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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Active:

1. Blnguyen
2. FayssalF
3. FloNight
4. FT2
5. Jdforrester
6. Jpgordon
7. Kirill Lokshin
8. Matthew Brown (Morven)
9. Paul August
10. Sam Blacketer
11. Thebainer
12. UninvitedCompany

Recused:

1. Charles Matthews

Away/inactive:

1. Deskana

Contents 1 1RR 1.1 Meaning of "1RR" 2 "Jossi is encouraged to otherwise contribute to the editorial process, for example by contributing to talk page discussions" 3 Is this the whole finding/decision? 4 Small Pond 5 Tasteless remarks from Sam Blacketer reveal how little research he has done 6 "Football Analogy isn't Bad" 7 My conclusions about this Wikipedia arbitration 8 Apparent contradictions in application of principles to remedies. 9 Football and RC Church Comparison Inappropriate 9.1 Alternative organisational model 10 Expanding the scope of article probation 11 Jossi's declaration of intent 12 Note to the ArbCom 13 Fresh problems 14 What's Happening? 15 The delay...

[edit] 1RR

Bainer asked about 1RR here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Workshop#Proposed decision posted.

Re. 1RR: if asked I'd say it's not so much important whether the rule is 1RR or 3RR, included in or separate from article probation: the more important is imho (apart from a good definition of 1RR if it is used) the diligent treatment of enforcement, e.g. that use can be made of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. A lot of the trouble existed because of interpretation of conduct as being yes or no disruptive. The usual noticeboards seldomly came to a conclusion. The last two postings there were almost immediately closed, and referred to arbitration.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement would give it more of a neutral twist. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I also think the issue of 1RR vs. 3RR is not really important. It's very important that conversation is kept on track and that any disruption is addressed quickly and decisively. I believe the discretion of the admins keeping some eyes on AE is sufficient to determine if edit warring or disruption is occurring without additional restrictions on the articles and their editors. Vassyana (talk) 06:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not been on this page as long as the other parties to the arbitration, so I take my own words with a grain of salt. But in my opinion, none of the 1RR/3RR distinctions matter, because the main cause of disruption is abuse of the exemptions to the revert restrictions -- not only BLP but also Exceptional Claims and even Sockpuppets of Zoe Croydon, which I had never heard of before. Momento could not be more clear that s/he will continue to aggressively edit war under the theory that s/he is exempt from all of these restrictions. Momento even argues on the Evidence page that the two blocks imposed on him or her were wrong, and is disrespectful to those who caution or warn him/her. Obviously, the vast majority of other editors disagree. But the primary administrator on the scene, Jossi, is one of the few supporting Momento, both on the page and in dispute resolution attempts to restrain Momento. Until this dispute is resolved, I don't see how any revert restrictions will help. Msalt (talk) 07:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Msalt, I object to you constant personal attacks.Momento (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly the sort of thing I was looking for input on, Francis. It seems the view that this would be better handled at AE is shared by everyone then (or everyone who has commented at least) so perhaps I'll amend the article probation remedy to supersede the 1RR restriction. --bainer (talk) 08:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I would argue differently, Thebainer. The only time that some progress was made over the last weeks, was when the 1RR probation was implemented; Without it, the temptation for rapid-fire editing and subsequent revert wars is way to great. A standard 1RR restriction, will afford editors the time and space to seek help from others and encourage collaboration by discussion and compromise. What editors need is a good environment on which to work together, and given the animosity that has developed, it needs a cool-off period that could be framed around a standard 1RR restriction for a limited period of time, say six months as per the community-enforced probation that was agreed upon before this case.

Furthermore, there was a good reason for the 1RR restriction before this case, and the reason has not gone away. On the contrary: after this case is close, editors will need to overcome the animosity that was generated during proceedings. Without a restriction that will gently force editors to talk to each other (rather than revert each other) and seek common ground, the animosity will escalate further (see Msalt comment abovem for example), resulting in a stressful environment that will not be productive and in which editors will get harmed.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Let us ask ourselves, what is the downside of 1RR? I would argue, none. After all, limiting oneself to WP:BRD is but a best practice. Given the long history of the article and the recent history of disruption, gently forcing editors to BRD will be nothing but a great help to avoid escalation and help work toward consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to note that I agree with AE as the best forum to alert admins for probation disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Another important point is the definition of 1RR. One interpretation is that you can revert as many edits as you like as long as you do so in a single edit/diff. I think this is a problem in this case, for several reasons. First, it makes it hard to follow what is being changed. Clear communication and forthrightness about what one is doing and why are basic to collaboration and seeking consensus. Second, it gives any user with any POV a veto over all changes, and in fact encourages them to wildly and blindly revert, rather than making incremental progress. Why take a chance of violation when you can change everything back to yesterday's version?

I realize that the 3RR policy says "Consecutive reverts by one editor are generally treated as one revert for the purposes of this rule", so one could argue "what's the difference if they make them all in one edit?" I don't know why 3RR says that, though I'm sure there's a good reason (perhaps reflecting the fact that editors often tweak or adjust an edit several times after first making it.) However, in this instance I think it makes the policy ineffective. I can't imagine it was meant to allow an editor to revert 5 separate edit-warring disputes without violating 1RR. A better version of 1RR, in my opinion, would be to allow reversion of one single edit. If the original edit changed 15 things, or was a series of consecutive edits by the same editor, then fine, you can revert it and they all go back. But if 5 editors make changes, or one makes 5 separate edits over a day or weeks, you don't get to revert 5 times just by lumping them together. Msalt (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Msalt, 1RR is a device that has been used very successfully in past disputes. It simply makes edit-warring to be not an option. If an editor reverts another editor's edit, be that one change or multiple changes, that editor needs to wait an entire week before he/she can ever revert another time. This forces editors to (a) ensure that their revert is absolutely necessary; (b) if the editor gets reverted, it forces him/her to discuss and find consensus. It is simply the enforcement of WP:BRD, and designed to assist editors to engage in an orderly debate in which discussion, rather than edit-warring is the modus operandi. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note that your comment is about how to revert and stay within the boundaries of 1RR or 3RR. I would invite you to look at this differently: how would your editing and the editing of others look if editors would not consider reversions as a viable option? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the concept of 1RR, but clearly it didn't solve the issue just now. One thing is, I found much confusion over what exactly the rules were -- one revert of the same issue? One revert of anybody? One massive revert of 25 items? Changes that effectively reverted but didn't click the Undo button or say revert in the summary? One week or one day? Etc. The first order is to be crystal clear what is meant, and to emphasize the point that it's an electric fence, not a right to revert.

The other is simply intent. With Momento announcing that s/he feels exempt from any restriction due to BLP and intends to pursue the same aggressive editing approach, I tend to feel we need something more. I'm not sure what you're getting at with your last question. I have consistently sought consensus on the Talk page, and avoided edit warring, but others show great focus on the rules and what they can get away with to further their POV. Msalt (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Msalt, I object to you constant personal attacks.Momento (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

With the proposed article probation, if an editor feels exempt due to BLP and you disagree, an uninvolved admin can be called upon from WP:AE to assess the situation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning of "1RR"

By analogy to WP:3RR, "1RR" would appear to mean that a user may make one revert per day/week/etc. However the text of Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary#One-revert rule says something different:

• One-revert rule
• Some editors may choose to voluntarily follow a one-revert rule: If someone reverts your change, don't re-revert it, but discuss it with them. See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.

So that definition of 1RR is that once you've been reverted you may not revert the revert. It does not place any time limit on the reverts. I regret that when I proposed a "1RR" restriction on Prem Rawat I was not aware of this discrepancy, and had thought that "1RR" meant a limit of one revert per time period. For the future, we should be careful to distinguish whether we mean the "1RR" defined in "WP:1RR", or if we mean a limit of one revert per time period. They are not the same thing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow, Will. 1RR means just that. An editor cannot revert another editor's edit more than once per period. So if it is 1RR (one revert per day per editor), it is exactly that. There is no ambiguity that I can see. Same as WP:3RR:

An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.

So, for a standard 1RR restriction, this would be:

An editor must not perform more than one revert, in whole or in part, on a single page within a week. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is what it would appear to mean. However if you review the text at WP:1RR it says something completely different. The definition has been there a long time. Under that definition, it wouldn't matter how many reverts one makes in a time period, but once something is reverted it may never be restored by anyone without a consensus. If we mean to limit editors to one revert per time period, we should say "one revert per time period" rather "1RR". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. "One revert per time period" it is, then. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

So far as the proposed decision goes it's up to the arbitrators to decide. We've never actually implemented WP:1RR. FWIW, you quoted the text of WP:1RR to another user when accusing them of violating it, so I presume you've been aware of the written definition.[1] That's why it's important to make sure we all know what is meant by these terms. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Jossi also quoted the "WP:1RR" definition again in his evidence, on March 21.[2] Given that he's twice quoted the verbatim language of 1RR, yet now appears to have been unfamiliar with it, it's undoutbtedly important to define exactly what we mean when we refer to "1RR". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

My quoting of 1RR was appropriate, and in no manner in contradiction to what we have discussed above. You may have mis-interpreted that wording as if "once reverted never to be reverted" but that is not what the 1RR means, as the timeframe was always there (1RR per day, 1RR per week). In any case, for those that this was not clear, it should be now. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Jossi is encouraged to otherwise contribute to the editorial process, for example by contributing to talk page discussions"

Really? To me this would be fine if he were not an administrator who over-policed the Talk Page (and thus the article itself). As I said on Jimbo Wales page - it is particularly discouraging for former followers (who by rights should be allowed to participate in an even playing field here) to find themselves being bullied by Rawat's very own officials. This simple but crucial unfairness seems to be as yet overlooked in the proposals - unless I'm missing something. PatW (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is this the whole finding/decision?

Forgive me if I'm being dense, but I don't see any substantive action being taken by the Arbitration committee in this case. The finding/decision reads like a restatement and repetition of current Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but doesn't offer anything specific to guide editors in how to proceed, other than continue with the status quo on the Prem Rawat articles. The only specific item provided is that Jossi has been warned, but he can continue to write on the talk pages, which was shown to be part of the major problem on the Rawat articles. Yet, the ARBcom recommends the status quo. I'm baffled. I've never seen an arbitration case in the real world handled in this manner, so maybe someone could be willing to: 1) Explain to me how these decisions were reached, because the response by the ARBcom on this case appears weak and one-sided in favor of Pro-Rawat editors; 2) Why should any editor in the future, when faced with a Wikipedia Arbitration, bother to work as hard as the involved editors have done on this case, when this is all the Arbcom has come up with as a resolution; and 3) If editors on this discussion page can't even agree on the 1RR policy, how on earth are they going to go back to the articles and work together? Seems like all of this has been an enormous exercise in futility, very similar to trying to edit the Prem Rawat series of articles. Frankly, I'm puzzled by these "finding/decisions." Sylviecyn (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Recommended reading: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland#Limitations of Arbitration. Of course, there's more to be said than you can read in that section of a recent ArbCom case, but it maybe gives some insight in the approach. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This type of special pleading, is unnecessary and untimely. The arbitration has not been closed yet. So far, only one arbitrator has submitted a proposed decision, and voting on this (or any further proposals) has not commenced. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I was addressing the committee, not participants. Sylviecyn (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a public page, and you can surely expect anyone to respond. My comment about the special pleading, while this case is still not closed, stands. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection. May not users comment on the proposed decision? May they not make suggestions for improving it, or point out perceived weaknesses? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not objecting to anything, Will. People can and will write in these pages what they want. I was making the point of the untimeliness of the comment as the case has not closed, as well as asserting that special pleading is really unnecessary. Proposals are usually made in the Workshop page, not in talk, and by some reason most parties have not made any proposals for the ArbCom to consider, choosing rather to complain. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think with a more careful reading of special pleading you will see that her statement above does not fall into that category. Sylviecyn has neither made a spurious argument, introduced details, favorable, or unfavorable, nor has she attempted to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule. You should probably also re-read Red Herring it would seem to apply more to your description of her simple questions, aside from not being very helpful in general. As to your comment about untimeliness, I'm not sure if it was intentionally humourous, but are you proposing she wait until after the case is closed before she asks any questions? What would the point of that be? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 02:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Mmm... I see your point regarding the untimeliness. Just that I would prefer people to be making proposals in the Workshop page that can be discussed, rather than complain about proposals made by others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Judging by past cases, the ArbCom members appear to try to reach a rough consensus in private discussion before they start posting proposed decisions. Since Bainer posted his proposals, no other arbitrators have commented on them, which may mean that the members are still apart to some degree on a plan of action for resolving this case and are engaging in further private discussion. Please be patient. Cla68 (talk) 02:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, with all due respect, have you considered that your officious tone might be a significant factor in why we are here now? I mean, there's quite a few people have commented that you come across as 'hectoring' and 'prefectorial'. Would you accept that there may be some truth in that? And that may have something to do with you having the position of an administrator?PatW (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a good example of how Jossi makes personal attacks, negative judgments, and uses baiting while appearing to sound reasonable and civil. He consistently uses his supposed superior knowledge of Wikipedia policies/guidelines to continously instruct me and others, while knowing full well how much he annoys me when he does that -- because I've asked him many times to stop doing it because it annoys me. He uses a condescending, demanding, and demeaning tone to those he views as his opponents, then states he has no control over how others view him. I'm looking up the fallacy of that argument now and I'll get back to you all. :-) So, Jossi linked to the "Special Pleadings" article in order to charactertize what I wrote above as "spurious," thus avoiding calling my post spurious here. Some would call his behavior passive-aggressive, but I characterize it as old fashioned aggressiveness and I'm sick of it having to put up with it on Wikipedia. My post above isn't spurious, a special pleading, nor a red herring. I was simply asking questions because because I haven't found this ARB process to be user-friendly at all. Please excuse me while I learn. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Small Pond

[Proposed decision Small pond]

The Prem Rawat article has existed for nearly four years, and has been edited nearly five thousand times, while its talk page has been edited nearly eleven thousand times. However, only a small number of users have made significant contributions to the article (including Andries, Jossi, Zappaz, Richard G., Gary D and Momento).

How is “Small Pond” to be distinguished from WP:OWN, and tag teaming ? The analysis of ‘significant contributions’ is interesting but more relevant is how many of those ‘significant contributions’ have survived, even for a few days. User:Andries has committed a great deal of time to the Rawat articles but his edits have been frequently removed. “Small Pond” is surely a symptom not a cause of problems, and to merely identify it is to provide a gloss not a resolution. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This is based on some analysis I did using History Flow, posted here. There have been a number of major revisions of the article (eg the temp1 version, the Jan 07 post-merger version, the bio proposal version) which were more or less stable for long periods after they were implemented. You can look into the history of each of those versions to see who has contributed most of the content to them; from what I saw it seemed that contributions were shared by a number (albeit a small number) of editors. These various major versions were indeed lasting (with History Flow individual editors' contributions are colour-coded so you can see how much of the text each person has contributed).

My point in describing the history of the article as a small pond is that for all the endless debate, there have still only been a small number of editors who have actually contributed significantly to the article. It's thirty talk page archives worth of circle-work between the same half-dozen people on each side of the ledger. What these articles need more than anything is some fresh input (and incidentally, if there is in fact some effective control being exercised by one or more editors, not that that's apparent from what I've seen so far, bringing in more fresh eyes is the only way to fix that).

Again, there are nearly five thousand edits here and I can't review them all myself. If there are incidences of things like tag-team revert-warring in the history that anyone is aware of, then by all means point them out. --bainer (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm some of the new blood that has attempted to fix that, and I have posted on the evidence page several examples (with diffs) of tag-team revert-warring that has blocked even minor changes. Note especially the example in my reply to Rumiton, [3] who engaged in a tag-team edit war (with a brand new editor with 4 total edits, [4] all reverts in ongoing edit wars at that time) to block my summarizing a long list of cities that Rawat toured in 1980. Together they reverted the exact same edit 3 times in 16 hours.

Rumiton continues to justify his edit warring -- and I will quote him: "I restored text that you deleted without discussion which named the 10 overseas cities Prem Rawat spoke at in one year (1980). You had changed it to, 'He also spoke at several cities in Europe and South America.' This was not, in my opinion, 'simply condensed' material, it was negative POV." [5] That's a perfect example of the difficulty of working on this page. Note also that Jossi had and has no complaints against this behavior, which supports his POV, though it makes no claim of BLP protection and he has very actively pursued sanctions against editors with opposing POV (such as Francis Schonken) for much more reasonable edits. Msalt (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Bainer, I will post evidence about the welcome that editors coming to this topic receive. When fresh input is rejected it becomes a very small pond indeed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that most of the evidence is already presented and recapitulateded succinctly by Maslt: [6] Perhaps this should be shown more clearly on the evidence page. Msalt had to omit evidence regarding Momento due to having already presented so much evidence on another party. I'll try to fill that gap. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tasteless remarks from Sam Blacketer reveal how little research he has done

Frankly I give up on this procedure. I don't see that these people have made ANY decent attempt to see the whole picture. Why should anyone else take this article seriously or Wikipedia articles that are similarly afflicted for that matter? Only a court of day-dreamers could stick up for Jossi like they have done so far and their reasoning!? Talk about turning a blind eye!! You know the only conclusion I can reach is that they simply have NOT completely read the evidence. Sam Blacketer's analogy of Jossi being like a conscientious priest of the church and his being all concerned about abuses, is no less than chilling to the bone. I actually feel sickened by this knowing better the truth of the matter. Sam, it is unconscionable of you to protect Jossi with this sort of flippant flattery. All it demonstrates is that you know nothing about Prem Rawat, his past or the way his employees and followers have abused Wikipedia or other followers. And further you have conspicuously done insufficient background research about it to warrant the remarks you have made. If you really want to educate yourself in this matter I will meet you and tell you face to face. Then you can make up your own mind about who is concerned to hold abusive priests responsible for their actions. There are actually children who were sexually abused by Rawat's priests by the way and perhaps you'd care to ask Jossi what how concerned he is to see justice is done about that! You will soon enough see he won't want to elaborate or discuss the grievances of the abused kids, who are now grown up and are NOT happy with the way Rawat handled the affair or the outcome.PatW (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I don't compare Jossi directly to a devoted football fan (indirectly, possibly). What I was trying to explain was the general approach to conflicts of interest insofar as they apply to religious believers. In my view we don't take the view that people who are known to have strong opinions about a topic are thereby conflicted out of editing. The conflict of interest comes when a user's financial status or their own reputation are affected by the content of their edits. Conflicts of interest are, in a sense, caused by situations and not opinions.

Someone who edits their own biography almost inevitably may affect the way they are perceived - their reputation - which is why this is a conflict of interest. However, someone who edits an article about something in which they strongly believe is not necessarily affecting their own reputation. That applies whatever concept it is in which they have a strong belief.

Conflicts of interest are quite different from Point of view pushing. Editors with conflicts of interest are nevertheless often quite able to edit neutrally and not to propound a point of view. Editors with no conflict of interest are often unable to edit in a way that leaves their point of view behind. If there was a reason to believe that Jossi was pushing his point of view in Prem Rawat articles then sanctions would be considered, but it is striking how few people have made this accusation either directly or by insinuation. My study of the evidence does not support it.

Previous arbitrators have steered clear of making findings about article content and I intend to keep up that approach. Likewise it would be inappropriate for me to make my own findings about whether the Prem Rawat movement is a good or bad thing. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

@User:Sam Blacketer perhaps you could comment on why this material does not count as a relevant NPOV/POV issue. [affiliation of Sources and COI] ?--Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Football Analogy isn't Bad"

It's atrocious! By the far the better football analogy is that Jossi acts as both referee and player and, to make matters worse, he is playing for his team. Unbelievable! How can jpgordon possibly think that? And how far are they going to stretch these unbelievable flimsy notions to try and avoid the truth that all the evidence presents? How ridiculous is it to posit that "Supporters of football clubs are, in my experience, the first to be critical of their own club's performance if they feel it has let the fans down." when plainly Jossi has NO beliefs that his club has let down it's fans.PatW (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

While I think PatW may need to take a deep breath and relax a little bit, I do agree with his analogy of a referee playing for one of the teams, that is very similar to how the situation has felt to me (oh, and wouldn't you know it, that would be a conflict of interest for that referee, funny huh?!). -- Maelefique ^(talk) 02:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Admins acting in good faith and putting the Wiki project first would simply avoid articles where they are compromised. Windscale (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My conclusions about this Wikipedia arbitration

What a dog and pony show. And Jossi called me spurious for asking questions too early. The evidence of this arbitration is that these arbitrators don't know how a real arbitration should function. This is how a real arbitration should operate: 1) Parties in dispute request arbitration; 2) Parties present complaints and evidence, and all evidence is available to all parties, i.e., no private or ex parte discussions allowed via email, for example. Additionally, the parties are prohibited from editing on article space and talk page space until the final ARB decision; 3) the evidence phase closes, (for purposes of Wikipedia, the evidence page should be locked); and 5) Arbitrators review and consider the evidence, come up with a decision, and publish it. What this exercise in futility has become isn’t arbitration by any stretch of the imagination.

It's become abundantly clear that the Wikipedia community either doesn’t understand what constitutes a real arbitration or a real conflict of interest or they are just unwilling to understand and implement correct and proper procedures, in order to favor certain editors who are favored by Jimbo Wales. The section in the decision that compares the Catholic Church to Jossi’s involvement with Prem Rawat is so off the mark that it’s difficult to begin to explain the real situation. Jossi isn’t a member of a church for starters. In fact, one of the many contradictions of this NRM/cult is that Prem Rawat states that he doesn’t offer or teach any religion, philosophy, belief-system, or spirituality, while his supporting organization, Elan Vital enjoys tax-free status as an IRS non-profit 501(c)(3) organization in the U.S., registered as a church. In fact, Elan Vital claims it has no members, only contributors. But it’s not uncommon for Jossi and other adherents of this NRM/cult to decry and protest any criticism of their NRM/cult leader, Prem Rawat by stating it is somehow a violation of their freedom of religion. This behavior and attitude is especially true about adherent's views anyone, not just vocal critics of Rawat -- anyone who dares to be critical of Rawat. Yeah, wrap your heads around that one. It’s absolutely true.

Furthermore, the comparisons of Catholics' involvement in writing about the Catholic Church's sex abuse scandal, to Jossi’s involvement in the Rawat articles, along with the sports analogy, are illogical and incorrect. It demonstrates that the arbitrators haven’t comprehensively reviewed the evidence and have little understanding of this matter. Or that the ARBCom is so biased in favor of supporting members of NRMs/cults on Wikipedia, apparently in the name of granting Jossi “freedom of religion,” or to defer to the favoritism shown by Jimbo Wales towards Jossi, that they are unable to overcome their bias in order to render a fair judgment. Don’t forget, this arbitration has been about behavior, not religious affiliation or content – Jossi’s been lecturing this to fellow editors throughout this arbitration process. So, the ARBcom fails to understand the basic underlying problems on the Rawat articles specifically, along with the contentious editing problems of articles about NRM/cults and their leaders in general. It also demonstrates that the ARBCom has no understanding of the differences between mainstream religions and NRMs/cults because of the many problems observed on Wikipedia articles about NRMs/cults and their leaders (living or deceased) has been that a typical adherent is unable and unwilling to consider any criticism of their NRM/cult or leader, and as a result typically object to criticism vehemently. A proper analogy of this arbitration would have been for the ARBcom to compare the Catholic critics of pedophile priests to the critics of Prem Rawat who are former followers.

If the ARBcom had adequately reviewed the evidence, it would have observed that, Jossi, Momento, and Rumiton (all adherents) have exercised control over the contents of the Prem Rawat article, gamed the system, wikilawyered, and otherwise have abused the policies and fellow editors on the Rawat talk pages, in order to avoid and prevent criticism of their NRM/cult leader from appearing in the article. And if the ARBcom were actually interested in solving the Rawat article’s many problems, they would have done their homework about the extent to which users Jossi, Momento, and Rumiton have endeavored to block facts provided by accepted reliable sources, that may be viewed as critical of Rawat, in order to paint him in a glowing light in advertorial fashion. This brings into the glaring light of day Jossi’s conflict of interest, which constitutes the fact that he is being paid by a Rawat-supporting organization while he has edited the article, including control of content on the talk pages.

Therefore, the ARBCom ignored the fact that one of the biggest complaints of the parties has been Jossi’s overbearing and dictatorial behavior on the talk pages. Evidence of this is their promotion of Jossi’s continued involvement on the Rawat talk pages in the decision. Therefore, by ignoring the facts in evidence, the ARBCom hasn’t concluded anything substantial in their decision but to repeat standing policies and guidelines, and to promote the status quo – which brought the parties to ARBcom in the first place, while involved editors on all sides continued to argue amongst themselves on the talk page. This includes pro-Rawat editor’s continued personal attacks on the Prem Rawat talk page against the editors they perceive as opponents. ARBCom also hasn’t come to any decisions concerning editor Momento’s editorial disruption and even his recent behavior on the Rawat talk page, where he refers to the ex-premie.org website as a “hate” site. That website is owned by a fellow editor, John Brauns. I’m not going to provide the diff because it’s obvious the arbitrators in this case don’t read the evidence, despite the hard work of everyone to provide them with it, so I’ve adopted an attitude of “why bother?” The committee hasn’t come to any decision about the use of Wikpedia by pro-Rawat editors to libel and defame fellow editors, i.e., IsabellaW’s rant about critics of Prem Rawat being a hate-group, and Gstaker’s use of his page to link to a known defamation website that repeats the same libel and defamation.

My conclusion is that this arbitration committee hasn’t reached any decisions, doesn’t understand the dynamics of the case, is unable to make unbiased opinions about anything in this case, and that this has been a complete waste of my time. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You may not understand or like the way the Wikipedia community deals with dispute resolution, and that is your prerogative. You have the right to think that the ArbCom members have not reviewed the evidence (which would be an unforgivable dereliction in their duties). You also have the right to disagree with ArbCom's findings and comments, and express that disagreement as vociferously as you have done above. But to imply that there were private discussions via email in which evidence was presented that was not presented in these pages, or that Jimbo Wales has any favoritism toward certain editors (with the implication that he would want to penalize others), or that has influenced proceedings, is an outrageous, baseless claim, that only reflects badly on you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec - I see Jossi struck his answer to Sylviecyn, for these reasons given in the edit summary: "on second thoughts, the arbCom does not need my defense of them" - since he didn't withdraw his words for being wrong on several other levels too I continue with the edit-conflicted response I had written:)

Jossi, arbitrators:

• Re. "that there were private discussions via email in which evidence was presented that was not presented in these pages" - Sylviecyn was correct, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence#A personal attack by Jossi;
• Re. "that Jimbo Wales has any favoritism toward certain editors" - This diff is linked from the /Evidence page (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence#Jimbo Wales' comment). Also the archived discussion following on that edit by Jimbo was linked from the same /Evidence page section: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 33#break 0. In the edit, Jimbo made clear he thought Jossi "a great Wikipedian". On the other hand I was treated with straw man argumentation. No big or small compliment, just straw man argumentation. Whether justifiable or not: this is called favoritism, and it was only one click away from the /Evidence page. Sylviecyn was correct, and it was plain from the evidence presented in this case.
• Re. "(with the implication that he would want to penalize others)" - Straw man argumentation by Jossi used against Sylviecyn: Sylviecyn didn't write that, I found nowhere where it could have been implied in her post, and, for completeness: I experienced Jimbo's favoritism towards Jossi over me. Nowhere did I experience "that he would want to penalize (me or any) others". It never crossed my mind. Sylviecyn didn't imply it, it is Jossi's way to downwrite an opponent by straw man argumentation.
• Re. "that has influenced proceedings" - unclear what Jossi means: "that [he (= Jimbo)] has influenced proceedings" or "that [this (= the intended or uninteded favoritism)] has influenced proceedings"? The first was not implied by Sylviecyn, and would be a straw man argument; the second eventually is too: Sylviecyn wrote about arbitrators (maybe or maybe not) deferring to the favoritism shown by Jimbo Wales towards Jossi, that they are unable to overcome their bias in order to render a fair judgment. Sylviecyn did not say the favoritism influenced; but surmised that arbitrators maybe deferred to it (they might have equally deferred to press reports, saying that is not the same as saying that Cade Metz influenced the ArbCom outcome - just presenting a comparison to make clear how Jossi distorted Sylviecyn's words).

No, we can't work with this Jossi deforming arguments of others into straw man argumentation anywhere near to the Prem Rawat related articles. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I did strike my comment, Francis. Also rather than speak about others ("we can't work with this Jossi"), say "I can't work with this Jossi", and if you can't, the choice is always yours: you don't have to participate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you struck your comment, as you have before. And yet, when you want something removed, (like say, a disambiguation page?) you seem to have no trouble deleting that text completely. The only reason you left your struck words there was because you wanted them read. If you deny that, and state so, I'll apologize, but I don't think I will be able to believe you. Secondly, regarding Francis' comment above, it's correct, we can't work with that jossi. Maelefique ^(talk) 02:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone would have been able to read what I wrote from the history page, so your point is moot. As for your inability to work with me, I give you the same answer I gave to Francis: you don't have to. There are thousands of other articles I do not edit or comment on that you can work on. From my part, I am willing to work with anyone that wants to improve this or any other article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't be coy jossi, if having the words stuck out is exactly the same as deleting them, then do you mind if I just delete them for you? They will still be available for everyone on the history page, so that's not a problem is it? Furthermore, please read what I write if you intend to respond to it. I did not say I could not work with you, I said I could not work with that jossi. That would be the one that we are dealing with here, not the one that is generally fine throughout many other articles that you work on that have nothing to do with Prem Rawat. Maelefique ^(talk) 20:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

you don't have to is precisely the attitude from Jossi that gives rise to the concerns about Smallpond/WP:OWN. Jossi's claim to be "willing to work with anyone that wants to improve this or any other article" is clearly not experienced by other editors who do not share Jossi's editing paradigm. Jossi is once again declaring his intention to stick to the Rawat articles like glue and anyone who can not get on with him can/should go elsewhere. This point surely requires the comment of arbitrators. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to either. Wikipedia is not a battleground. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you bring it up, Jossi, you don't have to edit the Prem Rawat pages, either. You have edited widely on thousands of pages to universal acclaim. If you aren't pushing POV or following your admittedly conflicted interest, why do you insist on obsessively editing/talking the only 5 articles that you have ever been criticized for? Wikipedia does not need any individual to edit or admin any particular page, whether it's me or you or Jimmy Wales. There are always others perfectly qualified to step in. It seems to me that many of the problem situations arise when editors don't realize that. Msalt (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Folks, I recommend pausing and reconsidering all these harsh words. I'm not expert on the process here, but as near as I can tell any point needs 7 votes to pass, and none have that yet. Furthermore Will Beback just began providing evidence. Most importantly, "yelling at the referee" has never worked in recorded history that I know of -- it didn't work for Momento on his/her blocks, and I doubt it will help you here. It might influence the arbitrators who haven't voted yet, though, and probably not in a positive way.

I too find it odd that the weakness of the evidence in a previous COI proceeding for Jossi is discussed at length, but not the evidence provided in this case, but who knows? Maybe it has been discussed in private, maybe it is still being discussed, maybe new proposals are being developed to be voted on based on it, or not. No way to tell, and nobody likes a complainer.

There's still time to make Workshop proposals, which is the best way to influence this discussion. I'm working on some right now. Recommend folks put there energy there, too. Note that a number of these proposals are not being supported, so always room for more. Msalt (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, my proposals are up (a bit rushed, and I'm not entirely sure what the form is supposed to be, but time does appear to be a bit short.) I challenge anyone complaining here to put there energy into making or updating YOUR proposals, instead. Msalt (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't get this at all. How can the arbcom be making their proposed decisions while people are still providing evidence? Sylviecyn (talk) 10:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a fluid process. We'll always consider new evidence and alter our proposed decision if that is warranted. Similarly, early drafts of the proposed decision can give the participants an idea of the areas where more evidence might be needed. --bainer (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's not too late I will post additional evidence about this case, touching on the behavior of some editors regarding fresh input. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apparent contradictions in application of principles to remedies.

Personal involvement: I had never heard of Prem Rawat before February this year and have no interest in Gurus. My interest is in assuring a neutral article. I have closely monitored the entire debate since February, and have made a few comments in the article’s talk page. I concur with the methodology of abstracting into high level principles, then applying as specific remedies. However, I believe that errors in reasoning and contradictions have occurred in this case in respect of applying the proposed principles to the proposed remedies. As per the terms of reference I will not consider specific content.

The crux of my point is that the proposed principles and remedies further strengthen the focus of the talk page in determining content, however, the proposed statements of fact and proposed remedies narrowly focus on actual edits in the article page, without consideration to the reality of the talk page being the actual control point of the decision making process.

Consider the proposed principle: Conflict of Interest:

“An editor who has a conflict of interest with respect to an article is generally discouraged from editing that article, but encouraged to otherwise contribute to the editorial process, for example by contributing to talk page discussions.”

This principle clearly promotes and emphasises the importance of the talk page in the editing process. The evidence presented by those on both sides of the dispute as well as those considered neutral demonstrates a community view by involved parties that discussion is required on the talk page before any attempt to significantly alter content. Attempts to significantly edit the content page without attempting consensus at the talk page have been considered grounds for reverting .

As such, the talk page has in fact become the locus of control of the editing process. Successful direct editing of the content page without editorial input at the talk page has become either a sub-editorial role, constrained to formatting, grammar and spelling, or a publishing role, constrained to implementing changes debated on the discussion page. I would argue that as such, it has become irrelevant who actually performs the edit to perform a significant change.

However, even though the proposed principles further promote the actual decision making process to occur on the talk page, the statements of fact of and proposed remedies focus narrowly on the article page, and not the talk page.

Consider the Statement of Fact: Jossi: (note: this is used purely as an example of scope; it is not specifically about Jossi)

“The evidence presented at this time has not disclosed a history of problematic editing, in terms of basic content policy, by Jossi.”

This refers only to the actual implementation of changes on the article page, and does not consider the actual decision making process on the discussion page."

Consider the Proposed Remedy: Jossi Advised (I note that a majority Oppose)

“... is strongly advised to maintain his commitment not to edit any articles related to the Prem Rawat movement, but is encouraged to otherwise contribute to the editorial process, for example by contributing to talk page discussions.”

Again, this emphasises the role of the talk page as the locus of the editorial decision making process.

Consider the proposed Remedy: Editors reminded

“Editors on Prem Rawat and related articles and pages who have or may be perceived as having a conflict of interest with respect to these articles are reminded to review and to comply, or to continue to comply, with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on NPOV and conflicts of interest.”

This remedy appears to address some of these concerns by including the phrase “and related articles and pages”. However, the scope of this proposed remedy has not been applied in this case, as only actual edits and not the effective control of edits from the talk page has been considered.

In summary, my interpretation of the draft Proposed Decision in its current state is that it seeks to judge behavior purely on the narrow criterion of actual edits in the article page, and yet seeks to further strengthen the role of the talk page as the editorial control point, without considering prior contentious behavior in the talk page. I urge the arbitrators to consider whether the effective control of the article edits in fact occurs at the talk page and not the article page, and as such consider the previous behavior of participants within the talk page.82.44.221.140 (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I would assume, that you are a relatively new editor, so I would hope you would forgive me if I offer you some pointers that may be useful. You may want to orient yourself in regard to WP:CONSENSUS (a policy), WP:DISCUSSION (an editing guideline) , WP:CIVILITY (a policy) and WP:FIVE (a nice summary of what Wikipedia is and how it works). Granted, talk page discussions can be mis-used to disrupt the editing process, but the proposed article probation would cover all aspects related to editors involvement, including discussions and debates in talk pages. (See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat/Proposed_decision#Article_probation ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the RfC archiving incident, for which Jossi has already been admonished by the community (at an ANI discussion if memory serves me correctly), there's been no evidence led about inappropriate behaviour on talk pages, aside from some material about a general background of incivility. There have been eleven thousand edits to Talk:Prem Rawat alone, across thirty archives, and it's beyond my capacity to review them all. --bainer (talk) 02:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I hesitated to refer to specific evidence at risk of demonstrating perception of bias, however I do so given the comment above from bainer. I suggest reviewing the succinct evidence provided in the evidence page, under "One Talk Page Thrash". Ignoring content and focusing on behavior, we see a example where the argument for a single inclusion has been has rejected by use of more than 5 different BLP policies in sequential order. I concur with Msalt's interpretation that this is an attempt to censor content via the talk page by using BLP policies as a means to an end instead of an end in themselves. You may reasonably disagree, but please consider the talk page evidence provided. 82.44.221.140 (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you asked, I will risk repeating my evidence page with these highlights, all about Jossi's behavior on talk pages. The short story is, forget about COI for the moment and look at blatant POV pushing:

1) Jossi violates the policy of assuming good faith (with those not sharing his POV), and admits as much (17 diffs) [7]

2) Jossi threatens editors who have a different POV with sanctions (and delivers). Meanwhile he not only condones editors who share his POV behaving the same or worse, he actively defends them in Administrator Noticeboard proceedings and convinces other admins to remove blocks. (36 diffs) [8] As recently as two days ago he issued a veiled threat -- advice on how I can "stay unharmed" -- after I suggested WP:BOLD edits might work better than the point by point changes he advocates. [9]

3) Jossi's double standards on edit-warring [10], 1RR violations [11], and "multiple edits in rapid succession" [12], all supporting his POV. (22 diffs)

4) Jossi sets up a /Scholars subpage, purporting that it's a fair repository of verifiable sources, when again it serves his POV purpose [13]. (25 diffs) Even Jayen466, generally sympathetic to Jossi, was struck by this evidence. [14]

5) Jossi exhibits ownership of Prem Rawat pages, through constant monitoring and Talk page edits, complaining about new editors, and challenging new editors as sockpuppets without any evidence, [15] (16 diffs), as well as (mentioned above) seeking sanctions against those who oppose his POV. On this very page, he keeps suggesting that editors who don't like his behavior or POV leave,[16][17] which clearly seems to be his goal, and he is trying to get the ArbCom to limit the ability of those who oppose his POV to speak on Talk pages [18] [19]. (Note that I do not support uncivil discussion, in theory or in my own practice, and in fact have proposed a stronger sanction against PatW for lack of civility than even Jossi. This isn't about civility.)

That's just Jossi. As for Momento et. al., I've already been criticized by Jossi for giving too much evidence, but I could easily give you 50-100 diffs if you like. There's a lot in this section of my evidence page already: [20] Msalt (talk) 06:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Football and RC Church Comparison Inappropriate

Sam Blacketer's comparison of Rawat supporters with West Ham football supporters is simply wrong. As Sam has used West Ham as an example I assume he is familiar with the culture of English football. I have been a supporter of Leeds United football club since I was a child growing up in Leeds. I was a season ticket holder for the last four years before my move to Latvia. I was also a believer in Prem Rawat for over 25 years. There is a big difference. Whereas a supporter of a football team may criticise individual players, the manager, the chairman or the owners (I have done all of these things many times), a follower of Prem Rawat may criticise Rawat's organisations but will never criticise Prem Rawat. I run an internet forum for discussion of Prem Rawat and although it is mostly former followers who contribute, current followers are also welcome as long as they honestly engage in discussion and don't preach. One thing I have asked current followers many times is what are the three things that they don't like about Rawat. Not one, in all the years of such discussions, has ever been able to come up with even a minor criticism of him. If I were to ask the West ham supporter I am sure he could come up with many criticisms of how Curbishley is managing the team, or how players aren't performing, or how the owners won't provide enough money for new players. Yet in spite of the vast money raised for spreading Rawat's message, and the trickle of new students, no follower will ever criticise Rawat's propagation efforts.

Again, the RC church comparison is inappropriate. When one of Rawat's long-time Indian followers, Mahatma Jagdeo, was accused of child molestation, not one person within the organisation spoke out in support of his victims, or in support of bringing Jagdeo to justice. Although Elan Vital claimed that a civil suit had been issued against Jagdeo in India, no evidence of such a suit, and no follow up information, was produced. Instead, Elan Vital criticised the victims.

In the Roman Catholic Church the devotion of church members is to a belief, not to individual bishops or priests, so it is possible for Roman Catholics to criticise such people and still remain Catholics. A Roman Catholic cannot criticise the belief and remain a Catholic. For a football supporter the devotion is to a concept, "Leeds United", and players, managers, chairmen and owners can come and go, but the loyalty to the concept remains. A Leeds United supporter cannot criticise the concept, "Leeds United" and remain a supporter. For a follower of Prem Rawat devotion is to Prem Rawat, and a follower cannot criticise Prem Rawat and remain a follower. My discussion forum and its forerunners have hundreds of testimonies of followers of Prem Rawat who allowed themselves to criticise him, and could no longer remain followers.

I sincerely hope that Sam and other arbitrators read this and recognises that the comparison is mistaken. Being a follower of Prem Rawat means not being able to criticise him. It would be a mistake to allow Jossi to continue to police the Rawat articles talk pages as a Wikipedia admin.--John Brauns (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I will certainly not engage in an discussion on the subject John Brauns is attempting to bring up (which needless to say is a mishmash of personal opinion, misleading information, and a highly biased portrayal of facts) for obvious reasons: these opinions have nothing to do with this case. But I would say this: I would hope that ArbCom can provide a safe and sane editing environment through article probation and other restrictions, so that such attempts to continue using WP as a soapbox when this case is closed will be mercilessly challenged and acted upon. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Another misrepresentation, is that even if a follower cannot criticise Prem Rawat and remain a follower, as John Brauns claims, that does not mean that one cannot describe the criticism made by others, as I have done (see evidence presented by Vassyana). It seems that John is incapable to understand the simple framework of NPOV, and how to achieve it, or to demonstrate by diffs that he has attempted to do so. By the look of it, one can argue that there are some people that are unable or unwilling to edit in a way in which their POV is put aside, and they should seriously re-consider their participation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It is never easy to know for sure whether one has successfully put one's personal POV or COI to one side. Diffs are not the only measure of this and talk page activity and sheer weight of input is also material. There is a theoretical argument that a perfect admin could act without regard to their COI or personal strong POV. But, acting in good faith, why put oneself or Wikipedia in such a position? Better and more efficient to use admins in areas where they are at their most neutral (and are seen to be that way) rather than organiseit so that frequent calls for yet more referees to referee the referee are inevitable ? Windscale (talk) 13:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, please do not angage in personal attacks here. My post was a direct response to Sam's comparison of Rawat's supporters with football supporters or Catholics, and I am surprised you view it as soapboxing. I agree that is is possible for a follower to include criticism of Rawat in the article, but given a follower's reluctance to personally criticise Rawat, surely you can see that would be difficult. I also agree with your last sentence which is precisely the allegation that has been repeatedly made against you, Momento and Rumiton. --John Brauns (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What John said is the honest truth. Children were sexually abused in Rawat's NRM. No one said Rawat was the doer, Jossi, but the fact is it happened. It's the 21st Century, Jossi. Society doesn't bury these kinds of things under the rug anymore, especially since the Catholic church sex abuse scandal broke several years ago. John didn't misrepresent one fact of the matter and his post about that situation was quite level-headed and fair. Stop trying make those child abuse victims into liars just so your Master can come out looking squeaky clean. You just proved John's point about your inability to see anything negative or critical about Prem Rawat's NRM without your trying to obfuscate it by attacking the messenger or by shameless PR spin. Sylviecyn (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"No one said Rawat was the doer..." I think you said it all there. This is an article on Prem Rawat. As I understand it, the situation was resolved as well as such situations ever can be, by mediation and counselling sponsored by EV. Your allegation that anyone is trying to "make those child abuse victims into liars" is offensive in the extreme. Rumiton (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Rumiton, one of the concerned articles is a biography. But this case also involves related topics, like articles about Rawat's organizations, Rawat's teachings, books concerning Rawat, etc. I don't know if the child abuse allegations against a senior member of the movement are substantiated in a reliable source, but if they are then they probably belong in one of the articles on the movement. Victims of molestation in Catholic organizations were also counseled but we still mention the issue. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That issue was discussed and explored recently, and there are not such sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Lack of a reliable source is a good reason to omit an assertion. The claim that the victims received counseling would not have been a legitimate reason to omit it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention to imply that the abuse issue should be included in any Wikipedia article, and in fact I argued back in 2004 that it should not be included (see diff - [[21]]). I am sorry mentioning the issue removed focus from the rest of my argument. --John Brauns (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is enough. Clearly, there are people that will use any opportunity and fora to advocate their points of view, their theories, air their grievances, and express their feelings, only that Wikipedia is not one of those places. Maybe some leeway was given in the arbom proceedings and these type of comments allowed in that context, but I hope that the remedies and restrictions will put a stop to all that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this material isn't welcome here at all. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Jpgordon, I appreciate that this discussion has strayed from the substance of Sam's comments and my response, but could I ask you if it's my response that was unwelcome or the subsequent discussion? And if it's my response could you explain to me why? --John Brauns (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

We deliberately didn't get into the content of the various allegations that have been thrown around, and we're not going to. Take it elsewhere, preferably off Wikipedia; we're not making anyone's opinions about Prem Rawat or his followers or his detractors part of this case. Wikipedia is not a platform for debate; Wikipedia is not a battlefield; Wikipedia is not a place to achieve social, moral, political, or religious justice. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I echo that sentiment? It isn't the function of the arbitration committee, in this case, to begin by deciding which of the accusations against the Prem Rawat movement it believes are valid. I've given further explanation above in response to PatW concerning the application of conflict of interest to this case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sam, it wasn't my intention to highlight the abuse issue in my comment, and I am disappointed that all the focus in this discussion has been on that. It was just that you compared Rawat's movement with the RC church. I have now struck through that paragraph, and would appreciate your comments on the substantive part of my comment. --John Brauns (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

User:John Brauns has struck through the paragraph dealing with the issue of sexual abuse in the Rawat movement, however while I understand the need to remove any confusion regarding ‘content’ issues, it seems to me that the fact of the abuse is itself necessary to adequately address User:Sam Blacketer and User:jpgordon’s contentions on the proposal page. User:Sam Blacketer and User:jpgordon have produced a contention that seems to run:

1. Matters of COI can be understood in terms of ‘passionately held affiliation’.

2. Affiliation maybe religious, it may also be founded upon other ‘passions’.

3. The fact of affiliation is likely to make the affiliate more critical of failings in the affilate entity than is found in a non affiliated person – an example of which is evident in Roman Catholic sex abuse cases – therefore COI from ‘passionately held affiliation’ does not of itself lead to impaired editing.

The point of this contention then is surely that there are entities (footbal clubs, religions etc) to which editors maybe affiliated, and, to the extent that the affiliates of such entities display a capacity for criticism of the failures of the entity, then in a general sense the particular ‘passionately held affiliation’ does not of itself lead to impaired editing.

The relevance of the issue of sexual abuse in the Rawat movement, and the subsequent lack of affilate criticism then, is that it provides a direct contradiction to the contention of User:Sam Blacketer and User:jpgordon and must therefore be relevant to the question of the COI of Rawat’s ‘students’ as editors of the Rawat articles. In this context the Rawat movement does not fit with the football club/religion model as contended and/or Rawat’s students do not fit with the description of ‘affiliates as critics’, as contended.

Of course the fact that Rawat and his students/followers don’t fit the contended model does not mean that a different assessment of COI necessarily applies BUT it does seem that the Arbitrators are in need of a more comprehensive assessment of how ‘non critical passionate affiliations’ are to be understood in terms of WP:COI.

--Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think enough is enough. There is no reason to continue allowing people here using this as an opportunity to make spurious claims of "sexual abuse in the Rawat movement", despite advice given by jpgordon Sam Blacketer about this not being a venue to make such claims. It is evident by the postings of these people that unless clearly restricted not do so, and with substantial consequences if they do, they will continue abusing their editing privileges and continue advocating their views in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

To ArbCom members - you may or may not welcome Jossi's attempts to police this page, such as his post above, but it is an example of how he tries to be a policeman on every page on his watchlist. If I misbehave it would be such a refreshing change to have someone else tell me. Perhaps, just for the period of this arbitration, you could pleeeease ask Jossi to stop being a policeman here as so many editors have already expressed how annoying his constant presence is. --John Brauns (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent)User:Jossi >There is no reason to continue allowing people here using this as an opportunity to make spurious claims of "sexual abuse in the Rawat movement<

A contention has been made that the Rawat movement ‘fits’ a particular model, a proposed characteristic of the model is that in the face of sexual abuse ‘passionate affiliates’ are likely critics of the affilated entity. How can it then be inappropriate to point out that the Rawat movement precisely does not fit the contended model in those terms ? Jagdeo Upadhaya’s crimes have been widely acknowledged, even within the Rawat movement, as having ‘occurred’, how is what I have written making spurious claims ?

Jossi, is it your contention that:

a) Jagdeo Upadhaya was not a ‘Mahatma’, nor later an ‘initiator’ and did not hold a prominent organisational role in the Rawat movement in the 1970s and 1980s ?

b) That the Rawat movement allowed Jagdeo Upadhaya unsupervised access to the children of followers and to adolescent followers ?

c) That Jagdeo Upadhaya did not use the access to children provided to him by the Rawat movement, to abuse those children and adolescent followers ?

d) That it was not when ‘former followers’ raised the alarm, that the Rawat movement took steps to isolate Jagdeo Upadhaya from access to vulnerable followers ?

e) That members of the Rawat movement have been active in public criticism of the failures that allowed Jagdeo Upadhaya the freedom to abuse ?

In the light of Jossi’s satement that the claims of abuse are spurious, I offer the following URL’s as evidence that my contention about the Rawat movement is correct. The material is not ‘encyclopaedic’ and I’m not offering it as a ‘content issue’, however it is substantive enough to bring into question the relevance of the football club/religion model as contended by User:Sam Blacketer and User:jpgordon.

[22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] --Nik Wright2 (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative organisational model

Placing the Rawat movement in a wider ‘Wikipedia’ context is clearly desirable, as User:Sam Blacketer suggests it does not have wholly unique characteristics. As neither football club nor established religion match the ‘non critical member’ characteristic of the Rawat movement some alternative comparator is required. Perhaps the closest organisational form is that of a Private Corporation i.e. not a Public Company, in which the employees (both volunteer and paid) are the holders of the full equity, which is held only in the form of non transferable shares. In such a case the value of the holding for each individual is directly dependent on the perception of the Corporation as being run with the greatest probity, with any public criticism harming the standing of the Corporation and therefore no ‘insider’ would benefit from making or supporting public criticism. A further comparison, in fact one that is, in the UK at least, often created as a Corporation as just described, is a Private Members Club. In this second case the pressure for no public criticism is often made greater by the existence of written or unwritten rules that mean that to make a public criticism is to bring the Club into disrepute, with the consequent penalty of loss of membership for any critic. WP:COI clearly takes on a different complexion when applied to editors who are members of Private Clubs whose membership may be dependent on not revealing the internal workings of the Club. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expanding the scope of article probation

I would suggest to the ArbCom, given the persistence of some editors as demonstrated by their own comments above, to consider expanding the scope of the article probation, to curtail the use of talk page discussions for advocating personal viewpoints related to the subject, and to curtail the mis-use talk pages for furthering outside conflicts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the talk pages have been a forum for bad behavior by parties on all sides of this case. Together with Jossi I urge the ArbCom to expand the scope of probation to include talk pages. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't it already? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The proposal reads: Prem Rawat and related articles, including their talk pages, are subject to article probation. Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks and incivilty (sic). It could be expanded with specific wording about mis-using talk pages to advocate for certain viewpoints, or to use talk-pages persistently as a discussion forum for personal opinions about the subject from either side of the dispute. Not absolutely necessary, but it may help, given the behaviors demonstrated by some contributors to these very pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea, and urge that it also include working about mis-using talk pages by obstructing change, misleading good-faith editors, and arguing along the lines of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Msalt (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jossi's declaration of intent

An editor recently wrote that Jossi said he may return to editing the Prem Rawat articles. Last month, on March 11, Jossi made an edit to his "Declaration of intent" striking out "for now" from his statement that he would refrain from editing Prem Rawat-related pages.[28] I have not seen anything he's written that indicates he's changed his mind. If he rescinds his statement then it would change the dynamic of the editing process, and would make the COI concerns an issue again. Perhaps Jossi can clarify here whether he has said he will return to editing these article or if his recusal will be maintained so long as he has a COI. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Let the case run its course, Will. I am sure you and I (and hopefully others as well) will be capable to abide by and respect whatever restrictions and recommendations the ArbCom brings forth. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This question is part of the case. You've made no secret of your "declaration of intent", and the ArbCom refers to it in their proposed decision. If you have already made a statement saying you intend to start editing the articles again then it would change the case. Editors who haven't added evidence about your editing, because it was past behavior and irrelevent to the future if you weren't going to edit again, may reconsider. So let me ask you two simple, yes/no questions: Have you stated that you may return to editing these articles? If the ArbCom does not limit you, do you still intend to honor your declaration of intent? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Editors provided evidence of my editing, Will. As I said, lets wait until the case closes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, let me share something with you: A self-impossed restriction on editing, which I have maintained partially during the last year, and fully since February, has taught me a few things that may be helpful to you as well. When your focus is not on editing but on seeking consensus for your proposed edits a few interesting things happen:

• You are forced to be more accurate in the framing of the disputes
• You have to learn to ask questions from others and help others clarify their objections
• Your arguments have to be more eloquent and consistent, and your logic, unimpeachable
• Your research improves dramatically as to augment the possibility that your edits will be considered. Not enough to do a Google search, you need to hit the library
• It teaches you patience. Editing directly gives an immediate satisfaction, which may be short-lived in content disputes. On the other hand, an edit that remains due to consensus, even if it is more difficult and time-consuming, gives one a more lasting satisfaction and helps the article to become more stable

Maybe you should try this for a while as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm hoping to see these results. Maybe it takes more than two months for these benefits to become manifest. As for myself, you'll find that I didn't edit the articles for over two years, which led to a feeling of detachment from the turmoil surrounding them. I'd be willing to join you in a commitment to not edit them for another two years. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Your choice, Will. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Contrast Will's involvement with the articles in question with Jossi's. If it wasn't for Will's active involvement, those articles wouldn't have had a chance at any measure of neutrality, because of active resistance from other editors including Jossi. So, I'll state for the record here that Will's offer is being made in very good faith. Please take note how Jossi has responded, especially with how he responded to Will's two yes or no questions above. Has Jossi met Will halfway? If not, why not? Cla68 (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Because this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not one that one cannot, providing that contributions are done in a manner that is constructive. Will, and any other editor that wants to work alongside other editors to improve any article in Wikipedia is, and should, be most welcome. If Will does not want to edit these articles, he can. If he wants to edit, he can too. There is a misguided opinion at play here that assumes that not editing (even if you have the ability, the knowledge of the subject, and the correct attitude toward consensus), is a good thing. I beg to differ. This purported quid pro quo, of "I will not edit if you don't'" is antithetical to the aims of this project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

A better request would have been: "I'd be willing to join you in a commitment to edit these articles and ensure that we end up with an article that we can be proud of, with minimal disruption and in a collegial atmosphere ". Now that is more aligned with the aims of this project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, why don't we get specific here. Are you willing to agree not to quickly archive discussion on the Rawat talk page just because the discussion centers on dubious aspects of Rawat's history and reputation? Are you willing not to try to argue that articles from major newspapers like the Los Angeles Times or New York Times are improper sources because they report on less-than-positive aspects of the Rawat organization? Are you willing to stop trying to keep pictures of Rawat's house out of the article for whatever reason? I don't think Will has tried to do any of this, so, I think that the NPOV article that Will is trying to help present is something that we can be proud of, in contrast to the whitewashed article that some other editors are trying to push. Cla68 (talk) 05:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Answers to your questions: (a) I have already committed not to use {{hat}} to close discussions that are off-topic. The proposed article probation will surely assist in stopping the abuses of talk-page that prompted me to archive these, from recurring; (b) I will argue about suitability of any source, as per our content policies (e.g. the combination of NPOV, V, NOR and BLP). As I have expressed several times in policy/guideline discussions, there is no such a thing as a blanket statement about what, how and where to use any specific source. Good editorial judgment is always needed; (c) If there is a free photo of this house, and if such photo is deemed useful to illustrate specific aspects of this man's life, editors may decide to include it; (e) Will's involvement is welcome, and that was my point above: suggesting a quid pro quo to remove himself from editing, would certainly not be the right thing.

Finally, please see an example of a very recent collaborative effort, as requested from me by fellow editors: Discussion: Talk:Divine_Light_Mission#Reception_draft; Draft: Talk:Divine_Light_Mission/Reception_draft as requested. So yes, it is possible to improve articles when the environment is conducive to do so, and take advantage of editors' knowledge on a subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

So that article has been written almost entirely by two current followers of Pro Rawat: Jossi and Ruminton. And the discussion page has the comments of maybe 3 neutral editors who know comparatively little about the movement. Conspicuously uninvited to the party are others like myself who know a lot about the subject but who's contributions you maybe don't want. Why would that be? Are we to suppose that Jayen, MSalt and Will have all read those books you picked out to support your POV? Or are you going to suggest that the presence of people who know a lot about DLM (and who even have those books to hand) but are now critical are all too uncivilised to join in without representing inevitable 'disruption'? Perhaps that's exactly what this draft article needs - some other informed, intelligent views that would balance and even challenge yours. I do not believe that current members of a religion make more neutral judgements about their religion than former members. That is just nonsense. Sometimes people who leave NRM's simply grow out of them led by a combination of experience, intelligence, morality and plain old reality checking. Their views are invaluable to a balanced discussion let alone the compilation of a balanced article. (Given the marked presence of representatives of the NRM) Does anyone here really believe that without the kind of alternate POV provided by people like myself, Sylviecyn, Nick, John Brauns , Mike Finch etc. that you can have a better, more balanced article? PatW (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There are active discussions going on at Divine Light Mission, Elan Vital (organization), Hans Ji Maharaj and probably other pages related to Prem Rawat. (The list of articles subject to probation is a good guide to the full range.) I encourage all editors interested in these topics to visit all of them, and put them on their watch list if they like.

Your point about sources is a good one. I do think there has been some gaming around difficult-to-find sources. I hope to expand the Prem Rawat talk page /Scholars subpage to fulfill the intention Jossi originally indicated, of having a readily available common source of high quality source material for all editors to work with, and I would hope that everyone involved in editing here can agree on that strategy regardless of their POV. The same sources should be useful for Msalt (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I did my research and provided these scholarly sources as well as others here Talk:Divine_Light_Mission#Ashrams, and here Talk:Divine_Light_Mission#Additional_sources, for editors' consideration,. If you have additional sources, and are able to engage civilly, by all means bring these forth. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You did it again Pat. By saying, "Sometimes people who leave NRM's simply grow out of them led by a combination of experience, intelligence, morality and plain old reality checking" you are saying that people who remain in them are stunted in growth, naive, stupid, immoral and out of touch with reality. No one can cooperate with you while you carry on like that, and in my opinion Jossi is quite wrong to suggest otherwise. Rumiton (talk) 12:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No I am not suggesting remaining members of NRM's are all those things at all. Of my school friends (15-20) who got involved circa 1974, many have expressed that they felt this way. I would estimate 90% of the people who received Knowledge in the seventies grew out of it, moved on for similar reasons - most move on so completely they don't bother to criticise or look back. Certainly 90% of my friends did. Some indeed judge remaining followers harshly as you say too - if you ask them that is. If you read Sophie Collier's book 'Soul Rush' for example - those were pretty much the reasons she expressed for leaving DLM. She used those words 'growing up' 'naive'etc. Same goes for many people from many NRMs and cults. What else do you suppose leads people to leave NRM's and cults that they got into as kids? Also I would point out that the good reasons for leaving NRM's are not welcomed here. The notion that Jossi is fond of promoting, is that people who leave and report why, are 'bad' apostates or members of hate groups. A frequent rebuff of cult followers, even included by Isabella in her evidence here. Also there is a grey area. As Jossi knows I still practice meditation but I no longer attribute it to 'Guru Maharaji's Grace' etc and I find aspects of Rawat and his mission disingenuous. So I don't share your faith in him any more. Seen too much..can't balance the picture. Simple. Losing faith is always a process of reality checking. If you see it differently that's fine. You yourself said to me that 'exe's words are like snakes trying to attack something precious of yours beyond words' and so your feelings are clear. I don't say that I can't co-operate with you though do I? PatW (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, what I said was "...the words (to describe a deep personal experience) don't exist. In fact words turn and bite you if you try (to describe it.) When exes say: "We want debate!" what they want is words. Their words are like snakes to me, and the experience I treasure is a baby. They are pretty much saying: If your baby is so great, let's see how it goes against our snakes! No contest, you can't defend what you can't describe." Rumiton (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at additional evidence how user:Jossi can successfully abuse his powers and twist people's arms while remaining within his "declaration of intent": Evidence by unsuspecting passer-by user:Mukadderat who got himself into trouble for nothing . Mukadderat (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mukadderat. Welcome to the growing club of 'rather tolerant' people who, since crossing paths with Jossi and his pals, suddenly find themselves 'often uncivil' or 'disruptive' to members of a 'Hate Group' or 'snake wielding baby killers'. It's quite a novel experience and quite surreal. Reminds me of 'Alice in Wonderland' where everything is topsy turvy! At least it's only a dream. Not real at all.PatW (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, I have never been a fanatic of computer games, so I have clean separation of dream and real life and therefore I have never engaged in stubborn political fights in wikipedia (although in my early days in wikipedia I admit I was reacted sometimes too acutely). If my statement of facts will be ignored by Arbcom, I will not jump from the bridge, but feel very sad for the community who would chose to tolerate such a bully. Mukadderat (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I was not the only person that alerted you to the fact that introducing text to the lead, and reverting several times to your preferred version in the course of two days was not appropriate.[29], [30], [31], [32] If you are an "unsuspecting passer-by", and your edits are challenged, you may want to check why. The talk page of that article as only one header at the top that clearly explains the fact that the article is under probation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Calling your actions to be purposefully "melodramatic" and stating that you have no interest in the subject of the article,[33] seems to be compatible with this all brouhaha. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you were not the only person, but you are the only person whose behavior I find incompatible with status of admin. I have had quite normal dialog with other people. No one else aggressively threatened me using demeaning language. Yes my actions are purposefully melodramatic. I was and still am appalled with your behavior and have no reason to hide my displeasure. Yes, I have no interest in the particular topic whatsoever; yes, I was an occasional passer-by doing minor content interconnection. Yes, your language continues to be insulting and obviously I will never get an apology from you for your unduly aggressive behavior not supported by wikipedia policies, since obviously you feel very right. Mukadderat (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not native English speaker and I may not understand subtle hints or even understand them as insults. Please explain your intentions of using pipe to WP:POINT under the word "brouhaha" (or vice versa). Mukadderat (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That may explain some of this ... I am not a native English speaker either: Sometimes things get lost in translation. 'Brouhaha' is used to describe "an uproar being an utterance of discontent" and "a clamor arising for no good reason", hence my piping to WP:POINT. To be "dinged" (which means ring a sound), is slang for "being hit." So, if this any consolation, I apologize for making comments that may have been misunderstood ... I have to accept that WP is a global community and avoid using slang in my interactions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no doubt that will be more attentive to your language. However IMO a deeper problem is somewhere else. I gradually see that you are long established admin hardened in battles over policies. While it is a truism, but power corrupts. Somewhere during your struggles you have lost a good deal of compassion and understanding. I don't know whether your guru teaches you to be humble, but I would suggest you to think more about how your behavior looks from outside. It is good to have strong opinions, but not all methods to promote them are good. Mukadderat (talk) 03:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, above you imply that Mukadderat is engaging in WP:POINT precisely because s/he has no interest in the subject. This makes no sense -- by definition, someone with no interest has no point to make. But more importantly, you seem to be saying that there is something wrong with someone having no interest in the subject editing this page. On the contrary, I (and at least some of the ArbCom) feel that this is exactly what these pages need.

I realize that the one thing that unites the warring camps on these pages, the current and ex-followers of Rawat, is the feeling that he is of utmost importance (you just disagree whether good or bad.  :) But many of us, and I include myself, really aren't that fascinated by him, or at least don't assign him crucial importance. We edit these pages to keep them in perspective and try to move them beyond the good vs. bad battles. Please take care to not discourage those of us who are more neutral from these pages. I felt highly scrutinized when I first came here (and still do -- Momento frequently accuses me of an anti-Rawat vendetta) precisely because I DON'T have a conflict of interest in favor or against Rawat. That is wrong, and against a lot of what Wikipedia is about, in my humble opinion. Msalt (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Msalt, although I agree with you 100% that these articles require more neutral editors, may I correct you and say that Rawat is no longer very important at all in my life, let alone "of the utmost importance", and given that I am more active than most former followers in ensuring the truth about him is made available, he must be even less important to other former followers. Compare the number of edits of current and former followers to the Rawat articles to get an idea of how much less important Rawat is to former followers compared to current followers. --John Brauns (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself. What is important to me isn't Prem Rawat but the lies being perpetrated here. As I said, I would love to not be here at all, but I came here out of pure conscientious objection to the revisionist nonsense I saw. I also agree with Msalt that truly neutral people are essential here. However the problem is that if it were just disinterested or rather 'less-informed' editors , the Pro Rawat camp would run rings around them. (as they are now again). I would say that the first cause of aggression here is the Pro Rawat camp for whom it is really important to own the article. The ex- followers arrival simply brought very intense focussed resistance to their edits because we knew what actually happened. That was effective as a delaying tactic, but generated too much heat. New editors don't know the facts so they have to start at square one, challenging the Pro Rawat camp on every little thing and often missing the point. Furthermore they depend on Pro RAwat editors like Jossi (who of course has all the info at his fingertips) to show them the reference books. Not a good situation at all. It's quite sad to watch same old arguments from years ago being re-hashed with the same misleading answers being given by followers on the Talk Page. Ruminton I find particularly disturbing since his approach is to sound all 'neutral and fair' and easy going when, of all people, I have observed him state things that were simply flat untrue like: Rawat never advocated a renunciate order when of course he did. I mean if you were a neutral editor with no experience of these things you'd be tempted to believe him since he sounds so friendly. Especially after he'd flattered you about how fair and welcome you were etc. He only shows his teeth to ex-followers whom he really does hate en masse. As he says: Their words are like snakes and what chance does his baby (his beliefs about Rawat) have against their snakes? So what chance is there for 'good faith' with these kinds of hardened and irrational convictions under the surface? I spoke with a scholar of religion yesterday, he said: 'There is no argument with religious people - You cannot argue with them as religious beliefs are beyond argument' It's so true. PatW (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note to the ArbCom

I've been compiling more evidence, but apparently this case is coming to an end, so I'll stop that effort and post this as-is. Plenty of evidence has already been presented, though many individual incidents have not been reported. These are my suggestions to the ArbCom regarding the case. I'm sorry to have submitted it so late.

There has been problematic behavior by both sides in this case. These parties have been fighting since before Wikipedia began and may keep fighting after Wikipedia disappears. The parties are entrenched in their views and are using Wikipedia as their battleground. Virtually every person on both sides has a conflict of interest of some sort due to their intense involvement in the issue. Editors on both sides are mostly single-topic editors. In many respects they are similar however there are some differencs that matter for enforcement.

On the "anti-" side there's been incivility and negative personal remarks from the beginning. My general sense is that most of the editors on this side don't really "get" Wikipedia, and certainly don't get the civility requirement. Like other former-members of all-encompassing groups they appear to have chips on their shoulders and to be resentful of the influence that they feel current members have over WP. They tend to express themselves by making personal attacks, reverting edits, and other inappropriate activities.

On the "pro-" side there appears to be article ownership, tag teaming[34][35][36][37] [38] [39][40] [41][42] , and Wiki-lawyering. The editors on this side seem to communicate off-Wiki to alert each other to issues of common interest. They tell other editors that they shouldn't be editing this topic or Wikipedia, and have been quick to assume bad faith by making aggressive warnings and other legalistic actions.

The ArbCom appears likely to pass a simple Article Probation with enforcement in the ArbCom Enforcement noticeboard. I have faith that the AE participants can handle capably single-editor issues like personal attacks, revert-warring, and Wiki-lawyering. But I don't have faith that they can handle multi-editor issues like tag teaming and ownership. For that reason I request the ArbCom include an admonishment that editors avoid tag teaming or article ownership.

Three editors merit special mention.

PatW has been consistently rude and has made too many negative personal remarks. He has been told many times by many editors that his comments are inappropriate yet he never seems to understand the concept of "comment on the edit, not the editor". I suggest that the ArbCom should give this user at least a temporary block to break the practice. I am sure that this matter could be handled by the AE next time it comes up, but there's no reason to avoid the issue now.

Momento has been an inveterate POV-pusher.[43][44][45] He has wielded BLP as a free-license to revert entire edits or remove large portions even when he disagrees with only a small part.[46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59] Ample evidence has been provided about this editor's problems. I believe that this editor should be admonished by the ArbCom to be less combative and to exhibit less article ownership.

Jossi, in his effort to maintain order on the topic, has been active in policing what he perceives as transgressions of talk page etiquette. He's deleted or archived discussions that he doesn't think are appropriate, and has warned editors liberally. Since he is a "pro-" editor and the editors whose comments he deletes, archives, or warns are almost all "anti-" editors it gives the impression of uneven enforcement. When I asked Jossi to stop patrolling the talk pages in this way he agreed to stop, and he has done so. (Though he rebuffed similar requests from other editors). I ask the ArbCom to endorse his commitment to forgo policing talk pages in this topic.

Jossie has made over 6,100 article and talk page edits to this topic, accounting for at least 18% of his overall activity in those domains. Given his extensive involvement with the articles and with the subject, his degree of impartiality is remarkable. Nonetheless, there is a self-identified COI. It's hard to see any necessity for Jossi's involvement in these topics. He's indicated he enjoys not editing the topic, so forgoing editing won't be a hardship. For all of these reasons I suggest that the ArbCom formally endorse Jossi's "Declaration of intent", including the part about not editing articles in the topic. (Unofficial promises would normally be sufficient. However Jossi has recently indicated that, because the ArbCom appears unlikely to prohibit him from doing so, he may return to editing the relevant articles despite community input and his previous commitments otherwise.)

The ArbCom doesn't have any remedies that can reconcile these partisans. Wikipedia is just another battleground for them. Rather than resolution the best that we can hope for is limiting the damage to the overall encyclopedia. Achieving that goal requires active steps. I urge members of the ArbCom to consider these recommendations that are intended to prepare for better editing in the future and, if need be, to allow for better enforcement by WP:AE.

• Admonish all editors to avoid tag-teaming and article ownership.
• Ban Patw for a length of time to prevent personal attacks.
• Admonish Momento to be avoid using BLP as an all-purpose excuse for edit-warring.
• Endorse Jossi's "Declaration of intent" and his commitment to stop policing PR-related talk pages.

Respectfully submitted, ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Although your note is to the arbCom, these are my comments:

• Admonish all editors to avoid tag-teaming and article ownership.

Endorse

• Ban Patw for a length of time to prevent personal attacks.

Not needed. Probation should take care of this

• Admonish Momento to be avoid using BLP as an all-purpose excuse for edit-warring.

Ditto.

• Endorse Jossi's "Declaration of intent" and his commitment to stop policing PR-related talk pages.

I have already committed not to refactor or archive active discussions when there is improper use of talk pages. Hope that you, as an experienced editor, would take care of that when needed. As for me resuming editing or not, I believe it should remain my choice as it has been all along: If I ever edit directly these articles again, and if I ever make an edit that does not stand the scrutinity of the community, then you may have a reason to ask for this, but not before. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the above points, but would add:

• Admonish all editors to read thoroughly, understand and respect the Wikipedia requirements for biographies of living persons so they will not need to be so tiresomely reminded. Rumiton (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fresh problems

I've posted evidence of new problems on the evidence page. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence#Fresh problems. I am concerned that some editors may think that the ArbCom is giving them a pass and they are acting inappropriately as a result. I urge the ArbCom to review recent behavior and make sure that the proposed remedies are sufficient. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

~Perhaps you are just starting to understand the sort of frustration that people like me have been trying (and obviously failing according to you) to deal with for years. As you are now more impressed, Rawat followers, for some unknown reason, have to pursue a relentless agenda the outcome of which is that the article is nothing less than a whitewash of the past - a lie in fact is what I can call it. I can call it that because I was there. What is ironic is that I came here with a very genuine intention towards helping form an article that was not negative, even generous towards Rawat. Simply truthful would be ok. Let me tell you one thing. The ex-followers here are happy with the article omitting a bunch of stuff which is maybe not reliably sourced etc. What we are not ok with is our pasts being highjacked and misrepresented by anyone - follower or otherwise. What I have discovered is that it's the followers who are determined to distort the past. And that has caused enormous tensions and ill-tempers. Why? It would seem they have an agenda to make Rawat less responsible for certain things than he really was/is. From what you've said, you seem to think that this article has been a battleground between similarly zealous opposing parties. Well, I think you are wrong. As individuals we have been very restrained. There is NO group agenda contrary to popular belief. As you know our actual edits have been minimum compared to others. I have long recused from editing but do I get any 'laudation' for that? No. Only Jossi is praised for his restraint. Ex-followers have been restrained because it has been clear to us for a long time that the followers who want to own this article have far more commitment to a 'battle' than we. In fact most of the ex-followers have left this impossible task (Visa Vi Mike Finch - who long ago gave it up as a thankless task). Get this straight please. I am not opposed to Prem Rawat and I do not define my current life in terms of being an ex or anti anything. I just moved on. If you think that the article will be better off without the more impartial people who lived through the times you are attempting to describe then good luck. Just looking in on the discussions at Prem Rawat it's clear to see that all the same old tired discussions are being trawled up again - Momento: 'It was the Mahatmas fault for saying Rawat was Divine' Ruminton: 'Rawat never said that' 'Someone else: Yes, he did' No he didn't' bla bla ad nauseam. I am really not going to be involved in these same old arguments that are going nowhere. No one ever listens to me anyway. So if you succeed in your 'plan to ban' I will not be suffering the least regret. PatW (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I find it quite disturbing that Will Beback will bring up these issues as if these were disruptive. There is a debate ongoing about the use of some material in two noticeboards and the discussion has not been completed (Will's framing of the dispute about these sources is totaly off, see the discussions on these noticeboards). What is the problem with that? Regarding the Divine Light Mission article, I provided sources and wrote a draft upon editors' requests for a section in a sandbox (Talk:Divine_Light_Mission/Reception_draft. The draft contained detailed sources from seventeen scholarly sources which I researched. A few days later, an editor moved the draft to the article. What is he problem with that? I fixed some wrong ISBN numbers, and did an alphasort of the references section. What is the problem with that? Why should I be limited in making useful contributions such as fixing {{cite book}} references and mistakes? Why should I not be able to offer my expertise and knowledge of sources on the subject? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No one disputes your meticulousness. What is causing raised eyebrows is that you are a follower of Prem Rawat and work for him in some way and spend far more time here than anyone else. Weigh that with the fact that almost everyone who works for any length of time on the articles (who is not a follower) ends up feeling highly frustrated and that the article is biased and 'owned' by followers and you may have your answer. I guess people simply suspect that there is a cabal of followers led by you who can easily outwit people who are less knowledgeable about PR. You might be accurate and meticulous about the minutiae but could you still, despite that, be guilty of asserting a Pro Rawat bias? Of course.PatW (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The first problem is that you allowed one of your pro-Rawat editors to move the text, even though you knew Will was still looking at it, and had asked it not to be moved yet. The second problem is, that despite your "detailed sources from seventeen scholarly sources", your edit had many many flaws in the citations. If you had helped to give Will enough time to look the draft over, all of these mistakes would not have made it into the article to begin with. It is always welcome when an editor makes useful contributions to an article, but as we've seen, the rough draft that you whipped up needed much fixing first. It would be great if you'd offer your expertise and knowledge, but that still needs to be tempered with a little more attention to detail when it comes to your citations. We have found them to be wrong before as well, not only in format, but regarding content as well! This leads to more wasted time since we have to confirm every quote from you to avoid your cherry-picking, and sloppy cites. Again, I would urge you to re-read the guidelines at WP:CITE#Why_sources_should_be_cited, perhaps if you slowed down a little and did a more thorough job we would all benefit from your superior product. If I can help in any way with my limited time available, please let me know. For the record, you of course already know, you are not limited in making any useful contributions in any way, other than those limits you imposed on yourself, and you have offered your expertise and knowledge on thousands of contributions to the talk pages as well. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I allowed what? I just wrote a draft, to which five other editors contributed and improved after it was placed in the main article. I welcome, of course, a close scrutinity of the sources I provided, and the summary of these that I made in the original draft. I am sure that a collaborative effort in good faith can yield excellent results, and if you can help in that effort, that would be great. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It is difficult to imagine in good faith how things that you are in favour of seem to constantly slip past you unnoticed (tacitly approved?), while things that you disagree with, like this thread, get noticed and responded to almost immediately (about 20 minutes in this case). I also look forward to seeing your good faith efforts used to collaborate on these articles, that would be great to see. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What's Happening?

Just wondered how long Arbcom take over this. Are there some relevant current discussions going on somewhere that can be read? It seems to have gone remarkably quiet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PatW (talk • contribs) 18:39, April 27, 2008

I realize that the ArbCom has to regroup. However the question posed by PatW is legitimate. ArbCom cases have a history of "hurry up and wait" that can leave participants feeling rushed to offer their evidence, yet left waiting for an outcome. Here's timeline of this case:

• 16 March - RfAR posted
• 17 March - RFAR reaches threshold for acceptance.
• 31 March - Proposed decision posted
• 12 April - Last new proposal
• 14 April - Motion to close
• 20 April - Most recent vote

Two weeks after the case was opened a proposed decision was filed (despite incomplete evidence), and two weeks after that came the motion to close. It's now more than two weeks after that proposed closure.

Yesterday Jossi and I got into a spat when he accused me of asked me if I was editing to "mislead readers" and I accused him of asked if he was exhibiting ownership. In response to my accusation Jossi said this case is still open and that I may add more evidence if I wish. So here are two questions: Is this case still open for more evidence? If not, can participants do anything to help bring it to a conclusion? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this becoming a pattern? I did not say that Will is editing to "mislead readers". I asked three pertinent questions here, to which instead of responding, Will chose to assert WP:OWN against me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, you did strongly imply in that diff that Will is editing to "mislead readers". By the way, Jossi, you've been indirectly mentioned in the Register again [60] (see the last paragraph in the article). I hope the ArbCom is aware that the press is noticing that nothing is apparently being done to end the POV-pushing in the Rawat articles in spite of the strong evidence that it was, and still is, going on. Cla68 (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the press are watching.PatW (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Not "indirectly mentioned...again." They just proudly drew attention to their previous article. The allegations they made have been thoroughly refuted by the Wikipedia enquiry but that probably won't affect them at all. Stand by for more of the same. Rumiton (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Cade Metz is not "the press", but a journalist with a well-known Wikipedia-bashing pedigree. I find it quite disturbing that some people here find that kind of yellow journalism (an opinion, which by the way, I made known well before his article was published: See: diff and diff) is important, applicable, or even relevant. It is not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That's just your opinion of course. If everyone in Wikipedia dismissed their critics so superciliously I don't think Wikipedia would last a minute. In the real world (apparently unlike in Prem Rawat's theocracy) criticism is best prudently and responsibly taken on board and even (gasp) publicly addressed. Not everyone is so arrogant to think they have a Divine Right to dictate how others think of them. It sounds like you really do think that criticism is always irrelevant. Where did you learn to think like that I wonder? And perhaps Arbcom are reconsidering the evidence that this kind of attitude is not constructive or civil after all.PatW (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Again I ask: Is this case still open for more evidence? If not, can participants do anything to help bring it to a conclusion? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Another week has passed and I'm still wondering if the case is open for evidence or if there's anything that editors can do to bring this to a close. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Add my voice to the "Can someone let us know the current status of this thing?" chorus. Arbs? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?... -- Maelefique ^(talk) 23:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The delay...

Private evidence was submitted to the Committee that needed to be reviewed. After reviewing it, the Committee has decided to not take any action related to it privately or publicly. I apologize for the delay but it was matter that needed to be addressed prior to closing the case. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Will there be a detailed summary of the committee's decision? --John Brauns (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat/Proposed_decision ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

As part of the closing process, I will be collating the committee's decision into a shorter version (removing that elements that did not pass), and then writing up a brief summary and posting it to the talk page of the named parties and some of those who have been active in the case. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

So what did Jossi achieve by drawing us into this little exercise? Nothing. What a lot of work...for nothing. Some sort of reasoned explanation from Arbcom would be nice after all the effort we all put into researching and providing evidence. Sounds suspiciously like nobody wants to squarely face the issues raised by all this. PatW (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)