rick Ross:

• http://www.rrexposed.u2k.biz/index.htm

I haven't analysed these sites' origins in depth, but from a cursory look at them I would argue that they are comparable to EPO in that they are more or less self-published, private efforts making controversial statements about living persons, without the sort of control and oversight that a reputable publisher or newspaper would exercise. In my perception there is wide consensus among regular Wikipedia editors that such sites are not good enough to be included as external links in the biographies of the people they focus on, even though new editors and IPs often like adding such links. I think that is all Momento is saying. Jayen466 13:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jayen. By amazing coincidence, I am the editor of one of the sites you list (http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm) and -- while I am admittedly biased -- I strongly challenge your description. The Skeleton Closet is a very long running website (14 years now) that works very hard to exercise the sort of control and oversight that a newspaper or other traditional mainstream news organization does. The only significant differences are that 1) we are a secondary source; except in rare circumstances, all information comes from mainstream press and books; 2) we identify every source at the bottom of each page; 3) we write more colorfully than newspapers; 4) we are more of an archive than time or news-cycle based; and and 5) we are more responsive to corrections and additional sources. Like newspapers and magazines, we do NOT allow reader contributions without editorial oversight. Notwithstanding my personal bias, we have a strong, established reputation and are widely linked, including on Wikipedia. I welcome discussion here and suggestions for improvement, but I know for certain that we strive to be an opinionated fair witness -- exactly the sort of secondary source that Wikipedia finds reliable. Msalt (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I immediately take back whatever illiterate nonsense I have promulgated here about your site. :-) However, I would still say that for WP purposes, the correct way of citing material found on your site is to verify and then cite the RS that your site cites. This is in line with the BLP requirement to source and phrase content conservatively. I would not support using http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm as an EL at George W. Bush. (And I was no great fan of Bush.) Jayen466 19:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A point I haven't mentioned, and should, is that the page is explicity non-partisan; it collects critical information on every major candidate for U.S. president. I would make this distinction; I think a page like The Skeleton Closet is fine for an EL, but I agree that as a source, it would be better to drill through to the underlying sources, which are after all presented for easy access (with hyperlinks whenever possible.) Not unlike Wikipedia itself; not so much a source as a starting point and overview. It goes to the difference between EL and sources; an EL should in my opinion be a place to continue research on a subject, or to find information that is useful but beyond the scope of Wikipedia, because it is too detailed, perhaps beyond general notability but interesting to serious fans, contains OR or opinions (such as music and literary reviews), etc. Msalt (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Wikipedia's policy on contributory copyright infringement is actually based on a bit of case law that might conceivably apply to Wikipedia sometime in the future. By delinking to individual copyvio pages, we're actually being quite cautious already. If I read Mike Godwin's mailing list posts correctly, this is somewhat more cautious than he thinks is necessary. Regarding NY Times forums, the reason I mentioned that example is because we obviously aren't going to exclude links to the entire NY Times site because of what goes on at its forums. If we did, then virtually any interactive site could be strategically excluded from Wikipedia by a group of people who were sufficiently dedicated: just post some BLP violations at the interactive portion, then point to those BLP violations and argue the site itself is no good. An example I pointed out to Jayen at user talk today is lyrics hosting sites: even though nearly everything at those places is copyvio, occasionally they also host public domain lyrics for patriotic songs, old folk songs, etc. Even if the legitimate rehostings constitute only 1% of the content, we do link to those sites if the page being linked to isn't copyvio. The same reasoning looks applicable here. Durova^Charge! 18:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright issue is ultimately important, but the more immediate issue for tihs case is whether linking to the site, or even just mentioning it without linking to it, violates WP:BLP. That has been the contention by some editors and it has been the basis for several edit wars over the history of the article.   Will Beback  talk  18:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; avoiding BLP violations is priority. So linking to specific BLP violations and copyvio material is off limits, but the remainder of the site would be ok. That might not be much remaining, but it's most consistent application of policies and practices. Durova^Charge! 19:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright issue only comes in if we wanted to link to a specific article on a site that is hosted without license (we can't, per WP:ELNEVER and WP:LINKVIO policy). I agree that the presence of some copyright-infringing content elsewhere on a site, on some subpage, is not a reason to prevent editors from linking to other pages on the same site that are clean. The presence of lots of infringing content on YouTube, e.g, is no reason not to link to bona fide content on YouTube that has been placed there by the legitimate copyright owners. Jayen466 19:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is deciding how an external website or webpage violates Wikipedia's BLP policy. BLP requires that all contentious assertions have reliable sources. Does that mean that any webpages we link to must cite reliable sources if they discuss living people? BLP requires that all other Wikipedia's core policies are followed, including NPOV and NOR. Does that mean that we can't link to pages that aren't neutral or that engage in original research? Is it OK to link to a site that says G. W. Bush was a poor president but not OK to link to one that says he was a horrible president? Where do we draw the line? I don't think that the current policy language is helpful in deciding which links "violate BLP". Another issue is that non-hyperlinked references to the website have also been deleted - so some editors are contending that even mentioning the existence of the site is a BLP violation, even though there are reliable 3rd-party sources that refer to it. That seems like an extreme interpretation.   Will Beback  talk  20:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second point you raise is easier to address (although you haven't shown any specific example of it). A site called Encyclopedia Dramatica runs a really nasty BLP violation of me--and just enough of a veneer of citation to make some of it look plausible. But--erm--I just mentioned them, didn't I? Mentioning its existence isn't a policy issue; reproducing its BLP violations in talk space would be. Regarding your first example, there are plenty of reliable vetted sources to support the contention that Dubya was not a good president. Why link to a blog when you could cite the Harper's Magazine argument for why he should have been impeached? Durova^Charge! 20:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A blog is an irregularly updated collection of personal opinion essays. The nature of blogs makes them poor external links, completely aside from their individual reliability. (I would not consider Talking Points Memo or The Huffington Post a blog in this sense; they are closer to online magazines, with paid staff and editors. But Daily Kos is a blog.) I can't speak for TheDubyaReport, but the Skeleton Closet is an archive of information from mainstream media sources, all of which are reliable under Wikipedia policy. (The one exception I can think of might be the National Enquirer report on John Edwards; I wrestled long and hard with that and attached an explanatory note, but went with my gut that it was true. And so it was.) The reason to have an external link like that is to avoid 75-150 separate external links to each of the individual "Harper's" type sources. Similarly, we often have external links to IMDB.com, AllMovieGuide, etc. Msalt (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't link to blogs because they are unreliable self-published sources, not because they have negative or derogatory viewpoints. Even if Harper's makes derogatory comments about Bush, it's still an acceptable EL, right? If so the fact that a webpage expresses an opinion does not, in and of itself, mean that a link to it violates BLP. If I understand the point of external links, they provide readers with more information that we can't or don't include in the article itself. I'm still not sure where we draw the line to say that an otherwise acceptable site creates a BLP violation just by linking to it.   Will Beback  talk  20:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember pointing out that there are scholarly papers by Geaves that mention the site, but the ex-premie editors vetoed any sourced mention of their site, even if neutrally couched, if it was cited to Geaves. The chapter on Rawat in Gallagher also mentions and assesses the site. As for using a site with "colourful language" and or "colourful allegations" as an EL, I still think that is what WP:BLP asks us to forego, no matter how tempting it may be. For example, one can certainly look at Ross's work in several ways, even though my own interaction with him on Wikipedia has been consistently unpleasant. But I would still argue against including the abovementioned site as an external link in his BLP. It just contravenes the spirit of BLP, regardless of the fact that much (perhaps all) of what it says may be documented, sourced, or independently verifiable. The same for the George Bush site. These are nothing but all-out ad hominem attacks, and that is not our business as an encyclopedia. It is the same with EPO. Unless there is a major rewrite of WP:BLP, or someone explains to me why my understanding of it is all wrong, I will not support the use of any of these sites as ELs. This is not about POV, but about the quality of sources with extreme POVs: if a supercritical Time Magazine article on Bush's presidency and his value as a human being appears next month, I will have no problem linking to that. Jayen466 21:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How are you concluding that the POV of different websites is "extreme"? (Ross, for example.) How is a colorfully written, supercritical article in Time Magazine different? Would you permit an EL to a scrupulously fair - even milquetoast -- and highly reliably sourced website that compiled criticisms of every major religious leader in one convenient place? Msalt (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say from the presentation's one-sidedness and the way it plays down or avoids mention of any actual accomplishments, be they those of Bush or those of Ross; there is no attempt to offer a rounded picture, but simply an attempt to "dish the dirt".

But this argument stands without assessing the extremeness of any view expressed, which I accept boils down to a subjective assessment. WP:BLP as a whole, and Wikipedia:BLP#External_links specifically, tells us we should simply go for the best and most highly regarded published sources and avoid the rest. That's my understanding of it, anyway. Jayen466 22:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ELs aren't sources, nor do I think it's quite right to say that the policy asks for "the best and most highly regarded" in links; "of high quality and judged by a higher standard than for other articles" is a considerably different, and lower, standard. We also need to keep in mind the policy of avoiding undue weight in links. Yes, we need to link to the subject's website, but a high-quality survey of the opposing viewpoint -- where possible -- seems to be exactly what we SHOULD be linking to. I don't see any requirement that the site we link to present a "rounded picture"; websites can and should have a focus, and where that focus is precisely to fairly represent or survey the criticism of a subject, using high quality, reliable sources, I think that is a very useful link for an article's external links section. Msalt (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ELs are not restricted to "published" sources. What is the best, most highly regard independent site about Prem Rawat? The "official" sites are, if anything, less neutral and less well sourced than the EPO site, and if EPO violates the "spirit of BLP" then the officials sites probably would too.   Will Beback  talk  22:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are supposed to list subjects' official sites in the EL section. Jayen466 23:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here isn't whether we think it's a good idea to include or exclude links or mentions of this site, but more specifically abot whether linking to the site actually violates BLP. The "spirit of BLP" isn't defined anywhere that I know of, and I don't thinkk that it's a helpful term. The actual policy says this: "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a stricter standard than for other articles." Well, it doesn't say what that stricter standard is. Furthermore, it says that it only applies to actual biographies, not to other articles or talk pages, where links to the site have also been removed.

For example, Momento deleted a sourced reference to the website, saying "violates BLP and EL", even though it wasn't a link and WP:EL didn't apply. There have been several similar additions and deletions. As for the discussions of it, they occurred here, here, and here, and perhaps other threads too. I don't see any basis in those discussion for deleting any mention of the existence of the website based on BLP.   Will Beback  talk  22:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first para of Wikipedia:BLP#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy, e.g., would seem to lend support to the argument that BLP caveats do not just apply to BLP articles, but also to other articles mentioning living people. Jayen466 22:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then that's another inconsistency in the policy. As I said before, I think the guidance offered by WP:BLP and WP:EL on this matter is almost useless. FWIW, I don't see anyone defending the idea that just mentioning the existence of this site is a BLP violation, as Momento has asserted repeatedly.   Will Beback  talk  22:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sarah_Palin_protection_wheel_war#Application_of_BLP_policy, which addresses this issue. Jayen466 15:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the "stricter standard", even the normal standard (WP:SELFQUEST) is that we don't use self-published sources for statements about third parties, and WP:SELFQUEST is explicit in stating that

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.

Jayen466 22:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one is asserting the website as a source. What's the relevance?   Will Beback  talk  22:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were asking about the appropriateness of linking to the site, and what it means that BLP links should be judged by a higher standard than that usually applied. If something clearly falls short of the standard that would make it an acceptable source for use in a BLP, then I would argue it falls short of the standard required of an EL commenting on a living person. That's how I understand "Do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy". Jayen466 23:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with mentioning the site. As I said before, several papers by Geaves mention the group and its site in a more than tangential way. If it's fine for Geaves to mention it, it's fine for us. (Note for those unfamiliar with the topic: Geaves is a reputable religious scholar who is also a long-time follower of Rawat.) Jayen466 23:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) It appears to me that linking to verifiable, non-copyright violating documents on the EPO site is ok, subject to the standards of BLP, which means that there should be no ambiguity as to whether those documents are verifiable or not. Of course, mentioning the EPO site is ok, if it has been named in 3rd party reliable sources. If any of the Rawat editors have been removing mere mentions of the site, I would think that would be a bannable offense under our vandalism policies, at least. Cla68 (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons". To the best of my knowledge, whatever is on that site is either a copyright violation, a self-published document, or a forum (peppered with four-letter epithets), so there is nothing left. Even if there were court documents, they'd be excluded per WP:WELLKNOWN. And to be fair, the non-trivial sources that mention the site only came to light last summer, IIRC. And please don't be in such a hurry to ban people. We have only just started this arbitration. If you look at the discussions that Will linked to above, you'll see that there was talk page support (from multiple editors) for the notion that the mention of the domain name was in practice the same as linking to it. I don't agree that that should necessarily stop us mentioning it, but there was an honest debate about this. Jayen466 00:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand what would not be "self-published" in this context, and I don't see any definition in the policy. What's the opposite of self-published, especially on the web? Published by a group? As near as I can tell, most of the anti-Rawat websites are published by organizations of ex-devotees, so what makes them self-published? Would I.F. Stone's Weekly be considered self-published? The efficiencies of desktop publishing have made that distinction much less distinct. Msalt (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen, we also took the matter to the WP:EL talk page and the response there was unequivocal - a domain name is not a link. One of the reasons we're here is that even when we get outside opinions they are ignored by editors. Having an "honest debate" is great, but if editors are going to do what they want anyway then those debates are just a waste of time. I can't tell you how much neutral, relevant, sourced material has been removed from articles on this topic, sometimes on the flimsiest excuses. As for examples of this material being deleted: here. In light of this discussion, I'd like to see anyone explain how that material violates BLP and requires removal.   Will Beback  talk  01:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of the direct link to the website in the second citation in that diff might, arguably, be defensible, but the removal of the mention of the website's name, referenced in a reliable source, does not appear to be a reasonable edit. Cla68 (talk) 02:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two more: [16][17]. Thought it's a lesser issue, those links also show Momento's annoying habit of deleting information while retaining the citations, making it appear that they are citations for the preceding sentence.   Will Beback  talk  02:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty is mentioning the site in such a way that it is encyclopedically relevant and reads as more than an advertisement. "By the way, there is a website made by ex-premies. We can't give you a link to it, because our policy tells us that such unreliable material has no place in Wikipedia biographies, but the address is this.org" does kind of "violate the spirit of BLP", doesn't it. Jayen466 13:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the webmaster of the site in question I suppose I should comment. The problem with Rawat is that in spite of all the efforts of his supporters, he is simply no longer notable. There isn't a single article or book from a reliable source from the last 20 years that covers his life in more than a superficial way. Apart from the ex-follower and journalist, John Macgregor, no journalist or researcher has interviewed any of the prominent former followers. If Rawat hadn't been notable in the 70s, there would be no article on him. So, the only information available on him now is the testimonies of former followers and the puff pieces from current followers. For genuinely notable people Wikipedia BLP policies work fine because there is no shortage of articles from reputable independent journalists and researchers. If the former right hand man of a top politician speaks out, his words will be published in serious newspapers, but when a former right hand man of Rawat speaks out, no one is interested. So for no longer notable people like Rawat, the Wikipedia policies are hopelessly skewed towards his supporters, with his critics, no matter how objective, not getting a voice. BTW, to correct one comment above, none of the ex-followers' websites are run by organisations, although a couple are collaborative efforts of small groups of individuals. --John Brauns (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to correct John Brauns. There is a wealth of recent material on Rawat. The recent Andrea Cagan biography of Rawat "Peace is Possible" is an excellent source, and has been used, for the Rawat article.[18] Recent interviews include ones by Burt Wolf, the host of the PBS series "Travels and Traditions", [19] and award winning Spanish broadcaster Marta Robles [20]. And the most recent, authoritative, five volume "Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America" contains a 15 page article on Rawat. [21] As WillBeBack said about EPO in January, 2009, "I strongly support the long-standing consensus of retaining just one link. If editors want to add more links they need to get a new consensus. As I have in the past, I will remove any links that don't have a consensus".[22] Exactly Will, and I will continue to do the same.Momento (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you don't think you have done anything wrong. Would someone please add this to their evidence section? Cla68 (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Momento, that's not a correction, but a confirmation. The Cagan book has already been rejected here as a reliable source for all but non-controversial content, and no one has even tried to my knowledge to propose the Burt interview as a source. There is no doubt that the sources you mention fall into the category of puff pieces, produced or paid for by followers, as do ALL the links in the TPRF Press Room. I'm not trying to get an ex-followers' site linked here, just pointing out a failing of Wikipedia policies when dealing with formerly notable living people. --John Brauns (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a separate issue from the EPO matter, but one of the problems with Momento in particular is that he ignores discussions, outside input, or consensus. His assertion that Cagan "is an excellent source" has been proven incorrect in great detail. The book is full of serious errors and omissions and does not qualify as a reliable source. The writer has been poorly reviewed and specifically criticised for her lack of research. Her actual specialty seems to be ghostwriting books on old celebrities. The book is published by a one-book publishing house owned by senior followers. So there is no basis for calling it a reliable source, much less an excellent one. See the very long thread at User_talk:Steve_Crossin/Mediation/Prem_Rawat#Issue/Discussion topic D: Cagan. Getting back to the EPO matter, Momento deleted any mention of the site on at least three occasions, as I've already shown. And Momento has added other links, so his claim of enforcing the "one-link" consensus seems divorced from reality. I will include these issues in my evidence.   Will Beback  talk  01:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WillBeBack, would you mind posting the diffs where I've added "other links" to the Rawat article since the "consensus".Momento (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake: it was other editors. If there are occasions when you've removed sympathetic links that'd be helpful to show. But the key issue is that you repeatedly deleted even unlinked mentions of the website. There's no BLP or other basis for having done so.   Will Beback  talk  17:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)EPO as source: As far as I can recall the only time I’ve argued strongly for EPO to be used as a source is in this respect http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/lane.htm and perhaps http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/shabd.htm#dlm which both linked to the respective author’s web pages, though the second now appears to be a dead link and the original paper can anyway simply be cited. The Lane page is apparently produced with the author’s permission. As far as the discussion here is concerned I was primarily concerned with the consistent future application of policy regarding a) the EL position on the DLM, Hans Rawat, PR Teachings and Elan Vital articles, and b) the acknowledgement of contemporary criticism of Prem Rawat.

Critical websites/bad taste: The point has been made, that there maybe thousands of critical websites about George Bush saying all sorts of unpleasant and untrue things but that ‘balance’ doesn’t require linking to those sites. However it has to be recognised that Bush operates in a political environment in which he, his party and their policies come under consistent critique from political opponents as well as observers in the media, a balanced BLP of Bush merely requires reference to that critique. Prem Rawat is a different kind of subject – an individual who is in Wikipedia terms primarily 'notable' for events of over thirty years ago. It is true that historic criticism has been included in the articles, attributed to a former follower and to some academic observers, the Wikipedia treatment of Rawat however covers Rawat’s entire life, the application of WP:EL and WP:BLP has to date been made in such a way that all note of contemporary criticism is censored because the primary representation of that criticism is in the form a website. Of course it would be far the best 'solution' if EPO were referenced in a reliable source that was usable in the existing structured article(s). Realistically Rawat is never going to have the level of either media or academic interest that was generated in the 1970s, consequently those providing a contemporary critique of Rawat in the 2000s could no more expect to be referenced - by if Rawat is 'notable' in the 2000s, then so is the fact that he has critics. The 'primary source' of a 'browser search' should be enough to give a simple acknowledgement of the existence of EPO.

Geaves as a source for acknowledging the existence of EPO, was if I recall, problematic because the text itself was not neutral – hardly surprising given Geaves’ own perspective. The lack of consensus was more to do with the partial way the use of Geaves’ text would have introduced EPO into the article, rather than the source being a problem, although there was also I recall some agreement on the limits to which Geaves would be cited in the Rawat articles given his lack of dispassionate perspective.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation v. arbitration

Reminding fellow editors that this is the talk page of an arbitration case. ArbCom is unlikely to rule upon content issues but may rule upon well-documented policy issues. So recommending to the editors in the discussion above to separate actionable conduct issues from content matters and draft the conduct side into referenced evidence. Although it is possible that arbitrators may read the thread here, this page is informal. Durova^Charge! 01:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the above ‘example’ on the talk page because it is not specifically evidence, although I do hope that the Arbitrators will take note of the very helpful discussion that has progressed on this page and that they feel able to grasp some of the policy issues that appear to exist. I would like to make it clear that it is not my intention to bring into question the judgement of the administrator, which I accepted without question; the point is I think that in the context of the Rawat articles and the associated areas of uncertain policy no admin action was going to be able to resolve the issues.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been my experience that arbitrators don't necessarily read talk pages, since they aren't a formal part of the case. Of course this year we have a large number of new arbitrators. In general on the wiki, the longer any thread grows the fewer readers it gets. There's a place for talk page discussion at arbitration, but when it becomes too free-ranging its usefulness is diluted. No reprimand is intended in this post; just a friendly reminder to compile fact-based points about policies and actionable behavior and present them with diffs on the evidence page. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 23:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thread was helpful in investigating views of whether it is permissible to link or mention the EPO site, based on WP:BLP, WP:COPYVIO, and WP:EL. The matter is complex and may require some decision or guidance from the ArbCom. While it could be considered a content issue, it has been used as a basis for edit warring and a topic ban.   Will Beback  talk  00:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this same issue led to Momento being blocked for 3RR in May. At that time he was told by admin B that the BLP policy did not give an exemption to 3RR for materials like external links. User_talk:Momento#Blocked  Will Beback  talk  23:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See relevant discussion going on here. ←Spidern→ 15:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with Nik Wright about making a distinction between an edit warrior who has contributed a chunk of text, and another warrior who hasn't - they should be treated equally. For example, bans of equal duration could be applied. PhilKnight (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nik was banned for adding text while another editor was not banned for removing the text. I take it you think there should have been equal remedies applied.   Will Beback  talk  09:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, you have misconstrued what I wrote which was “difficult behaviour from an editor who writes intelligent copy is hardly the same thing as the obstructive behaviour of an editor who merely uses the talk page as an arena to hold back intelligent consensus without providing any compentent text” I very specifically was not comparing like with like behaviour. In my experience of the three editors referred to one has contributed intelligently and co-operatively while the other two have barely contributed any material but have edit warred and obstructed.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tricky question. On the one hand, it makes sense that bad behavior should be treated equally, generally speaking. Otherwise there is a great risk of favoritism, because these are such subjective judgements. However, we naturally do (and should) evaluate an editor's intent and good faith on how much value they contribute. If an editor mixes useful contributions to the page with disruptive behavior, I think it makes sense to give them more of a chance to reform (say, a probation) than an editor who is purely disruptive (for whom a topic ban may be more appropriate). Since sanctions are preventative rather than punitive, positive behavior seems like a good gauge of how well lighter sanctions might work. Msalt (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, Wikipedia has been more patient with editors who bring positive elements to the site mixed in with problem behavior, than to editors who exhibit only problem behavior with no useful output. The hope is to steer the productive editor toward better directions and resolve the problems. That doesn't amount to a license to break policy; if the productive editor refuses to curb the problems then at some point blocks and bans will ensue. Exactly where that point should be is often a subject of disagreement among experienced Wikipedians. Durova^Charge! 05:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a general comment that the purpose of an evidence page is to provide facts and statements to the arbitrators to assist them in understanding the dispute. I see several statements in the evidence sections directed at other parties in the case. Generally statements of the type that requires or are a response to other parties are best suited for the Talk page or the workshop page as the Evidence page is for presenting information, not discussing the information. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 05:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my evidence, I described Momento's recent response to Durova as one of several disrespectful replies to admins after they make blocks, or warnings, or refused to unblock Momento. Durova replied, basically, that Momento's reply may have been appropriate if his perception of harassment was correct or even just sincere. (I did not realize that Durova is no longer an admin; it looks like Momento did not either.) I am moving my response to Durova here from the evidence page per Mbisanz's comment, and adding a paragraph.

To Durova: <comment moved below>

Thank you, Msalt. Basically it's just a technical point. If you'd like, we could move both that entry in your list and my full response to the talk page as subthreads of this thread. It might help to keep the evidence page simpler, since this isn't a major point either way. Durova^Charge! 01:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know all the protocols, but that's fine by me. Feel free to put it together in the way that makes the most sense. Msalt (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just move your part here (the brief mention of me), to match my move. Durova^Charge! 03:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done (I think). Msalt (talk) 08:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Durova

Regarding Msalt's evidence

Msalt lists this edit by Momento, which was directed at me, in a list of responses to blocks and warnings by uninvolved administrators. Actually that conversation occurred long after I resigned administratorship. Momento's edit summary isn't necessarily disrespectful in context. I had suggested a request for arbitration and was checking to see whether other dispute resolution could be viable. This was the post immediately preceding Momento's comment:

The real question is whether there's enough basic agreement for regular dispute resolution to work. If the present mediation has a fair chance of resolving the dispute then okay, let's give it the chance to work. But if people walk up to the table believing on one side they're being harassed personally, and on the other side that they're dealing with someone who won't budge (whether or not either characterization is really correct, that seems to be what each side is saying about the other)--well then the better option is an independent panel of experienced Wikipedians to sort things out. Durova^Charge! 03:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[23][reply]

Momento's full reply was:

You got that right. I know I'm "being harassed personally" and I "won't budge" until you do something about it.Momento (talk) 05:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[24][reply]

If a person believes he or she is being harassed, one part of a sensible response it to insist upon intervention to stop the harassment. There is an important distinction between Will's actions (right or wrong) and Momento's perception. If Momento's perception was correct, then his his post is very reasonable; if his perception was mistaken, then his post could still be sincere and frustrated.

The other half of a sensible response to harassment is to document the harassment, which up until that point I had not seen Momento do. He may have done so elsewhere; I didn't turn over every stone. Either Momento needed relief from harassment or else Will needed relief from inappropriate complaints. So Momento's post looked like emphatic agreement with a neutral query. At an earlier point I had offered to certify a conduct RFC on Momento, but no one actually initiated one.

I have no comment on the remainder of Msalt's statement. Durova^Charge! 23:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken; the accuracy of Momento's perception makes a difference, and I address that. [25] And this was mild by Momento's standards. But I think his response was disrespectful regardless of its sincerity or correctness, in the tone of the demand ("'won't budge' until you do something about it") and in the edit summary ("do your job"). Editors who sincerely feel aggrieved can be MORE disruptive, feeling justified in questionable methods because they are "right". I think that's the precise problem here, on both sides.

The problem with this page in a nutshell is that certain editors edit war and insult each other instead of pursuing dispute resolution and being civil. Momento is consistently disrespectful to every authority figure on Wikipedia who does not do what he wants, not to mention other editors. It's a form of incivility, and it's consistent with his edit warring. I have no doubt he sincerely thinks he's right, every single time. That's the problem. Msalt (talk) 06:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you move this part too, please? to Durova (edit summary: "do your job") [143] Durova^Charge! 18:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand. We moved responses to evidence that were mostly discussions of that evidence to Talk, at MBisanz's suggestion. But what you refer to there is my original point of evidence itself [26], not a discussion of it. Are you asking me to strike my evidence? As I explained here, I still believe it constitutes a piece of evidence of Momento's difficulty editing civilly and according to the rules. Of course the ArbCom may disagree, as with any evidence, based on this discussion or whatever reason they like, but I don't see as how I should remove it as a piece of evidence. Am I missing something? Msalt (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't actually regard it as incivility. If Momento wants to refer to this discussion in his evidence, though, he's welcome to. It's a minor point at any rate. Durova^Charge! 00:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen's recent addition[27] to the evidence page in the PR2 case apparently asserts that the initial draft of the Prop7 proposal violated WP:SYN. But that section of the No Original Research policy says:

• Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources.

However I don't think that the draft made any conclusions that weren't in the sources already (or even necessarily made any conclusions at all). The NOR policy does not address the complaint that the draft:

• combines statements from various sources for dramatic effect

Perhaps Jayen was thinking of a different policy? What that first draft did was no different than if we found a source that said a subject appeared in movie 'X', another that says he appeared in movie 'Y', and then write that he appeared in two movies, 'X' and 'Y'. That's not dramatic effect, it's a simple compilation. It isn't inappropriate synthesis. Am I misunderstanidng Jayen's post?   Will Beback  talk  01:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found the statement "and to me came off like an attack piece" incomprehensible, and surely even if it was in some way INCIVIL that would have been picked up in the mediation process ? --Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking in to see how the evidence presentation is coming. The case has been open about two weeks now, so everyone should be wrapping up their evidence sections and thinking about potential proposals at the /Workshop. If you still have evidence to present, let me know, as I expect the arbs will be reading the evidence pages to start drafting their proposals and it would help to know if they should hold off for further developments. MBisanz ^talk 06:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since WillBeBack has only just added his evidence, I'll need a day or two address it. Thanks.Momento (talk) 08:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could I have a ruling on how many words and diffs are allowed. Thanks.Momento (talk) 00:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The limit on word length is based on common sense. Arbs won't read 5,000 word essays. Parties shouldn't have to dissect 1,000 diffs cited against them. Some parties find it useful to create a detailed page with all of the evidence in their userspace, and only present the most important evidence here. I won't be counting words (and certainly will give warning before I trim anything), so try that be reasonable in your presentation. MBisanz ^talk 01:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could I have help in using CheckUser to determine if there is any evidence I was editing as VictorO and to clarify Msalt's suggestion that I might be Janice Rowe. "Momento openly bragged about how “hilarious” it was that he's "editing while blocked” (his section heading) [353] soon after 12 article edits by “Janice Rowe” in 45 minutes. Janice Rowe hadn’t edited in over 2 years, and hasn’t again since March 2008. [354] [355]"Momento (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser cannot prove innocence per WP:Checkuser, so I'm not certain how that could help you. You might try contacting Tiptoety (talk · contribs) and Mayalld (talk · contribs) who clerk the checkuser process for more assistance. MBisanz ^talk 01:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote to Tiptoety, who suggested I talk to you. So here it is again. I was blocked as a sock of VictorO.[28] A closer look will show that on one occassion we were editing different bits at exactly the same time - Here's VictorO editing Prem Rawat at 21:57, 20 January 2007 [29] and me editing Talk:Prem Rawat at the same time.[30]. And VictorO was blocked from 22:21, 20 January 2007 by Sandstein until 10:22, 21 January 2007. During that period I made nearly 20 edits. I would like to see checkuser evidence for this case. The second case involves a suggestion that I might be a sock puppet of Janice Rowe.[31] I would like checkuser evidence to help clarify these matters for RfA. Thanks.Momento (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that anyone can help you here. The data needed for checkuser is automatically discarded after a period of time, so activity from a year ago wouldn't be available. FWIW, I don't believe that Momento was controllig either of those accounts. I have submitted evidence directly to the ArbCom concerning Janice Rowe, who I believe was a sock puppet of a different user. In general, one of the problems with single purpose accounts is that it can be hard to tell them apart. When several editors agree with other and pursue the same POV it's likely that they'll have the appearance of sock or meatpuppets.   Will Beback  talk  17:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I did not claim that Momento was using a sockpuppet, but rather that he was bragging about "editing while blocked" (his term). I have no way of knowing whether he accomplished this by sockpuppetry, by an ally's sockpuppetry, by finding a friend or another devotee of Prem Rawat to edit on his behalf, or indeed if he was falsely claiming to have edited through the other user while blocked. It doesn't really matter which one is true. The result is the same, and Momento's contempt for Wikipedia's rules and DR process is the same. Bottom line: he has POV goals that he has made clear he will accomplish without regard to the norms and policies of this encyclopedia. Msalt (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Momento has written:

• Francis Schonken, Will Beback, Msalt and Nik Wright2 have frequently denied having an anti-Rawat bias but they have frequently rejected consensus, edit warred and made fraudulent complaints to advance their anti-Rawat POV, including doing whatever they can to try and drive me away from Wikipedia. The most obvious manifestation of this is that WB, Ms and NikW have not presented any evidence against FS.

So the most obvious manifestation of my purported "anti-Rawat bias" is the fact that I haven't added any evidence against Francis Schonken in this case? That seems like a spurious complaint. Especially so since Momento and Rumiton haven't added any evidence about Francis either. If Momento thinks that there is evidence regarding Francis that's important in this case then it'd be better if he added it rather than alleging that I'm at fault for not adding it.   Will Beback  talk  01:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting clarification that I can ignore the requirement to keeps words to 1000.Momento (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You used over 2400 words in your evidence last year.[32] I only used 987 words but I didn't complain about your excess evidence. Is that really the most important thing to address here? Perhaps it's an illustration of the problem. Getting back to this issue: if you have evidence about Francis then add it. Accusing me of bias for not doing so isn't logical.   Will Beback  talk  01:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also had to edit carefully to stay under 1,000 words, and so didn't have room for evidence on Rumiton or Frances. (I didn't have room for all my evidence on Momento, either). But I have been clear and consistent in saying that I think Rumiton and Frances have both engaged in edit warring, and have recommended temporary topic bans for them both, even though Frances has made many valuable contributions to the page and Rumiton has been more reasonable in talk page discourse lately. I think the accusations that I've rejected consensus, edit warred and made fraudulent complaints are completely untrue and unfounded and of course violate AGF, but they are sadly typical of Momento. Msalt (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, one way to keep your evidence section here under 1,000 words is to create an evidence page in your userspace and then link to it from here. If you do so, I would suggest summarizing the main points of your evidence here with the supporting details on your userspace page. Cla68 (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen recently added this text to his evidence section:

• Will has added another link re the LA Times to his evidence: [33]. I believe Momento is correct in that an LA Times article of the "16-Year-Old Guru Maharaj Ji Weds His Blonde Secretary, 24" type is not necessarily the best and most authoritative source available.

  To give an example, the LA Times article states, among other things, that "Other devotees said [Rawat's wife] played the role of a stewardess in a film made for the mission entitled "Who is Maharaji?"

  In fact, editors are agreed from our analysis of the available sources that Rawat's wife did work as a real-life stewardess when she first met Rawat. After meeting Rawat and starting a relationship with him, she quit her job as a stewardess, and became his secretary a few weeks before their wedding.

I don't understand the point Jayen is making. Momento had been claiming that Rawat's wife had not been a secretary: (All quotatoins taken from this thread:Proposal7#Draft 11.)

• Are we going to continue the error that Rawat's wife was a secretary?
• A good example of how bad most news reports are.

Jayen also wanted to remove the well-sourced fact that she was a secretary, and makes the incorect assertion that the fact is disputed by other sources.

• I removed the reference to her being Rawat's secretary, since it seems to be a disputed fact...I have no objection to adding that she was a stewardess; if we want to refer to her being her secretary, we should do so with attribution and mention that Cagan contradicts that. On balance, I'd rather leave the reference to her being a secretary out.
• What Cagan does describe though, in some detail, about how they met etc., is incompatible with the presentation that he "married his secretary" in the sense that is commonly understood, i.e. that she was his secretary for x amount of time, and then he developed an interest in her. I'd rather not evoke that cliché, since it does not seem to fit the facts.

I pointed out that it is not only sourced to newspapers, but to two scholars as well. But Jayen again sserts that it shoulnd't be mentioned, apparently simply because Cagan doesn't mention it.

• I still think it is the more elegant solution simply not to mention it at all. The fact that something is verifiable does not mean we have to include it.

Momento again claims that his personal experience, and Cagan, outweigh citations to scholars and mainstream newspapers:

• This is why they say a little knowledge is dangerous. Every premie who was around at the time knows she was an airline stewardess not a secretary and met as described by eye witnesses in Cagan. The secretary story is completely false. WillBeBack suggestion to say " variously described as a stewardess or as Rawat's secretary" is completely inappropriate.
• I'm not offering my "personal experience as a source ", I'm saying how it was.

Then Jayen finds a Divine Light Mission source that calls her a secretary, but again wants to keep it out because it isn't mentioned in Cagan:

• Even so, I would not like to present the cliché of "he married his secretary", simply because it reads different in Cagan.

Momento finds another source that calls her a secretary:

• And this settles it "Dale Johnson, said his daughter met the guru when she was a stewardess for United Air Lines. She quit the airline in February and became the guru's secretary." So she was an airline stewardess when they met and resigned 3 months before they were married.

Yet he never admits that he had been wrong and still insists that it must not be included (depsite being in many scholarly and journalistic sources), and says that a self-serving incident found only in Cagan should be put in instead:

• I agree the marriage is important but secretary/stewardess, early romance is not. I'm also in favor of more teaching and I believe Rawat introducing his wife to the 8000 premies in Copenhagen is a useful, fact filled sentence.

So what we have here is Momento making a false charge that the wife was never a secretary, using his own personal knowledge and Cagan to support his claim, and points to it as an examnple of how unreliable newspapers are. Even after we'd found scholars who said the same thing, Jayen and Momento continue to argue that the information is false, or is contradicted by Cagan, and so should be left out. This exchange typifies the problems with this topic, in which editors denigrate newspapers as sources, ignore scholars (despite claims that they are the most reliable source), and promote the use of personal knowledge or a questionable source in the place of the more reliable sources that we have available.   Will Beback  talk  23:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you saw the sentence "And of course Will was correct in asserting that Rawat's wife had worked as his secretary by the time they got married" in my evidence. The point was conceded long ago; you were right. But I found the whole process at the time was productive, because as a group we had more facts at the end of it than each of us had at the beginning (I certainly had). And we established that the reports which merely said he "married his secretary" omitted a relevant part of the story: that she was a stewardess when they met, and that she remained one during their relationship, until 3 months before their marriage. The account in Cagan is what led us to research further and locate the additional source (the "Mrs Guru" article) which reconciled the contradictory claims.

What you seem to be (Will-fully?) ignoring is the evident taint attached to the "he married his secretary" scenario. To spell it out, it denigrates a relationship, because it implies that the male was horny and simply chased the skirt that he saw flutter by most often in his daily work, because he was too lazy and unimaginative to look further afield. Given that the facts were different, I was not happy to present the marriage in those terms, whereas you and a number of newspapers apparently were. Jayen466 17:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the third time I've seen that "wilfully ignorant" joke in regard to this topic. It's getting a little old. I'm not sure why you added the evidence that my assertion that the L.A. Times is an accurate, reliable source is incorrect. You write about the Times' repoting on the wife-to-be playing a stewardess in a movie as if that was an error, but there's no evidence that she didn't appear in that movie (I've never seen it - have you?). Among other things, we went to WP:RSN and got a community input on the matter and the consensus was that the L.A. Times is a highly reliable source.[34] The L.A. Times reported that Guru Maharaj Ji married his secretary, and there is ample evidence of that, as well as for her previous career as a stewardess. Momento asserted that it was an "error" based on his personal, second-hand knowledge and you seemed to defer to a questionable source rather than what was in reliable sources, including many press reports and two scholars. Men marrying their secretaries may be a cliche, but that isn't a valid reason for omitting information. No one was trying to promote that cliche, and I suggested various language to get away from it.

Again and again you and Momento wrote things like, "if we want to refer to her being her secretary, we should do so with attribution and mention that Cagan contradicts that" and "it reads different in Cagan." My problem here is that Cagan is being used as if it were a more reliable source than the AP, the Los Angeles Times, Current Biography, and religious scholars. In fact, Cagan's book, Peace is Possible, is a partisan biography written by a poorly-reviewed author best known as a ghostwriter for lightweight celebrity bios and published by a one-book publishing house owned by senior members of the movement, a book that has been demonstrated to contain serious errors and omissions. The workshop proposals calling for using only the "most reliable sources" would make more sense if it weren't for the fact that Cagan is used over a dozen times in Prem Rawat alone. You represent this as an argument between sources of equal reliability ("Your sources are unreliable!" – "No, your sources are unreliable!"), but really it's a matter of highly reliable sources being denigrated in favor of a questionable partisan source.   Will Beback  talk  17:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: For what it's worth, it appears that it was Jayen who added "secretary" in the first place.[35] It was not in the drafts I created, and Francis only added it to his draft later. To say I was happy to have it presented in its cliched form while Jayen was not is an oversimplification.   Will Beback  talk  18:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Durova^Charge! 18:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry about the lame joke, Will, but it occurred to me spontaneously (rather than being regurgitated). As for the secretary, that insertion did come from you: [36] It ended up on the proposal page because I copied the entire section as it existed when I created Draft 9, and the secretary bit was already in it. But you had put it in in good faith; we had had a footnote referring to her as his secretary for months prior to your putting it in the body text. Cheers, Jayen466 00:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, the article Peace is Possible is not about Cagan's book. Though perhaps it's topical. ;-) Jayen466 01:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks- I should have checked the link first. You're also right about who first added the secretary stuff. But that's beside the point, which is the use of Cagan as a more reliable source than journalists and scholars combined.   Will Beback  talk  01:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some journalists told parts of the story that Cagan told. Quite a few mentioned e.g. that Johnson was a stewardess. If we had disregarded Cagan from the start, or hadn't had Momento going on about this, we might never have found those. Jayen466 01:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The complete story is found in reliable sources, such s journalists and scholars. It was not necessary to use a questionable source in preference to those reliable sources, or to place it on the same level. This is yet another example of Cagan giving an imcomplete or skewed account of events, and further establishes it as an unreliable source. Inconsistent assessment of sources is a recurring problem with this topic.   Will Beback  talk  04:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking into the history of this, I find more problematic editing. Back in April 2008, there was a dispute over whether Prem Rawat had "championed celibacy", which Momento rejected as an exceptional claim (i.e. WP:REDFLAG). To support that assertion I presented four sources, including three scholars, one of the eminent James T. Richardson. Momento said that they were unreliable.[37] In the course of that research I found six sources that described the wife-to-be as Rawat's secretary. On April 19, I added to the DLM article, "...a follower and secretary, former stewardess, Marolyn Johnson, ..."[38] Momento promptly deleted it.[39] After more discussion on the talk page I restored a slightly different version, "... married his secretary, a follower and former stewardess named Marolyn Johnson,..."[40] Momento again deleted it, with an inadequate edit summary and adding contentious material in its place.[41] On May 7, I added the material back.[42] After the page protection on Prem Rawat was lifted on May 22, I added the relevant material to that article.[43] So, to bring this back to the original topic, by the time the discussion occurred in July, the topic had already been thoroughly discussed and over a half dozen sources had been presented that said she was his secretary. Yet Momento continued to argue that all of those sources were wrong and that his personal, second-hand knowledge outweighted them. Momento wrote: For a start Johnson was never his secretary, she was a United Airlines flight attendant and never worked for Rawat. How could they all be wrong? Very simple, they are plagiarizing the work of previous authors. Most rewrite what they steal, the lazy just change a word here or there to make it look original. [44] This is typical example of Momento's tendentious editing. No matter how many reliable sources contradict him he keeps insisting he's right, he makes spurious arguments, and he keeps making the same objections over and over even after they've been addressed.   Will Beback  talk  20:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen appears to criticize my complaint that Momento deleted this text as a WP:REDFLAG:

• Though Mission officials predicted that 100,000 people (as well as extra-terrestrials) would attend, actual attendance was no more than 35,000, incurring a debt of over $1 million. [ref]"The Negation of Social Causality among the Followers of Guru Maharaj Ji." By Daniel A. Foss and Ralph W. Larkin (Rutgers University), in Sociological Analysis, 1978. Page 157-164[/ref]
  • RV according to WP:V - Exceptional claims need exceptional sources talk Leaving India section [45]

There are literally dozens of journalistic and scholarly sources that confirm this material (though the exact numbers vary). Considering that Momento is familiar with the topic he should have been aware that there is nothing exceptional about this assertion. While it's debatable how much material concerning the Divine Light Mission and the Millennium '73 belong in the Prem Rawat article, this particular assertion should not have been deleted on the grounds of being exceptional or of having inadequate sourcing. Again, this typifies the problem of material sourced to scholars being deleted for no good reason.   Will Beback  talk  23:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen466 cites my comment on Talk as evidence that Momento's deletion was justified. Quite the opposite. What he shows is that I (and other editors) were working toward consensus and compromise on the page, even when I added the (well sourced) material in the first place. Momento, in contrast, deleted my sourced addition almost immediately claiming REDFLAG here as yet another exemption from rules against edit warring. The fact that reasonable editors acquiesced to his position on this occasion does not make him or his editing methods reasonable. Msalt (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If reasonable editors acquiesced to Momento's position this could also be seen as a sign that his position was not entirely unreasonable. Jayen466 00:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. It is reasonable to make consensual editing decisions about whether or not to inclue particular details of the Millennum '73 festival, such as the announcements that extraterretrials would attend. It is unreasonable to delete well-known information directly sourced to scholars on the basis of it being an exceptional claim, which is what Momento did. That is the problem here - we're being asked to give scholarly sources the greatest respect while the same editors are treating those same sources as unreliable when they say something that is disagreeable.   Will Beback  talk  01:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A typical pattern for Momento is he sees something he doesn't like, and deletes it, continuing to delete it in edit wars if anyone reverts him. Meanwhile, he or more likely his allies begin a discussion on Talk, which he joins in, continually changing his reasons for deleting as they are shot down (and as he continues to delete.) The fact that he might eventually land on a justification that others agree with, does not change the fact that this is disruption. A good example is the thrash over the photo of the house Rawat lives in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msalt (talk • contribs) [46]

Jayen has described this edit as "lacking in editorial maturity".[47] Another edit was almost identical - is it also lakcing in editorial maturity?[48] What about this edit - which deleted sourced, stable, discussed material - does it show editorial maturity?[49] Could Jayen please explain what he means by "editorial maturity" and why he thinks some of these edits exhibit it while others do not?   Will Beback  talk  22:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with jayen. WillBeback's addition of an undiscussed and unsourced description to the lead lacks "maturity". Pongostick's removal of it is in accord with Wiki policies and guidelines. My removal of non-current and undiscussed and unsourcedmaterial and addition of sourced activities is also in accord with Wiki policies and guidelines.Momento (talk) 11:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean by a mature editing style is that we don't write leads in such a way as to make religious systems that we don't subscribe to look preposterous, or weird. For example, I would consider it immature to insert, in the lede of the Islam article, the sentence,

"An oft-discussed aspect of Islam is that men are allowed to be married to four women simultaneously, and have sexual relations with all of them."

This is strictly speaking true and sourceable, but has no business being in the lead of the Islam article, in that form. To give another example, imagine the following sentence inserted in the lead of the Christianity article:

"A central teaching of Christianity is that people are not really alive unless they regularly undergo a special ritual, in which they believe that they drink the blood of their messiah, and eat the flesh of his body. Christians believe that this ritual, widely considered the most sacred in their religion, has the power to magically reconstitute the messiah's physical body, which is then consumed by the assembled faithful."

The editor could justly claim that this is reliably sourced, [50][51][52] and complain of "deletions of sourced material" if another editor were to remove the material from the lead. But, needless to say, this description of the Eucharist, even though it is factually correct, does not follow the approach of the most authoritative sources. Accordingly, our coverage of this ritual in Christianity is quite different (do look it up). In this context, it is worth noting that the very idea of the Eucharist used to fill millions of vegetarian Hindus with shock, horror and disgust. It used to be described in terms much like the above by anti-Christian propagandists in the Indian subcontinent, when Christianity first arrived there. It is immature to insist on such slanted descriptions and then pipe up in indignation, "But it is sourced!" There are plenty of authoritative sources (some of them pointed out on the Workshop page) that put Rawat's early spiritual titles like "Perfect Master" and "Lord of the Universe" into the proper historical, cultural and religious context of his parent tradition, where such titles are standard. To start the Rawat article "Prem Rawat, also known as ... the Lord of the Universe, is a spiritual leader ..." is, in my opinion, not compatible with an intellectually mature and NPOV description of Rawat as a spiritual leader, and it is not how authoritative sources deal with these aspects. Jayen466 13:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This does not seem like a violation of any Wikipedia policy or anything that the Arbcom should or wants to be debating, even if we accept your point at face value. By posting this in evidence, you are basically saying (without actually coming right out and saying it) that Will is a bigot blatanly attempting to ridicule Rawat by this edit. If you want to say something like that, then come out and say it. But I suspect you realize that the statement would look ridiculous if you did.

On the facts -- and again, the Arbcom doesn't generally discuss content issues, but since you've brought it up -- the story of Prem Rawat, I think we can agree, has much to do with taking a religious teacher out of his historical context and introducing him in a different culture. This drove both his appeal and his controvery, and was the very basis of his notability. So, yes I understand things look very different to someone immersed in Indian culture, but in a sense that doesn't matter.

Rawat's notability for the purposes of this encyclopedia revolves around how he was perceived in the United States and the United Kingdom, where very few had this context. Rawat's single biggest media exposure to the general public was a television documentary titled "Lord of the Universe." It's a name that will connect with many Americans who only dimly remember him by other monikers, and may very well be the phrase they search for in trying to look him up. So painting the inclusion of this term in the lede as an actionable policy violation is frankly outrageous, and fails to assume good faith, even if you don't come right out and say what the violation is. It may not have been the right choice -- which I'm not at all conceding -- but it certainly wasn't "immature", much less a violation of Wikipedia policy. Msalt (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to Jayen:

First, this situation is not comparable to the analogies above. We're not dealing with Islam or the Eucharist. A better comparison is to Osho, in which almost the entire lede is taken up with listing alternate names, and another sobriquet appears later in the intro. "Lord of the Universe" is not a slanted description, nor is "Balyogeshwar". Google shows that, in the last 50 years, the term "Lord of the Universe" has been widely applied to Rawat.[53] "Lord of the Universe" is a title that the subject and his followers used from his earliest days as a guru. It wasn't invented by detractors.

Second, Jayen doesn't address the issue of Momento's rewrite of the lede,[54] which deleted consensed, sourced, and stable material and added an undiscussed, unsourced assertion. Do Jayen believe that that edit represents mature editing? Does he endorse Momento's actions in that conflict?

Third, as I've explained repeatedly, I wasn't adding "Lord of the Universe". I was reverting the deletion of Balyogeshwar, etc., and "LOTU" was caught up in the mix. My intent was to return the lede to the status quo ante bellum. If it hadn't been for the actions of Cla68 and Momento, the edit war would not have occurred. I regret participating in that conflict, which Jayen also joined in, and I've learned a lesson. I haven't seen any expression of regret from Rumiton or Momento for their actions. So far as I can tell, they do not acknowledge having made any errors in their work on this topic.   Will Beback  talk  19:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To just briefly respond to Will here, I do endorse Momento's deletion of Balyogeshwar, because the word basically means "boy guru" in Hindi. If memory serves, we all agreed, in the end, that if we have it in the lede, it should say "formerly known as Balyogeshwar". I also endorse Momento's deletion of "Lord of the Universe" (an undiscussed addition) from the lead sentence, since that was not a name, but a title applied to him by his followers and mahatamas, and requires context to do it justice as a spiritual title. I did not care for the addition of "philanthropist" – that seemed WP:PEACOCK and moreover, as you rightly point out, was unsourced.

When it comes to an alleged inability to admit mistakes, I sympathise with Momento in particular. Given how often he is attacked, I think it is is human for him to be on the defensive. Admitting mistakes requires a reasonably relaxed frame of mind and a sense that one is not going to be shot down for the first mistake one admits; I don't think other editors are helping Momento achieve that. Jayen466 22:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defensive? He's accused me of harassment over a dozen times. He's made other wild accusations, such as that I'm a "fiercely anti-Rawat editor". He's frequently assumed bad faith. He's forum-shopped his efforts to get me blocked. And that's not counting the overall way that he's treated Wikipedia as a battleground, editing with a single purpose and a conflict of interest. His actions go beyond being defensive and border on being offensive. Yet, Jayen says that I'm the one whose edits are lacking in editing maturity. Jayen apparently thinks that deleting sourced material, and then forcing other editors to go through thousands of words of discussion, and even an RFC, just to add back the sourced material with the addition of the word "formerly", is mature editing behavior. I don't see it that way. I think Momento's initial deletion was disruptive and his subsequent stonewalling was tendentious. It's largely because of such behavior that discussions have dragged on and on before achieving consensus, only to start up again.   Will Beback  talk  23:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]