Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2/Proposed decision

Active:

1. Carcharoth
2. Casliber
3. Cool Hand Luke
4. Coren
5. FayssalF
6. FloNight
7. Jayvdb
8. Kirill Lokshin
9. Newyorkbrad
10. Risker
11. Rlevse
12. Roger Davies
13. Stephen Bain
14. Wizardman

Recused:

1. Sam Blacketer
2. Vassyana

Away or inactive:

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

The dispute very much includes pro- material as well. The thread in Stephen Bains's proposals in the workshop should make that clear.[1] It was also the topic of an extremely lengthy thread in mediation.[2] It is still unsettled, and it will probably remain disputed since nothing in this RfAR addresses it. But the decision should at least acknowledge that it is a key part of the dispute.   Will Beback  talk  17:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be beyond the scope of arbitration, but one aspect of the external links dispute concerns the mentioning of a website without linking to it. Several sources name Ex-premie.org as being a center of discontented ex-followers, and based on that the site was mentioned in the Prem Rawat article Some editors contend that we cannot even mention the domain name and have deleted it.[3][4][5][6] Input received from uninvolved editors at WPT:External links said that the EL guidelines only apply to hyperlinks, not to unlinked domain names.[7] It would help if the ArbCom could make a statement about this one way or another.   Will Beback  talk  17:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a natural solution would be either a page about the former devotees and their websites, or if they don't reach notability, mention of them in the criticism section of Rawat's page (with context). I couldn't quite make out whether that would be appropriate from reading the proposed decision. Msalt (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands the proposed decision does not address what has been a fundamental and unresolvable issue, which has its roots in the apparent contradiction or unclear prioritisation of policies and guidelines. As Msalt identifies the proposed decision doesn’t aid clarity. The mechanism of unlinked domain names as raised by Will Beback is certainly worthy of comment by Arbitrators and may well provide the opportunity for a permanent ‘fix’. However given the problems identified by Will Beback below, with Revert Limitations, it would be helpful if the Committee were to provide some greater policy guidance, particularly as there is not unanimous support for the Bainer proposition [8]

Further the Proposed Decision actually cites as examples of edit warring concerning an external link (Jan 09) edits involving disputes about the application of BLP v EL. It is significant that this involves not only the Prem Rawat BLP article, but also articles about a ‘teaching’ and about an ‘organisation’, where the undiscussed edits to remove links were justified in summaries as “Against living people>ext. Links policies” [9] in the first case and “inappropriate link” [10] in the second. Also notable is that this second undiscussed edit was by Jayen466 who is not named in the Revert Limitations section nor within the admonished section; certainly if the Committee has come to the determination that Will Beback is deserving of such sanctions it is puzzling that Jayen is not also included.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In evidence submitted to the ArbCom, a recently retired editor is shown to have made aggressive use of socks in the distant and not-so-distant past. New acounts, like Pongostick, appear and old accounts reappear. Just today, an editor who hasn't been active on Wikipedia since January responded to a suggestion made by a new account within six minutes of its posting.[11][12] If the revert limitations only apply to a few named editors then it is an invitation to game the system by creating new accounts or recruiting new users. If that happens it's likely to lead to yet another RfAR to extend the remedy. I strongly urge the ArbCom to make the limitations stronger and more general by applying them to all editors.   Will Beback  talk  17:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What if Jossi were to return, like say, the day after this case closes, whether under that account or a different account name (if he hasn't already). Is the committee considering any kind of remedy to address any issues that it feels that Jossi might have been involved with concerning the Rawat articles? Cla68 (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the workshop page, there were no Fof or remedies directed to Jossi. Do you want to suggest something there? I'll double check to see if the socking issues were cleared up. IIRC, they were, but I've been inactive on most cases for the last six weeks so it is possible that something relevant slipped by me. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The SPI report was unclear, and possibly didn't CU him. Lar stated only that the suspected sock wasn't the other username that had been listed. Durova^Charge! 16:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will Bebeck on the Workshop page says that he sent information to the Committee. I want to double check what was sent to make sure that nothing else is needed by way of follow up before the case closes. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Through Jayvdb, I sent the ArbCom a large file detailing Jossi's past sockpuppetry. I'm told it was posted to the private ArbCom wiki. Editors involved in this RfAR could have submitted considerable evidence about Jossi's editing behavior over the last year but didn't because of the retirement. Given the fact that Wikipedia retirements are often temporary, and that Jossi has used socks in the past and has an acknowledged conflict of interest, I think there's a legitimate concern that he will return using one or more new accounts. Aside from making remedies applicable to all accounts, new or old, I don't see any practical way of addressing that concern.   Will Beback  talk  17:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Committee also has an email which Jossi sent me shortly after I posted at AE during the leadup to this case. Its tone is surprisingly combative, considering that I had been defending him against an unwarranted attack at AE. This was the first offsite communication he had sent me in many months, and though (obviously) I can't really say much more here, it left the distinct impression that he hadn't disengaged. Committee members may wish to review it to see how it appears to your eyes. Durova^Charge! 18:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems odd to include a remedy admonishing a number of editors, including myself and the mysterious user:Pongostick, while totally ignoring Jossi. If specific editors are going to be admonished then would it be appropriate to add evidence of Jossi's poor behavior too? Or do we take the view that since he's retired (for the time being) that his behavior is no longer open to review?   Will Beback  talk  20:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi retired some time before this case began, and before the arbitration enforcement discussions earlier this year which prompted the case. If a user disappears as or after a case commences, that might call for investigation of them in their absence, but that's not the situation here. --bainer (talk) 06:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, if Jossi never returns then remedies don't matter. The issue is what happens if he returns, either as "Jossi" or under one or more new names. 90% of the evidence in this case probably concerns editing in 2008, prior to his retirement, and Jossi has been highly involved in the editing disputes that led to this case. The simplest solution is to fall back on the implicit default, which is that if Jossi does return after the close of this case then a motion could be made to extend remedies as appropriate.   Will Beback  talk  07:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The remedy added by FloNight [13] addresses this issue in a conservative way and I support it.   Will Beback  talk  19:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Very nice remedy. Thank you, FloNight. Cool Hand Luke 20:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth wrote:

• We should note, for those not aware, that Jossi was a party to the prior Prem Rawat case, and that Jossi was (until a self-enforced restriction) an editor of these articles. [14]

It would be incorrect to say that Jossi stopped editing the articles. Particularly following the last ArbCom case, in which he was told that his self-enforced restriction was unnecessary, Jossi was fully involved in editing the articles in this topic,[15][16][17][18][19][20][21] as well as heavily involved in drafting proposals during mediation.[22][23][24]   Will Beback  talk  23:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Jossi edited the Prem Rawat page itself (not talk) as recently as December 20, 2008. [25] In that edit, he removed the POV tag, which has been the subject of edit warring on this page. Msalt (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of both proposals in the Proposed Enforcement section start with the words "Should any user subject to a topic ban or an editing restriction in this case"

However, Revert limitations 3.1 states "The Prem Rawat article and all related articles are subject to an editing restriction for one year."

If Revert Limitations 3.1 is adopted, then the wording in the Proposed Enforcement section could be interpreted to mean anyone editing a Prem Rawat related article, as any editor would automatically be subject to editing restrictions. However, such interpretation could be debated as the differing contexts are possibly ambiguous.

I suggest that the final wording should be clear and self-consistent across proposals to avoid future debate around interpretation. If it is the intention that all editors of Prem Rewat related articles are subject to the Proposed Enforcement then this should be clearly stated; if not, then the wording of Proposed Enforcement should be changed to remove any possibility of ambiguity.--Savlonn (talk) 09:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'll try to clarify it better. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've adjusted the wording. This doesn't make any substantive changes to the proposals. --bainer (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. The wording is now clear and unambiguous. --Savlonn (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since Rlevse has added a new section about "admonishing" Francis Schonken it's appropriate to see how differently these two editors have been treated by ArCom. Using the "evidence" Bainer has provided -

Edit warring [26]

= Francis Schonken was involved 12 times (every time editing against consensus or removing sourced material)

= Rumiton was involved 5 times (every time editing to preserve consensus)

Rumiton was charged with

1. removed sourced material, stating that the source is wrong: [27]. In fact he gave other reasons.
2. altered a direct quotation from a source: [28], [29] Rumiton is probably correct that in the context, "Teddy Bear" is a typo. Should have been "Teddy boy" as per [30] and [31]. In any case a Good Faith edit that is not pro or anti rawat.
3. treated Wikipedia as a battleground: [32], [33], [34], [35], [36] Every diff is from Talk pages were discussions like this are frequent.

Bainer was unable to find anything wrong about Francis Schonken's editing so I'll just use his headings

1. charged with removed sourced material (and the source) stating that the edit is "sloppy":[37][38][39]
2. altered a direct quotation from Schnabel Removed reference to Osho to make quote unqualified.
3. treated Wikipedia as a battleground: Inserted material eight times against consensus. [40],[41],[42][43][44][45][46][47]

Score: Schonken has more than double the "edit warring" edits of Rumiton.

1. removed sourced material: Rumiton removed sourced material once, Schonken removed sourced material three times including the source!
2. each altered a direct quotation: Rumiton's edit is probably correct but neither pro nor con. Schonken omits important qualifier to increase criticism of Rawat.
3. treated Wikipedia as a battleground: Rumiton's edits were to the talk page. Schonken's edits were to the article against consensus.

Proposed verdict: Rumiton banned for a year

Francis Schonken admonished.

Point: If this Arbcom decision was based on the evidence presented Francis Schonken would be banned for a year and Rumiton admonished.Momento (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rumiton's alteration of the direct quote is a minor point, but it shows a certain neglect for or ignorance of the conventions of writing. Typos or other obvious errors in a direct quotation from a source can be pointed out with "sic", or replaced with a synonym in square brackets (used, for example, where a change of tense is necessary). They are never altered without signposting the alteration.

The edits by Francis that you mention there are all examples of edit warring, which is adequately covered in the proposed decision already. Treating Wikipedia as a battleground includes carrying out a personal conflict on Wikipedia, or importing some personal or other external conflict to Wikipedia. The examples of battleground editing in the proposed decision mainly deal with the perpetuation on Wikipedia of external ideological battles about the various sources (as distinct from ordinary editorial debates about the reliability of sources). Edit warring is not acceptable, but it is not treating Wikipedia as a battleground per se.

The "sloppy" comment in the first diff's edit summary is certainly uncivil. If you aware of further examples of incivility, you should add them to the evidence page. --bainer (talk) 07:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Rumiton's alteration of the quote is "a minor point", I would say trivial. Especially compared to Francis Schonken's deliberate alteration of a quote to remove an important qualifier that completely changes the meaning of the quote. Rumiton was trying to improve the article Francis was trying to distort it. Your suggestion that Francis Schonken's repeated deletion of sourced material along with the clearly provided source is "incivility" misses the point I clearly made. You claim that Rumiton's removal of "sourced material" is one of the reasons he should be topic banned for a year. Francis Schonken's removed "sourced material" three times, so I think we must all agree that it is three times as inappropriate. Finally your characterization of Rumiton's talk page comments as "treating Wikipedia as a battleground" is mischaracterization of the policy.[48] In every case Rumiton was discussing the appropriateness of a source for the article. At no point did he "insult, harass, or intimidate another user or import some personal or other external conflict to Wikipedia" as WP:BATTLE requires. In short, there is no evidence against Rumiton other than "a minor point" and a single removal of "sourced material". Francis Schonken on the other hand deliberately altered a quote to change it's meaning and repeatedly deleted sourced material with an "uncivil" edit summary. So the question remains "how can you possibly propose a one year topic ban for Rumiton and "admonish" Francis Schonken?". Just to make this clearer I draw your attention to my evidence against Francis Schonken which clearly shows him "treating Wikipedia as a battleground.[49] As PhilKnight concludes about Francis Schonken's complaint "I've read this discussion, and looked at the article history, and to be perfectly honest, I can't see anything block worthy. The assertion that Momento was edit warring is, at best, an exaggeration. However, beyond indicating that Francis's should avoid making spurious reports in future, I don't believe that I could justify any further action."[50]And "Francis, to be perfectly honest, I'm considering whether I should give you a short block for making so many reports against Momento that it approaches harassment".[51] And later "My assessment is that Francis's behavior is problematic, and is indeed approaching harassment. Your role (WillBeback) appears to be that of unquestioningly supporting Francis".[52] That's "treating Wikipedia as a battleground" and I expect you to act on it.Momento (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Rumiton's alterations of the quotation, they were not quite like corrections of nonexistent typos. Rumiton went to the talk page to argue that his personal view of the quotation's "correct" wording superseded the actual printed text, which was never in dispute.[53] That is characteristic of a problemtaic behavior seen in this topic, that of dismissing reliable sources for spurious reasons. Rumiton argues that his correction makes more sense, but that's original research. There are numerous other instances of Rumiton and Momento, to name two, effectively dismissing respectable journalistic and scholarly sources for minor or even spurious reasons.

Regarding Francis Schoenken, he has certainly used immoderate language in this matter and I have urged him to be more temperate. When confronted with stonewalling it's all-too natural to get annoyed and react in an overly heated manner. I think the appropriate remedy is for editors to be reominded to treat each other with civility even when they disagree.   Will Beback  talk  08:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since Rlevse has added a new section about "admonishing" WillBeback it's appropriate to see how differently these two editors have been treated by ArbCom. Using the "evidence" Bainer has provided -

1. Edit warring [54]

= I have 15 edits in this section - 7 to remove an EL specifically excluded by consensus, 3 to reinstate important sourced material incorrectly removed by Francis Schonken, 2 to remove unsourced "Balyogeshwar" added without discussion, 2 remove unsourced "Lord of the Universe" added without discussion and 1 to remove WillBeback's undiscussed 5000 byte insertion.

= WillBeback has 4 - 2 to insert the unsourced and undicsussed "LOTU" and 2 to insert 5000 bytes of contested material without discussion.

NB: The main reason my edit count is higher than WillBeback's is because he didn't choose to remove the EL to a defamatory site excluded by consensus. As one of the few editors prepared to remove this defamatory site I claim my repeated removal of the EL conforms to WP:VAN [55] and the spirit of BLP policy. [56]

1. treated Wikipedia as a battleground: [57], [58] Zero evidence of "insulting, harassing, or intimidating those with whom you have a disagreement".
2. absent adequate justification based on policy or consensus, repeatedly removed sourced material: [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70] I have explained my reasoning for these edits here. Several of which have already been accepted.

And since Bainer was unable to find any evidence against WillBeback, I'll use his heading and see if I can come up with anything comparable.

WillBeback has:

1. treated Wikipedia as a battleground: has repeatedly lied and provided false evidence to "harass, or intimidate" me.[71]

1. absent adequate justification based on policy or consensus, repeatedly removed sourced material: Since there is so much to choose from I'll confine myself to edits in 2009 where every edit WB not only removes sourced material but uses his edits to take away positive remarks or important context or qualifiers - removes answer to rhetorical question, removes context, removes qualifier "if you see any", "political radicals, communards, street people, rock musicians, acid-head 'freaks,' cultural radicals and drop-outs" becomes "street people, radicals and drug users", "beautifully" becomes "well", "humble" Christ becomes "beggar", "wall less, co-educational" removed from "monastery

Score: Momento 15 edits in "edit war" all to removed unsourced material as per BLP, re-instate sourced material incorrectly removed or to remove an EL specifically excluded by consensus.

WillBeback: 4 edits in "edit war" all to insert unsourced or undiscussed contentious material.

1. Treated Wikipedia as a battleground:

Momento no evidence.

WillBeback has repeatedly lied and provided false evidence to "harass, or intimidate" me.[72]

1. absent adequate justification based on policy or consensus, repeatedly removed sourced material: My explanations are here. There are no justifiable explanations as to why WillBeback removed sourced material so selectively that he altered the meaning of what he left.

Proposed verdict: Momento banned for a year

WillBeback admonished.

Point: Even using Bainer's selective headings the evidence provided here show that if a judgement was made on the evidence the verdict would be reversed. WillBeback would be topic banned for a year and I might be admonished.Momento (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional evidence -

Without discussion or consensus, WB added 5,000 bytes of contentious material.[73][74] And when removed, added it back again and again.[75][76] When editor removes and repairs "Lifestyle" edit WB reverts a third time claiming the reverts were "unintended".[77] Five minutes later without discussion WB replaced the lead.[78][79][80] Despite repeated objections on the talk page, WB replaced the entire Millennium article with his new version.[81][82][83] When reverted [84] Francis Schonken re-inserted it because it "looked OK to him".[85]Momento (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There are many errors and distortions in this sprawling post. Taking one of the early assertions, Momento is incorrect that he is exceptional for removing external links added against consensus, and that I have not done so. I've already posted to the evidence page diffs that show I've removed unconsensed links in the past.[86][87][88] The ArbCom now wants to admonish me for reverting the additions of unconsensed links, so perhaps it'll be up to the ArbCom or AE to enforce that consensus in the future.   Will Beback  talk  19:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As is obvious, I am referring to the edit summary provided by Bainer, at no time did is suggest you had not removed the link on another occasion.Momento (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Another error in Momento's posting is the assertion that the "Lifestyle" section was added without prior discussion. That material was discussed extensively in mediation, and several editors were involved in developing the text. (15,000 words of discussion here:[89], over 40,000 words here: [90], over 150 edits here:[91]). The mediation ended in part due to the inability of editors to achieve consensus on the exact drafting of the text. Rather than lose all of the time and research that had gone into drafting the material, I added it to the article. After some re-working most of it remains in the article today, so old-fashioned editing achieved what the informal mediation could not.   Will Beback  talk  19:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have already refuted this argument before. Numerous versions of a "Lifestyle" section were discussed and rejected. You added your preferred version four months later without "discussion or consensus". I will wait for Bainer or some other ArbCom to reply to the evidence already presented.Momento (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I could go on, but I think that most of these have already been addressed on the evidence page. If any ArbCom members have questions about Momento's assertions, or my editing, please ask.   Will Beback  talk  19:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While reviewing the proposed decision and the evidence, I noticed a possible error in an article. In the Millennium '73 article, the Dreyer reference is not mentioned in the bibliography. i.e. When you click the link from the references section to take you to the description of the Dreyer reference in the bibliography, it doesn't work because the Dreyer reference is not listed there. Carcharoth (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that. I've fixed it now. For reference, here's the citation:

• Dreyer, Thorne (January 1974), "God Goes to the Astrodome", Texas Monthly {{citation}}: External link in |title= (help)

FWIW, the writer was a major figure in the underground newspaper field of the late 1960s and early 1970s. See "THE RAG: A STUDY IN UNDERGROUND JOURNALISM". However Texas Monthly, is a glossy monthly - the opposite of an undergound paper.   Will Beback  talk  01:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some new proposals include allowing Momento and Rumiton to participate in the article talk pages. I think that would be a bad idea. Those editors have made it very difficult to achieve consensus on significant or even minor changes. It'd be helpful to see an explanation of why, considering their disruption across the topic, their ongoing input is desirable on this topic.   Will Beback  talk  02:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons I would give in general for continued talk page presence are the following: (1) ability to engage in rational discussion of viewpoints on a topic; (2) ability to suggest sources that others may not be aware of; (3) providing valid criticism. From what I've seen, Momento and Rumiton are capable of this. I hadn't envisaged that they would be free to disrupt consensus, but more to provide a critical voice. The dynamic is quite different when someone can only edit talk pages, and, as a general principle, I'm reluctant to ban people from talk pages unless as a last resort. It looks probable that a majority of my colleagues will disagree, but those are my reasons. If, however, the editors not topic banned will still discuss things when needed, that would alleviate my concerns. Carcharoth (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. The sources are all pretty well known by now, so I'm not sure of how important that is. These editors have done far more to discount sources than to find any. Jayen is not covered by the remedies and he strongly supports the "pro-" POV, so the absence of Rumiton and Momento won't mean that there's a lack of editors to champion that side. However, if the participation of Rumiton and Momento doesn't count towards the consensus of those permitted to edit the articles then their ability to disrupt would be limited and my main objection would be satisfied. I assume that if they do become disruptive the problem could be addressed either by an RFAR motion or by editors at AE.   Will Beback  talk  04:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

During the extensive mediation period last year, the dynamics had indeed changed greatly, as it was agreed that only the moderator would paste agreed sections into the main article, once consensus had been reached in the offline sandbox area (the talk page was not used for this purpose during this time). As such, whether one was banned or voluntarily abstained from editing the main article become a moot point as a) anyone could claim a lack of consensus in the sandbox area to prevent an article section from being posted and b)authority to post significant changes in main article page was voluntarily delegated to the moderator only. Even before and after the mediation process, there was strong peer pressure for 'consensus' on the talk page before proposed changes could be posted in the main article. --Savlonn (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As such, I agree that a restriction based on the broad principle of denial of participation in the consensus process (whether on talk page or more structured mediation framework based elsewhere), rather than a prescriptive list of page types (article page, talk page, etc.) would be more effective. --Savlonn (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of talk page participation by sanctioned editors, everyone is by now familiar with the edit wars over inclusion/removal of the alternate name "Balyogeshwar" for Prem Rawat. Just today, in the midst of unrelated discussion of potential edits to the lede of the [Prem Rawat] article, Momento added an unsigned comment casually suggesting new language that just happens to remove "Balyogeshwar" once again -- without mentioning that fact.[92] I think this is a good example of why allowing him to participate in talk page discussions would not be a good idea. Msalt (talk) 04:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to more explicitly state my opinion on this FoF, i see no good reason why i should be explicitly mentioned in the final decision. Sure, i did play a role in diffusing this dispute, to an extent anyway, as has been mentioned by several people over the course of this RFAR. For some time, i thought it would be best to "hold my tongue" but realised i have a view of this dispute that no other would have, a neutral outsider who closely observed editors interacting with each other, over an extended period of time, and thus, able to observe patterns of disruptive editing, over an extended period, rather than an admin who might only get a snapshot of the dispute at one point in time. While i have given my view on the matter, i don't see why i need to be mentioned. This rfar is about Prem Rawat, the editors of this and related articles, and their conduct. I don't know of any cases which had prior mediation that the details regarding the mediator were elaborated on to such an extent. Simply stating that the mediation happened, and that mediation isn't a hopeless cause for this dispute (because i was told many times by several people to "give up" on this case) would be wise. I think mediation can work, it just requires users to have an open mind. So, to summarise, i feel FoF 4 elaborates too much on me, and fails to note that mediation, if you try hard enough, can work. Steve Crossin ^Talk/₂₄ 03:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Crossin's approach to mediation was what I'd call "structural". That is, he created a structure for discussion rather than actively guiding the discussion. That approach was effective for helping editors to achieve consensus on some topics, but not for others which is why I eventually requested an upgrade to formal mediation. In any case, Steve Crossin was a very hands-off mediator and his participation was pretty generic, though helpful and appreciated. It's sufficient to say that "mediation happened" without much more specificity, in my opinion.   Will Beback  talk  05:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I was hands-off, something in hindsight I regret. I'd have handled the case differently if I could do it again. I do blame myself somewhat for the failure of the case, as I feel that if I had been more attentive, the case would have had more success. Steve Crossin ^Talk/₂₄ 05:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see NYB makes mention of the "draftsman". Does this mean that one ArbCom member is entrusted with reading all the evidence and drafting the Proposed Decision page as a neutral and accurate summation of evidence? If that's the case, Bainer totally failed in his duty to the ArbCom. How can he possibly explain his complete omission of the overwhelming evidence that proves FrancisSchonken is a far more "problematic" editor than Rumiton? How can he now justify a one year topic ban on Rumiton and nothing for Francis Schonken? If it wasn't for Rlevse adding a "Users admonished" section, Francis Schonken would not have appeared on your radar. This case is going to have much greater repercussions than the options Bainer drafted. The Arbitration Committee is going to be judged on this, so far abysmal, performance. You are lucky to have members like Carcharoth who first invited comment on Bainer's one sided workshop proposals and Rlevse who started adding balance by "admonishing Francis Schonken and co". You've got a long way to go.Momento (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuant to Wikipedia:AC/N#Designated_drafting_arbitrators, Stephen Bain (talk · contribs) was designated the drafting arbitrator for this case. MBisanz ^talk 01:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the recent procedural announcement, as a practical matter, in any given case one arbitrator usually prepares a draft of the proposed decision, based upon his or her review of the statements, evidence, and workshop proposals. However, all other arbitrators are free to contribute proposals and comments, either on the workshop or on the proposed decision page itself. Passing any proposal requires a majority of the total number of active arbitrators. So while the drafting arbitrator has the initial input into the decision, it's not the only input, and I know that several times, even the most frequent drafters such as Kirill Lokshin and myself have found ourselves outvoted on key findings or remedies by the other arbitrators. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NYB, in your comments here about Rumiton, here, you seem to be limiting yourself to the few bits of evidence copied by Bainer as examples. There is plenty of other evidence concerning Rumiton on the evidence page, including more recent edits. Even the section on "edit warring" prepared by Bainer shows Rumiton was involved in two edit wars in January. (Also, by the way, the Texas publication was reporting on a festival in Houston, not in England).   Will Beback  talk  03:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that the festival was in Texas, sorry; but the quotation is "a Guru goon squad of tough-looking teddy (bear/boy) types from Britain," so I think it might be natural to assume the wording could have been "teddy boy" in that context. More importantly, I found insufficient evidence (particularly focusing in Bainer's diffs) for the specific and precise wording of the findings as proposed. As I indicated in my comments on the proposed remedies, though, I did find sufficient evidence overall (including in the section you mention) of POV editing that could warrant a topic-ban. If I had voted earlier in the case, I might have proposed an alternative version of the finding to reflect this, but it didn't seem to me worth doing at this stage of the case. I hope this helps clarify my thinking. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How long is it going to take before ArbCom admits that Bainer's draft is totally biased? And how long before it decides that justice dictates that the overwhelming evidence about Francis Schonken and WillBeback must also be evaluated? You're not working in a vacuum here. The longer you confine yourselves to the evidence provided by Bainer the less sympathy you're going to get from the Wikipedia community for what is looking more and more like a show trial.Momento (talk) 06:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Momento, could it perhaps be that your own closeness to the subject matter affects that assessment? What Wikipedia arbitration often sees is people who demonstrate no interest in arbitration until a particular subject they care passionately about comes up as a case, and in the late stages of that one case that type of person accuses everyone who disagrees with them of bias--including the Committee itself--and that serious charge almost invariably gets leveled without evidence. This happens across all sorts of topics with astonishing predicability, and it would be to your advantage to distinguish yourself from that sort of person because they usually get sitebanned. The Committee knows I can be a harsh critic on a lot of cases, and Bainer hasn't gotten a free pass in that regard. Admonishment is indeed a serious remedy, and one I'm not entirely certain is merited. More likely I would have cautioned some of the people named in this proposal, if it had been my decision. Durova^Charge! 19:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing unnatural that my interest in this case is predicated by the fact that I'm in it. You wouldn't be posting here if you weren't involved. And your suggestion that my criticism is leveled without evidence is patently false. The difference in remedies between Rumiton and Francis Schonken cannot be explained by lack of evidence because it is there for all to see.Momento (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Momento, as I have mentioned above, significant amounts of evidence have been presented in relation to edit warring undertaken by Francis and Will, and similarly with respect to Nik Wright and Pongostick, and this is addressed in the decision. Edit warring is not acceptable, and these four users will be sanctioned, one way or another, in this case for such behaviour. The issue is that the evidence as presented so far doesn't indicate any substantial behavioural issues with these users beyond edit warring. You did refer to one edit by Francis above in which he uses an uncivil edit summary. Are you aware of any more instances of this? It's simply beyond my capacity to review all the many tens of thousands of edits to the pages involved in this case, and I must depend somewhat on the parties, who are familiar with the dispute, to present evidence on it. --bainer (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say that "it's simply beyond your capacity to review all the many tens of thousands of edits" "so you must depend somewhat on the parties" involved. And so you chose to depend on WillBeback's evidence and ignore mine. Can you see why your method is so flawed? And therefore the results it produces equally flawed. I would hope that now that I've shown you the evidence of WillBeback and Francis Schonken distorting quotes, using Wiki as a battleground, deleting important sourced material and edit warring against consensus that you will make an FoF about it as you did with Rumiton and me. Or are you going to continue to ignore it?[93] It's all there in black and white.Momento (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(responding to a few posts above) To clarify, there isn't any evidence to suggest that Bainer is biased. It's a serious allegation of ethical lapse to assert that he prejudged the matter. Many editors in many cases have alleged bias in a similar way: after a proposed decision started going against them, and without any substance beyond 'X disagrees with me, therefore X is biased against me.' That sort of post speaks more of the editor who makes it than of anyone else, because it's very rare that actual grounds for recusal arise during a case. And to respond Momento's other point, posting to a case is not prima facie evidence of involvement: I post to many cases, but almost never enter dispute resolution about my own content work. Durova^Charge! 16:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you look for the evidence about WillBeback, Bainer? I looked on the evidence page and found plenty.[94] I found evidence of ownership, five examples of rejecting consensus and making large edits without discussion, five examples of using Wikipedia as a battleground to harass me, five examples of removing sourced material to alter the meaning and, on this page, six examples from one week where WillBeback removed sourced material to alter quotes in order to create a more negative meaning. I'm an angel in comparison. I've provided the evidence, all you have to do is make a proposal for FoF.Momento (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No surprise that some ArbCom members would vote to close because some ArbCom members still believe that this obvious miscarriage of justice can be swept under the carpet. Too late, all the evidence ArbCom should have acted upon is available for all to see. Unless other members step up and put a stop to this farce this case will become Wikipedia's Dreyfus affair.Momento (talk) 11:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two things:

1) There is a fresh instance of Rumiton rejecting a source because of his personal views about it. Rumiton says that Deirdre Boyle's book, published by the Oxford University Press, is an unacceptable source because she says negative things about Prem Rawat.[95] I don't recall him ever discounting any "pro-" source for a comparable reason. This is characteristic of the biased treatment of sources on this topic.

2) In voting for a remedy about Rumiton, Jayvdb writes: If the editor productively edits other articles, they can appeal this remedy.[96] There is no question that Rumiton can contribute productively to other topics. He's a helpful editor on article related to the RMS Titanic and All Quiet on the Western Front, for example. But Prem Rawat topics account for over half of his edits and it's those edits that are the problem. His ability to contribute productively on some topics is not evidence of his ability to edit in a neutral, productive manner on this topic, IMO.   Will Beback  talk  22:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might have also mentioned Attack on Sydney Harbour which I helped bring to Featured Article status, and Jesus Army where I acted as informal mediator and helped end a long and bitter edit war, as well as dozens of other articles over three years. My recent concentration on the Prem Rawat series was due to the greater need shown. I have tried to apply here the same guidelines that have been successful on the other pages: showing respect for living individuals (I haven't always succeeded, but claim extreme provocation); writing in a neutral tone, and choosing the best sources available, while rejecting extreme or biased sources on either end of the spectrum, except for uncontroversial information. In this regard, I am surprised you “...don't recall me ever discounting any "pro-" source for a comparable reason.” Here [[97]] I made the case for discounting Andrea Cagan’s “Peace is Possible” as “overly hagiographic” and reminded you that “I was one of those who found it hagiographic.” You referred to my assessment twice in the dialogue that followed. And this is the point I am trying to make again. There will be endless edit wars in relation to these articles until all editors accept that Prem Rawat has been controversial all his life, and has attracted his share of both bitter enmity and fulsome praise. When either of these are encountered in sources they need to be discounted, regardless of other credentials, to achieve a neutral and stable article. I reject this source (Doyle) not because of my personal views, but because calling the subject a "spiritual Svengali" (roughly: "evil hypnotist of the soul") is not a "negative thing" -- it is libel. I suggest it is your own preoccupation with this subject that is stopping you from recognising these distinctions. Rumiton (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recall you saying that Cagan is "hagiographic", I don't recall you saying that we shouldn't use that source. You wrote:

• Some anti-Prem Rawat editors here are trying to discredit the book so as to keep the issue unresolved and create a suspicion of money grabbing. Rumiton (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• I now posit that Cagan is a WP:RS in every respect. Rumiton (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• This is a quality source. Rumiton (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• This work is thoroughly validated. Rumiton (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
• And I already agreed that I consider Cagan unfortunately biased. ... Rumiton (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed the place where you rejected using Cagan. Instead, you seem to be saying that her book is a reliable source despite being biased.

Fewer than 5% of my edits to Wikipedia have been related to this topic, compared to more than 50% of yours. Yet you accuse me of being preoccupied by it. In 2007, you were the leading contributor to Prem Rawat and to Divine Light Mission.[98][99] What definition of "recent" are we using?   Will Beback  talk  18:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The published decision fails to require that notification of the revert limitation must given to users before they are blocked. This is obvious and should be added. Jehochman ^Talk 06:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to comment at Wikipedia_talk:AC/N#Prem_Rawat_2, I doubt many arbs watch the old case pages. MBisanz ^talk 06:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of per-article editing restrictions should be recorded on the affected article's talk page as a matter of course. New editors to the affected articles may not read those first, of course, but remember that the enforcement provisions permit administrators to take enforcement action, they do not mandate it. As such, the normal range of administrator discretion is to be used in enforcing the decision, including the use of notices or warnings, where the enforcing administrators consider it appropriate. --bainer (talk) 06:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, added to the talk page, although it is starting to look like a fruit salad with the colors. MBisanz ^talk 07:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are four templates on Talk:Prem Rawat that announce restrictions or probation. There are 16 articles in Category:Prem Rawat. If copied across all related articles, that's 64 templates!

Is it necessary to have special templates to name the restricted users? They know their identities and their restrictions. I don't think that it'd be beneficial to keep banners up on the talk pages for the next 12 months. To alert editors and admins, a notice could simply say "Other restrictions apply to particular editors. See RfAR/Prem Rawat 2#Remedies. This notice expires April 2010." Or alternatiely, could they be merged and made less conspicuous?

As for the overall volume of templates, I suggest that we can drop some of the generic templates until they seem necessary again. {{controversial}}, {{Notforum}}, and {{Calm talk}} are nice sentiments, but they loose impact.  Will Beback  talk  08:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either you don't understand the severity of the admonition given to you for your conduct, or you've got some nerve to be giving your opinions on this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.235.32 (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC) — 208.68.235.32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Stephen, I think it would be a good idea to modify the decision to say that administrators ensure that editors are aware of the restriction before enforcing it. To avoid gaming, I agree that warnings might not be necessary for single purpose accounts that show up at these articles looking suspiciously like previously banned users. Jehochman ^Talk 13:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]