Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2/Workshop

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

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

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties
=Proposed final decision=

Purpose of Wikipedia
1) Wikipedia sets out to be a reputable and respected encyclopedia. As such, its aim is to neutrally reflect coverage found in the most reliable published sources.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Jayen  466  12:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No objection; kind of obvious.  Durova Charge! 00:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing support. Appeared at first to be an unobjectionable proposal (although a bit overly obvious).  Upon viewing the subsequent discussion, am developing concerns that specific might become a wedge issue.  It wouldn't further the ends of the encyclopedia to elaborate upon existing policy in a manner that fuels dispute.  Durova  Charge! 21:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems self-evident. Rumiton (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We have had numerous instances in which editors have complained about poor sources, but when we've brought the disputes to noticeboards uninvolved editors have affirmed that the sources were reliable. I think we need to look at the flip siude of this - that relevant material found in reliable sources should not be excluded, that all significant viewpoints are necessary for NPOV, and that deleting such material is harmful to the project.    Will Beback   talk    20:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Editors have certainly disagreed in the past about where to draw the line, and probably will continue to do so in future. Let's just remember though that Requests_for_arbitration/Sarah_Palin_protection_wheel_war and "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." clearly tell us that, in BLPs especially, there is a line to be drawn. And I think no one disputes that when editors have strong views about the subject and would like the WP article to tell "the truth" about the guy – or in effect, would like to do him harm by discrediting him – then that invariably tends to colour their judgment about what sources to include. Jayen  466  21:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been a common retort - "we're not a tabloid". But no one has suggested using tabloid papers as sources, and when I've asked for editors to specificy what they mean by "tabloid" they've changed the subject until the next time they made the complaint. Your recitation above doesn't address the issue of using the most reliable sources that you propose above, nor does it address the problem of properly sourced material being removed. I've seen editors delete sourced material because it conflicted with what they claimed was the "truth" according to their personal knowledge. We only know what is verifiable according to reliable sources. So again, how does tihs principle apply to the case at hand?  Will Beback   talk    21:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We have to draw a clear distinction between reliably published and self-published sources, and make clear that NPOV means reflecting viewpoints in reliable published sources.  Jayen  466  22:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Where has anyone proposed using self-published sources, other than Cagan? (Cagan is a special case- we largely agreed that it is not self-published in the conventional meaning. However there was no agreement that it was a reliable source, yet editors have continued to add it, so perhaps we should add evidence about that.) If there have been disputes about self-published sources besides Cagan perhaps you could refresh my memory by adding evidence.  Will Beback   talk    22:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This set of three proposals is about the ex-premie site, and whether we should consider it as being among the most reliable sources worthy of being reflected in this article – even if only as an EL – or not. Editors have argued that the ex-premie site represents a significant POV that is more reliable than available scholarly sources and therefore should be represented in the article as an external link. Some editors have considered the question so important that they edit-warred and got themselves blocked at AE over it. Jayen  466  22:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * These three proposals are formulated in wording that could have considerably broader applications. If that was your sole intention, then suggest you reformulate your proposals so that would be the only effect.  Durova  Charge! 22:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources and external links are different things, and this proposal only addresses sources. But since you've raised the issue there is a serious problem with the continued use of Cagan, and this may be the best pleace to address it. If we agree that we should only use the best sources, and if we've shown that one source is far from the best, then it's a problem if editors keep using that source. Right?  Will Beback   talk    22:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggest you move that discussion to the workshop talk page?  Durova Charge! 23:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Actually, I'm concerned by the word "most". It's more accurate to say that Wikipedia's aim is to reflect the range of opinion (given appropriate weight) found in reliable sources.  I'm concerned that "most" would invite edit warring. For example, on the pages at issue here, Momento has  argued that no press should be used as sources at all, only scholarly journals, because they are better sources.  He was refuted in RfCs and Noticeboard discussions, but this language would seem to validate his extreme position retroactively. Msalt (talk) 07:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Momento asks in his evidence where my citation for the preceding paragraph is. It's getting a bit confusing following this back and forth, but I replied at length on the evidence page.Msalt (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For a precedent, see Requests_for_arbitration/Cold_fusion. Jayen  466  11:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Posting out of section here; Msalt has a point. And Jayen's example may not be broadly applicable outside science disputes.  It can require many years of study to understand a scientific subject well enough to cover that subject accurately and reliably.  That isn't necessarily the case with other topics.  Durova  Charge! 19:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't subscribe to the view that social science and religious scholarship are expendable commodities in the encyclopedic treatment of sociological and religious topics. Where scholarly sources exist, they are usually considered the most reliable sources. The rest is covered by WP:SOURCES and WP:RS. Jayen  466  20:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No one is suggesting that you hold such a view, Jayen.  Durova Charge! 20:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, do you hold such a view? Because what you said above sounded like Wikipedia editors could and should decide in which areas existing scholarly literature should be consulted, and in which areas it could be dispensed with. Perhaps that wasn't your intent, but I would find that a troubling proposition.   Jayen  466  20:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Philosophical discussions are best conducted elsewhere. I don't edit this topic anyway; am withdrawing support since this is becoming contentious.  Durova  Charge! 21:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * More topical precedents can be found in the Sathya Sai Baba arbitration findings 2007 and 2006. (Incidentally, the Sai Baba case is headed for RFAR again, unless I am very much mistaken.) These arbcom decisions also address the use of scholarly sources. Jayen  466  11:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (Outdent)This is not a relevant principle as it is unrelated to the locus of the dispute and appears to be an attempt to co-opt WP:RS for a purpose it does not expressly address – notably the terminology “coverage found in the most reliable published sources” is no where used in WP:RS.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (Outdent)This is not a relevant principle as it is unrelated to the locus of the dispute and appears to be an attempt to co-opt WP:RS for a purpose it does not expressly address – notably the terminology “coverage found in the most reliable published sources” is no where used in WP:RS.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Use of private websites – contra
2) Private websites set up to celebrate or expose living persons, featuring otherwise unpublished original research, copyrighted material previously published by reliable sources but hosted without license, user forum facilities and similar content, should not be used as sources for article content or as external links. This is particularly important where the original material featured on such a site is highly derogatory of a living person.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. This includes sites with a celebratory or derogatory bent. "Private" means that the website is not the work of an established and reputable publishing firm, but the self-published work of an individual, or a collective of like-minded individuals. Jayen  466  12:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Any person can set up and website and insist on inclusion unless Wikipedia has a policy to exclude.Momento (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This asks the Committee to rule on a content and policy issue outside their remit.  Durova Charge! 00:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. Repeatedly adding, or arguing for the inclusion of, such content is a conduct issue. Recent principles related to this include Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes, Requests_for_arbitration/Sarah_Palin_protection_wheel_war. Jayen  466  11:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Then that can be addressed under existing conduct policies. <font face="Verdana"> Durova Charge! 18:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Durova that this proposal asks the ArbCom to set policy. The core issue that the ArbCom needs to decide is narrower than this.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    18:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You had suggested on Feb. 27 that arbcom guidance on this issue might be appropriate; these proposals are intended to facilitate that. Jayen  466  19:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the behavioral issue here is whether the same 3RR exemption that applies to removing actual text in a BLP also applies to removing external links. Even if an external link is inappropriate for one reason or another, it isn't clear now that it is OK to edit wr over removing it. Momento was told last year by an uninvolved admin that it wasn't. It isn't necessary for the ArbCom to decide the content issue.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    19:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. Would you like to work on drawing up corresponding proposals? Jayen  466  22:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    23:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * This seems like a huge policy leap with potentially difficult ramifications. Is Wikipedia the work of a reputable and established publishing firm? Talking Points Memo? IMDB? With Rawat, there are few recent published sources, but this would also apply to US presidents, etc. who have many. Msalt (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * According to longstanding WP policy, Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. SPS. Jayen  466  00:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I know. My question is, what constitutes a "reputable and established publishing firm"? It sounds like you mean to exclude any website not published by say the New York Times, Time Magazine or Bertelsmann Publishing. External links aim to harness the power of the web, which is not found in these firms by and large. So "publishing firm" is an odd criterium. Msalt (talk) 07:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Publishing firm" may sound a little old-fashioned, but how else to deal with the hit-and-run anonymity of the Internet? There must be agreed standards for linking. The web certainly has the "power" that you refer to, but when it attacks individuals, as it frequently does, it is a monster. Rumiton (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, there should be clearer standard for external links. But "established publishing firm" has no useful meaning in regards to websites, and this arbitration is not the place to make such a sweeping new standard.  Perhaps we need an external links noticeboard?  I don't know.  Also, in case anyone doesn't know, I edit a website that aims to be a fair, nonpartisan, opinionated collection of "all the scandals on all of the [U.S.] presidential candidates" - The Skeleton Closet -  so I have a personal stake in the discussion. Msalt (talk) 09:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Etablished publishing firm" is not part of the proposal. Something like IMDB or the Gothamist makes the grade as an encyclopedic source; something like EPO or the Skeleton Closet does not – please don't take that personally, there is a place for such websites, but I would argue that they are not good sources for an encyclopedia, especially not BLP articles.  Jayen  466  11:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing personal taken, though I think the Arbcom might want a better principle than "they are not good sources." Gothamist is new to me -- it looks to be a "news of the moment" source, ironically (given discussions in this article) somewhat like a tabloid.  Gothamist looks like a newspaper online; it would then be compared to an other newspaper as a source, and I would always prefer the New York Times, LA Times, Wall Street Journal, etc.   Don't know EPO either, and wasn't involved in the 1 link compromise, again you may be conflating external links with sources. To me a valuable reason for an EL is to provide a fair survey of information with pointers to reliable sources; ie a quick way for the reader to find more information.  That would be the purpose of IMDB, Skeleton Closet, and presumably EPO - Gothamist would not be of much use for that. Msalt (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (outdent)This as others have noted is outside the Committee’s remit; further it is only tangential to the locus of dispute which in respect of WP:RS and WP:EL has been focussed around WP:BATTLE over (unjustified) extension of BLP policy to non BLP articles and the prevention acknowledgement of the existence of criticism in BLP articles.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Use of private websites – pro
3) Private websites set up to celebrate or expose living persons, featuring otherwise unpublished original research, copyrighted material previously published by reliable sources but hosted without license, user forum facilities and similar content, may be used as external links in BLPs and other articles if a majority of editors agree that the information and viewpoints expressed on such a site are of overriding importance to a balanced presentation of the BLP subject.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Not an option I favour, but it seems worthwhile to formulate it for consideration. Jayen  466  12:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not an option. The key word is "balanced". The argument can be that a universally admired person's article is "unbalanced" because there is no criticism, so some must be added.Momento (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This asks the Committee to rule on a policy and content issue outside their remit. <font face="Verdana"> Durova Charge! 00:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. This is suggesting that important and clear Wikipedia principles can be overturned by a vote. Rumiton (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Durova that this proposal asks the ArbCom to set policy. The core issue that the ArbCom needs to decide is narrower than this.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    18:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You had suggested on Feb. 27 that arbcom guidance on this issue might be appropriate; these proposals are intended to facilitate that. Jayen  466  19:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See my response above.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    19:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Especially given my personal experience, I think that external links should be judged by their reliability, not whether they are negative or positive in focus. Wikipedia policy favors covering the range of reliably sourced POVs, and requires the positive view (or at least how the subject chooses to represent themselves). In certain (admittedly unusual) cases, a fair reliable website that compiles negative material as a matter of focus may be precisely what Wikipedia calls for in an external link. In the case at hand, for example, if there were a high quality, reliable website that compiled material critical of various religious figures without a sectarian preference. Rick Ross may aspire to that, from what I've seen in discussions here, though I have not read his site and don't have any opinion as to whether it is up to standard. I gather that he is both controversial and a Wikipedia editor. Msalt (talk) 09:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This as others have noted is outside the Committee’s remit; further it is only tangential to the locus of dispute which in respect of WP:RS and WP:EL has been focussed around WP:BATTLE over (unjustified) extension of BLP policy to non BLP articles and the preventing acknowledgement of the existence of criticism in BLP articles. It is true that this alternative would have mechanistic merit but it lacks policy strength and and invites refusal of consensus. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV and sourcing
4) Wikipedia's NPOV policy provides that articles should utilize the best and most reputable authoritative sources available. NPOV cannot be synthesized by merely presenting a plurality of opposing viewpoints, each derived from a polarized source.  Instead, NPOV requires that high-quality, neutral sources be used for the bulk of the article, with more polarized sources utilized only when necessary to illustrate the range of opinion. Reliable sources provides that scholarly sources are to be preferred, and offers advice on evaluation of non-scholarly sources. Wikipedia holds that particular attention to sourcing is vital for controversial subjects, and that exceptional claims require exceptional sources.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Adapted from a principle that was part of the final decision in the 2007 Sai Baba case. Jayen  466  16:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I accept that. I don't think the role of scholarly sources can be over-emphasised. As it stands it could use a bit of trimming, esp the last sentence, but the sentence on using more polarised sources to illustrate the range of opinion seems an encyclopedic step in the right direction. Rumiton (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are occasions where the role of scholarly sources might be overemphasized. Would you trust scientific research about the health effects of tobacco if the research was funded by tobacco companies?  I'd be more interested in an investigative report on the tobacco industry's campaign financing practices, which no academic journal would be likely to cover but a good mainstream newspaper would publish.  Not everything worth our attention occurs within the ivory tower. <font face="Verdana"> Durova  Charge! 17:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:RS says: Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, superseded by more recent research, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly material from reputable mainstream publications. Wikipedia articles should cover all significant views, doing so in proportion to their published prominence among the most reliable sources. Scholarly material is not always preferred, and it should not be used to the exclusion of other reliable sources, especially those that include significant points of view. This formulation appears to say that scholarly sources should be used alone even when there are other reliable sources available.   <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    21:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't read it that way at all. ...scholarly sources are to be preferred says only that they are more likely to be reliable, and if the picture they paint is broadly different to that given by a lesser source, then the lesser source can be cited ...when necessary to illustrate the range of opinion. Seems pretty concise and clear to me. Rumiton (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This section IMHO overemphasizes the role of of scholarly sources, which as stated above would support contentious editing by Momento (who has unilaterally deleted high-quality newspaper sources as inferior to scholarly journals, even when the newspapers discuss subjects not covered in journals (which of course, don't cover as many subjects as newspapers and magazines.) Msalt (talk) 05:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This section IMHO overemphasizes the role of of scholarly sources, which as stated above would support contentious editing by Momento (who has unilaterally deleted high-quality newspaper sources as inferior to scholarly journals, even when the newspapers discuss subjects not covered in journals (which of course, don't cover as many subjects as newspapers and magazines.) Msalt (talk) 05:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed with Msalt that the relative importance of scholarly sources should not be overemphasized. To borrow a point from Durova, an article on the effects of smoking on heart disease in a journal from several decades ago by a research scientist dependent on funding from the tobacco industry may have questionable value. In the same way, a journal article by a specialized social scientist dependent on good relations with new religious movements might be more clouded by subconscious bias than a well researched feature by a journalist for a heavyweight paper who will be on another story next month. Nevard (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Appears a further attempt to redefine WP:RS and also WP:NPOV, it is as such a political statement and does not advance resolution of the problems with editing behaviour on the Rawat articles.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Scholarly sources might be misleading and journalists might be well-informed, but in the balance of things the opposite is the more likely. Rumiton (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy
5) Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It is not an appropriate platform for propaganda or advocacy of any kind, nor is it a suitable vehicle for the promotion of websites engaged in such efforts.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed, partly following two principles from the 2006 and 2007 Sai Baba cases. Jayen  466  16:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you mention websites but omit books? Peace is Possible has been promoted even more extrensively than the website and advocates a particular POV. I'd support this if "websites" was deleted or if "books" was included.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    01:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Citing a book is not the same as promoting it, in the way that a link to a website promotes that website. For background, the Rawat biography by Andrea Cagan (an established celebrity biographer who is not a follower of Rawat's to my knowledge) is published by a one-book publisher apparently owned by people with close ties to Rawat. Translations in a number of languages have appeared with more established publishers abroad. The question of how to use this book and whether to use it at all has in the past been a point of contention. Because of its proximity to the subject, I think Cagan is generally best covered by WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB, in essence: Fine to use sparingly where such use is not unduly self-serving and makes no claims about third parties, but a more reputable source should always be preferred where available. Have there ever been arbcom principles or remedies about the proper use of (quasi-)authorised biographies? Jayen  466  13:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Linking to a website conveys the idea that the content meets the standards of Wikipedia. In effect the site becomes part of the article. Books don't act in quite the same way, but I agree that the anti-soapbox rules should still apply. Rumiton (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:V does not say "use questionable sources about living people if those are the best you can find". Cagan is published by MightRiver, and we aren't writing any articles about them, so it is incorrect to call it "self-published" in this context. We went over all of this last summer. As for promotion, both the book and the website have been promoted on Wikipedia. Both have been linked, and both have had articles written about them. I think we need to be neutral in hope we approach these sources which have a lot in common. Clearly, advocacy is a problem in this topic but it is mostly a problem of advocacy by followers of the subject who've been the dominant editors of the topic.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    01:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I could support this proposal if "websites" is removed, or if it's broadened to cover all sources, including partisan publications.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    01:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How could we word it? While I agree that Cagan could aptly be described as a "partisan publication", that term in itself is not well suited to help editors involved in a dispute. Jayen  466  08:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do we need to add that at all? It's sufficient to say that Wikipedia is not a sopabox for activists. Cagan is covered under the policy language on questionable sources.   <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    19:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This gets into a difficult gray area: article NPOV v. source NPOV. Many sources do have a point of view, and part of our core responsibility as editors is to represent the reliable ones in the approximate proportion their weight carries in the real world.  Individual editors who themselves have strong views on a topic often mistake the presence of an opposing opinion for advocacy of that opinion, and this proposal does nothing to sharpen a line that is often too blurry and a source of contention.  For example, on the topic of abortion Operation Rescue and the National Organization for Women have well-known advocacy positions.  They are both a presence in public debate; Wikipedia cannot ignore their existence.  But would this proposal make things harder or or easier for editors to sort out how to represent them fairly?  I think it would make matters more difficult. <font face="Verdana"> Durova  Charge! 16:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your point re the abortion debate, but I still believe this proposal could be helpful. Perhaps the words propaganda or advocacy should be replaced by advocacy or disadvocacy (there may be a better word.) Perhaps a single exception might be made for a subject's own website, as no reader would mistake it for the voice of Wikipedia. Rumiton (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Think what the article on Stormfront (website) would be if we disallowed partisan opinions of any sort, except for a link to the article subject's own website. WP:NOT: so long as practice is compliant with existing policies, Wikipedia's linking and sourcing can acknowledge the existence of partisanship in the world.  The key is that we document the controversy without participating in it. <font face="Verdana"> Durova  Charge! 16:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The Stormfront (website) article cites university press publications and high-end media sources such as AP and the NYT. Think what it would look like if it cited forums and private websites at the extreme opposite end of the ideological spectrum to Stormfront.  Jayen  466  18:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If it fell out of compliance with existing policies then that would be corrected. Reliability is not dependent upon the ideological spectrum, though.  Many highly reliable sources editorialize in favor of racial equality (which is pretty much the opposite of Stormfront's position). <font face="Verdana"> Durova  Charge! 19:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * How about replacing "promotion of websites engaged in such efforts" with promotion of propaganda or advocacy"? Of course, this contradicts the directive to include organizations' own official websites, both as it stands now and as I propose. Msalt (talk) 05:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How about replacing "promotion of websites engaged in such efforts" with promotion of propaganda or advocacy"? Of course, this contradicts the directive to include organizations' own official websites, both as it stands now and as I propose. Msalt (talk) 05:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a profoundly problematic statement. WP:SOAP is a clear statement of policy, which stands without the succeeding sentence given by Jayen466 above.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
6) Editors at Wikipedia are expected to work towards NPOV in their editing activities. It is not possible to pursue NPOV while remaining committed to advancing outside interests. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest codifies the principle that editors may not edit articles about themselves or organizations they represent due to this inherent conflict.  However, the conflict of interest guideline is of deliberately limited compass and does not prohibit editors from working on articles about entities to which they have only an indirect relationship.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Based on a principle from the Sai Baba case, with a quote from current WP:COI policy integrated. Jayen  466  12:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't feel we are quite there yet with this one. Does an editor who owns an involved, non-neutral website have a COI? Does a member of an organisation "represent" the organisation? Should a local community representative of the US Republican Party edit a biography of George W. Bush? Previous WP:COI decisions I have seen suggested (but not all that clearly) that "interest" here primarily means pecuniary interest. That at least is clear-cut. Rumiton (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that's an incorrect interpretation of the policy. WP:COI says: Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. That includes advocacy and activism. Clearly, a guru-student relationship is stronger than a Wikipedia-editor relationship. If editors cannnot place Wikipedia ahead of their views of their spiritual teacher then they have a COI.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    22:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is fair and proper for Wikipedia to ask editors to act first and foremost in the interest of creating an NPOV article when participating in Wikipedia, and to investigate for themselves if they are able to do so. However, note that we ask this of all editors, irrespective of their religious (or antireligious) stance. Clearly, to a person with a profound belief in Jesus as their Saviour, or in Muhammad (PBUH) as the Seal of the Prophets, this belief will have a greater and deeper significance in their lives than their participation in Wikipedia. Even so, we expect them to do a fair job of summarising what the best and most reliable authoritative sources have said, even if it goes against their own ingrained view. (And we all know that in actual practice many, many editors with strong POVs fall short of the ideal.) Jayen  466  01:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For reference, here is the final decision of last year's case: Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat Jayen  466  13:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with your example. The point is, COI is not a ban, but a higher level of scrutiny.  It's fine that followers of a Jesus or Muhammad or Prem Rawat or any religious figure are allowed to edit that figure's page, but it's only appropriate that their contributions be closely scrutinized when they're editing his page for overly positive POV.   That's common sense. It in no implies any judgement of their religious belief or general ability to edit. Msalt (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What is this intended to clarify? Other than a general statement on COI, it appears to have little direct application to this dispute. <font face="Verdana"> Durova  Charge! 16:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * WP:COI provides a useful test by which the Committee may judged the behaviour of editors involved in this case.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Failure to assume good faith
1) Several editors have failed to assume good faith on the part of user:Momento. A number of accusations raised against Momento have upon closer inspection been found to have been unjustified, or to have presented a selective or distorted picture of the actual events that occurred.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. The evidence page contains examples. Jayen  466  21:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose This seems to be saying that the presentation of evidence with which someone disagrees is a form of bad faith. I don't follow ArbCom cases closely, but I've never seen a proposal that posting even incorrect evidence is a sign of failure to assume good faith. This seems to be equating the numerous accusations of bias and POV made by Momento and others on article talk pages with a few debatable pieces of evidence in a dispute resolution. If so that's a false equivalence.    <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    21:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of these same allegations have also been voiced on previous occasions, e.g. the AE threads, and of course there have been many accusations of bias, POV and worse directed against Momento on talk pages. If it is deemed necessary, I can compile a list of such. There simply appears to be at least an element of bias and animus involved. Jayen  466  23:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're proposing a finding of fact then it'd be helpful to have the evidence. By the by, there is a difference between criticising an editor's neutrality in a dispute resolution context and making the same criticism on an article talk page. On article talk pages we should focus on the content, not the contributor. In dispute resolution it's appropriate and necessary to look at editor behavior.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    23:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. One or two errors might be excusable but multiple errors is, at the least, "a failure to assume good faith". Momento (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. There has been considerable subtle and unsubtle distortion of Momento's position, as documented in his evidence deposition. Rumiton (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Strongly oppose. To quote [WP:AGF], "When disagreement occurs, explain yourself using talk pages, and give others the opportunity to do the same. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives and look for ways to reach consensus. When others cast doubt on their own good faith, continue to assume good faith yourself where you can. Be civil and follow dispute resolution processes, rather than attacking editors or edit warring with them." Many editors on these pages -- including most who disagree with Momento -- are following this advice. The apparent theory of Momento's persecution doesn't even make sense.  Why would anyone know or care about him enough to persecute him? Msalt (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. To quote [WP:AGF], "When disagreement occurs, explain yourself using talk pages, and give others the opportunity to do the same. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives and look for ways to reach consensus. When others cast doubt on their own good faith, continue to assume good faith yourself where you can. Be civil and follow dispute resolution processes, rather than attacking editors or edit warring with them." Many editors on these pages -- including most who disagree with Momento -- are following this advice. The apparent theory of Momento's persecution doesn't even make sense.  Why would anyone know or care about him enough to persecute him? Msalt (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Failure of WP:AGF may indeed be considered to be endemic in the editing behaviour demonstrated on the Rawat articles over several years. Editors can not be expected to accord GoodFaith where it is demonstrably absent and an editor who conducts themselves in a consistently uncooperative and partisan manner must expect other editors to respond by either threatening to seek administrator intervention or actually seeking that intervention.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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

Removal of poorly sourced negative information
1) Negative information in an article or on a talk page regarding Prem Rawat or organizations affiliated with him which is poorly sourced may be removed without discussion. The three revert rule shall not apply to such removal. This includes links to critical websites which contain original research or which consist of personal accounts of negative experiences with Prem Rawat or organizations affiliated with him. It is inappropriate for a user to insert a link to a website maintained by the user (or in which the user plays an important role).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. This is a verbatim copy of the remedy issued in the 2006 Sai Baba arbitration case, and reconfirmed in the 2007 case. Jayen  466  17:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is just a restatement of the long-standing reverting requirements contained in BLP. Poorly sourced, defamatory material is to be deleted without discussion. Rumiton (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the reasons I initiated the request for this case was to seek a better definition from the arbitration committee of what constitutes 'poorly sourced'. It might be possible that some editors were using too expansive a definition of that concept.  Better to nail down what the scope of this BLP clause actually is, than to reinforce it without an effective working definition.  It does appear that the previous proposals would emphasize scholarly sources over journalistic sources.  With new religious movements a portion of the scholarly research is itself conducted by academics whose inquiries are funded by the organizations they study.  Reliable investigative journalism usually sheds a negative light on the topic.  So these proposals tend toward a groundwork that would privilege financially tainted scholarship while devaluing exposés by Pulitzer-winning publications, without ever holding a direct discussion on the specific merits of either.  That would stack the deck against NPOV, and if this specific problem does not play out at Prem Rawat in particular I refuse to endorse proposals that could then be cited at other new religious movements where it does occur. <font face="Verdana"> Durova  Charge! 17:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no basis for speaking of "financially tainted scholarship" as long as these same scholars (e.g. Melton, Lewis, Richardson, Introvigne etc., even though we don't even cite most of these names in the Rawat articles) are published by the world's most reputable academic publishers, from Oxford University Press downwards, and are staples in university syllabi all over the English-speaking world. We cannot reject the academic mainstream on the say-so of the anti-cult fringe, which bemoans the lack of acceptance its ideas enjoy in the academic establishment, any more than we can reject mainstream physics.
 * As for journalism on religious topics, the United Nations Special Rapporteur has in the past seen fit to comment that the popular press ... all too often portrays matters relating to religion and belief in a grotesque, not to say totally distorted and harmful light, and has recommended a campaign for greater sensitivity in the media so that they do not put out a biased and harmful message with regard to religion and beliefs. There have to be limits on the fundamental freedom of the press when it generates actual intolerance, the antithesis of freedom. There is something wrong if certain media hide behind the fundamental principle of freedom in order to pervert it.
 * These problems are certainly less prevalent in the quality press, and they are less prevalent today than they were 30 years ago, but they have also been noted by many reputable scholars. Of course this is no reason to exclude press sources, especially those at the high end, but we should remember that Wikipedia generally rates the reliability of academic sources higher than that of press sources. Jayen  466  19:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, those points are exactly what should be argued, preferably on the evidence page by both sides of this case. It will probably be a very vigorous and interesting debate. <font face="Verdana"> Durova  Charge! 19:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the onus to provide evidence is on those who would argue that scholars like Melton who have authored standard reference works published by leading university presses, who are required reading in university courses, and who are regularly quoted as experts in the press, are not reliable sources for WP purposes. However, I don't recall any dispute about using Melton in the Rawat series of articles, nor any other scholar ever accused of having accepted funding from a NRM. There have been reservations expressed about Geaves, because he has been a follower of Rawat. My view is, if reputable scholars and academic publishers like Eugene V. Gallagher and Greenwood Publishing solicit chapters from Geaves on Rawat for their standard reference works, knowing full well his personal history, we should be guided by their judgment, rather than preferring our own over theirs, especially in the absence of any reliably published criticism of their decision. Jayen  466  11:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support.Momento (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * The absolute last thing this article needs is encouragement for unilateral reverting. I don't know what happened at Sai Baba, but we have seen many cases in which Momento and others have pushed the meaning of BLP to extremes in order to justify deletions that happen to coincide with their POV. And why specify negative information?  The BLP policy suggests removal of all contentious material which is poorly sourced, not just negative. It would be much better to highlight this line of the policy:  "Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory information about living persons should bring the matter to the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard for resolution by an administrator." Msalt (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Beyond financial taint, editors who are devotees of Rawat have sought to use 3 scholars (Ron Geaves, Jean Messer, and Lucy Dupertuis) on these pages who are also devotees of Prem Rawat. Geaves was one of the very first Western devotees (since 1969) and has been a controversial source in the Talk pages for inaccuracies, lack of honesty about his personal involvement, etc. Msalt (talk) 07:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We should not judge scholars by their religious affiliation, but by the respect they enjoy among their peers. Jayen  466  11:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not "judging someone by their religious affiliation" to scrutinize someone's perspective on their own religion a bit more closely. I would do the same for a Jesuit scholar writing about the Catholic church, an Imam writing on Islam, etc.  The proposal here seems to imply a blanket superiority of scholarly sources.  But scholars are human, too.   This is a particular case because there isn't that much written on Prem Rawat in the last 20 years, so there aren't a wide selection of contrasting viewpoints among the scholarly community.  Of course I'm not saying Geaves should be dismissed -- he has unique insight on Rawat and should be part of the mix, though his expertise is on Muslims in Britain.  But pro-Rawat editors have also had repeated arguments for rejecting any scholar with a more critical voice, including Rumiton saying in Talk -- about scholarly sources -- "Well sourced, Andries, means, among other things, unbiased. None of your miserable Dutch Protestants, no Catholics or Lutherans, no Buddhists even. No members of competing theologies. No hysterical tabloids. Their views are predictable and unencyclopedic." . Msalt (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2009
 * Broadly speaking, an author's religious affiliation does not matter, although the publisher's religious affiliation may. This applies to Cagan as much as to Christian scholars. We have to distinguish between a Christian scholar publishing a paper in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal, and a Christian scholar publishing a study via a Christian publishing firm dedicated to Christian apologetics. The latter are activist sources, which means that they need to be used with care and any statements sourced to them may require attribution. Jayen  466  17:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems that every source has some problem. To quote myself: "Journalists aren't acceptable sources because all media are biased. Sources that agree with each other aren't acceptable because they're just repeating each other. Sociologists aren't acceptable sources because they are, well, sociologists. Christian scholars aren't acceptable because they belong to a different religion. Ditto for Sikh scholars. That leaves one acceptable source: Ron Geaves." Add to that Cagan, who has no qualifications for writing about a spiritual leader from India, has a poor reputation for ghostwriting celebrity bios, and has a one-book publisher apparently owned by followers of the subject, yet who has been promoted as the most reliable source by some editors. Cagan's assertions are rarely attributed. This uneven approach to sources has been one of the long-running disputes with this topic. This proposal doesn't address that problem, which isn't just about a link to EPO.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    10:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Who were the editors who "promoted [Cagan] as the most reliable source"? I was certainly not one. I thought it was agreed that Cagan was acceptable only for non-contentious claims, facts and figures and so forth. Rumiton (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See "Secretary_vs._stewardess" for one example. In that case, both scholars and journalists were essentially viewed as less reliable than Cagan by Jayen and Momento. Momento has made many such assertions, see "Sourcing issues". Rumiton has made similar assertions. See "Asserts his opinion or knowledge outweighs sources".   <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    16:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See "Secretary_vs._stewardess" for one example. In that case, both scholars and journalists were essentially viewed as less reliable than Cagan by Jayen and Momento. Momento has made many such assertions, see "Sourcing issues". Rumiton has made similar assertions. See "Asserts his opinion or knowledge outweighs sources".   <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    16:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Notwithstanding that a previous Arbcom considered this appropriate in another (possibly related) case, the identification of ‘negative’ information is quite bizzare in the context –'information’ whether positive or negative (dependant as that is on perspective) is what a WP article consists of. The only moderation that can be considered is whether information is appropriately sourced or it is not, whether information is classed positive or negative is irrelevant and if exceptions to editing rules are to be made, those exceptions must be couched in terms of quality of sourcing and nothing else.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The BLP caveats against defamatory statements are not "bizarre". They are there for good legal and ethical reasons. Rumiton (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Where in Wikipedia policy or guidance is there any indication that information is to be treated differently by classification according to 'negative' or 'positive' character ? There is none - the only issue is whether information is or is not appropriately sourced.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of poorly sourced information
2) Information in an article or on a talk page regarding Prem Rawat or organizations affiliated with him which is poorly sourced may be removed. This includes links to websites which contain original research or which consist of personal accounts of experiences with Prem Rawat or organizations affiliated with him. It is inappropriate for a user to insert a link to a website maintained by the user (or in which the user plays an important role).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Adaptation of the same remedy used in the Sai Baba case. Addresses part of the concern expressed by MSalt, above. (I now see the wisdom of having both of these remedies side by side, even though at first sight they appear almost identical.) Jayen  466  12:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * First, I would change "information" to "material". Information implies that it is true, which it may not be. BLP mandates that poorly sourced derogatory material SHOULD be removed without discussion, so no problem with that. Your second paragraph says that material which is questionable but not derogatory, "MAY be removed". But any material in any article may be removed if there is a good reason (reverting isn't a crime). How would this be effective in improving the article? Rumiton (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is going to list examples it should be broad enough to include PIP, another source that comes nowhere near being the most reliable available.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    00:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The evidence shows that information sourced to multiple scholars has been removed because Cagan, a questionable source, disagrees or simply omits the information. So as a matter of where the problems lie with this topic, it is more about removing well-sourced information than removing poorly sourced information.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    05:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See my comments above. <font face="Verdana"> Durova Charge! 17:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * This repeats a fundamental misunderstanding that Momento has advocated in talk pages as well; that there is something wrong with original research in sources or external links. On the contrary, it is precisely FOR original research that we seek outside sources.  They do original research so Wikipedians don't have to. Msalt (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We should perhaps say "unpublished" original research, although I believe that is generally understood. Jayen  466  11:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But sources (including websites) are where things are published. Do you mean "previously unpublished"?  But I think that's still appropriate.  Granted, the world is changing fast.  Some websites (such as the Skeleton Closet, which I edit) merely compile information from other sources, but others print important, original research.  Examples include ABC News' "The Blotter", which broke the Mark Foley scandal, and Talking Points Memo, which broke the scandal over the federal attorneys general fired under the Bush administration.  That's what sources are all about, printing previously unpublished research, including reporting, facts and conclusions drawn from those. I think the critical distinction, which frankly I don't think Wikipedia policy has fully come to terms with, is between websites as sources and websites as external links.  Msalt (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to debate these ideas with you on the talk pages associated with WP:ELNO (points 10–12) and WP:BLP. We have to go with the current policies and guidelines here; proposals to change these are better held at the appropriate places. In a BLP context, additionally note that "In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links." Jayen  466  17:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and I would enjoy that discussion, though I'm not challenging the existing policies here so much as identifying ambiguity. And, of course, defining "dubious value" and "questionable sources" is the rub.  Original research certainly does not make a source or a link dubious or questionable; the highest quality/highest value sources all do OR. Msalt (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The wording is likely based on this passage within WP:OR: "Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research." But I agree that the "original research" wording, when seen in isolation, is potentially confusing. I reckon we can leave it to the artibrators to put this right, if they decide to include a principle along the lines suggested here. Jayen  466  16:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we agree. The WP:OR policy is clearly talking about material editors put in the Wikipedia article, not material on sources or external link websites.  I would propose removing the entire second sentence of this proposed point, ("This includes links to websites which contain original research or which consist of personal accounts of experiences with Prem Rawat or organizations affiliated with him.")  I see nothing wrong with personal accounts of experiences with Rawat either in sources or external links, providing they meet other requirements of reliable sources and provided the article in the aggregate is NPOV.   Msalt (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This statement is confused, its content is substantially related to WP:COI, yet it is presented as a matter of WP:RS--Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This statement is confused, its content is substantially related to WP:COI, yet it is presented as a matter of WP:RS--Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

What's good for the goose is good for the gander
1) Wikipedia policies apply equally across article space. Although both the policies and an editor's understanding of them may change over time, a noteworthy and consistent difference in how an editor applies policies such as biographies of living persons is cause for concern, especially if that difference aligns along BLP articles at pro- and anti- sides of a given topic.  Neutral editing requires a basic consistency in how an editor applies policy.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. <font face="Verdana"> Durova Charge! 17:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have only a dim idea what you are getting at, which might be wrong. Care to reword? Rumiton (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. The inconcistent application of policies is a recurring problem with this topic.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    04:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Excellent principle. There might be a way to reword it more clearly. Msalt (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent principle. There might be a way to reword it more clearly. Msalt (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A valuable test by which the Committee may judge editor behaviour.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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

Momento banned
1) Momento is banned from Wikipedia for one year.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Having reviewed evidence of each party, Will Beback's is convincing, but Will's proposed remedy isn't consistent with normal arbitration practice.  Topic bans are appropriate for editors who are disruptive in one area but productive in others.  Since Momento is an SPA, there would likely be little result other than further dispute resolution if a topic ban is implemented. <font face="Verdana"> Durova  Charge! 01:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. I had proposed just a topic ban, but since this is a single purpose account I think this might be a cleaner remedy. Topic bans often cause fresh disputes when the affected editors test the boundaries.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    04:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. At the risk of tiresome repetition, Momento's defense of a living biography does not qualify him for a ban of any sort. Rumiton (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No one gets banned for defending BLP, but editors may get banned in spite of it. As a hypothetical example, suppose a real person by the name of Elmer Fudd gets elected to congress.  User BLP Defender watchlists the article, reverting countless iterations of joke vandalism that inevitably follow.  As months drag on, BLP Defender's demeanor deteriorates: he leaves vulgarities in edit summaries and finally tells another Wikipedian If you touch this article again I will personally come over to your house with a shotgun and shoot you.  BLP Defender refuses to withdraw the statement.  Obviously BLP Defender gets banned for making threats that were totally unnecessary to actual defense of the biography. <font face="Verdana"> Durova  Charge! 01:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Editors don't need to engage in tendentious editing to enforce BLP. And enforcing BLP (or any other policy) is no excuse for tendentious editing either.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    05:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Oppose. The proposal is Draconian. The evidence page lists claim and counter claim, accusation and counter-accusation. Amongst these I can find no examples of gross incivility. Momento and other editors are not threatening each other or using 4 letter expletives. Discussion may get a little heated at times, but that does not justify banning anyone, and certainly not for a year. --Zanthorp (talk) 04:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Excessivly Harsh  « l | Ψrometheăn ™ | l »   (talk) 03:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Edit warring in BLPs
1.1) The 3RR exemption for BLPs is limited to removing "libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material", and "what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial". External links are not directly covered by this exemption, and edit warring over external links is inappropriate, even in a BLP.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * No. External links can lead to totally unacceptable websites, including illegal content (such as child pornography), and should be reverted immediately when added to articles when seen by editors. I certainly would not suggest that that an user stop at reverting once if this content is re-added. There are plenty of other examples of external websites that have horrific material that should be reverted if they are linked to on a BLP. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * This addresses the edit warring over external links, and the claims of exemptions.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    19:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't see that as being at all peace-inducing. External sites should not be linked to unless their content conforms to BLP. They clearly form part of the article. Reverting libellous or inappropriate links is not edit-warring, it is mandatory. Rumiton (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A respected admin, user:B, posted an interpretation different than yours on Momento's talk page. "Removal of an image that flagrantly violates our non-free content policy is exempt from revert limitations. I can find nothing in the policy that would exempt the link removals, though, and am thus upholding the block." and a longer restatement here. The matter of whether or even how a site could conform to BLP is debatable. The New York Times allows users to comment on articles, and those comments may include derogatory, poorly sourced, and biased material. Yet we allow links to the site.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    00:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. user:B goes on to say "If the link were obviously and unquestionably trash (eg, linking to a racist website in an article about Barack Obama or linking to a site that had at the top in big bold letters "GEORGE BUSH EATS BABIES"), ok, but on their surface, these links do not appear to be in and of themselves "contentious material". He should have looked below the surface.Momento (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The respected admin's example seems spurious. The New York Times can certainly publish critical material if they dissociate themselves from the opinions expressed. They cannot publish defamatory material at all. Plenty of internet sites do that with impunity. The comparison is false, and what people read when they click on a link forms part of the opinion they form on the subject from the Wikipedia article. Rumiton (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Support. Edit warring on these pages stems from editors who feel they can revert at will using BLP as justification and don't need DR. There is an urgent need for clarification on these exemptions. Msalt (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A simple statement of appropriate, enforceable, current policy.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Total nonsense. External links are as subject to rigorous BLP enforcement as anything else, any content, anywhere, on Wikipedia. Any attempt to pass this suggestion into the Proposed Decision would be a sign of total lack of clue by the Arbs, which is why it won't happen. It would be a blank check for partisan trolls on any side to go bananas on any number of BLPs. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 17:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ELs do not have to meet every standard that Wikipedia articles do -- an easy example is original research, which is fine if not encouraged in both sources and ELs. The problem is that BLP has a fundamental contradiction in these two sentences of WP:Grapevine: "The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory information about living persons should bring the matter to the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard for resolution by an administrator."  IMHO, it makes no sense to encourage DR and legalize edit-warring in the same paragraph. I don't know if this proposed language is the solution, but the text of BLP is a blank check for partisan trolls who favor an article's subject, which is why we're here. Msalt (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any contradiction. It says that if you find material you consider defamatory in a BLP you take it out. If it gets put back in, you take it out again, and you keep doing it without worrying about 3RR. If it still doesn't stop you tell the noticeboard. Rumiton (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I entirely agree with Msalt's assessment of the rootology position, which appears to be a further attempt to make BLP conditions the operative religious rule of Wikipedia. The point that Msalt makes about "which is why we are here" is graphically illustrated by Rumiton's response which  justifies a Holy 'edit war' approach. If the Committee accepts the Rootology/Rumiton assertions, then the Committee will be committing Wikipedia to an unrestricted 'promotionalist' position for any article for which zealots can claim BLP relevance.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all what I'm arguing; what I'm arguing is that BLP does apply to ELs and does not apply to the content of the external site, and the opinions of a BLP subject on a given site don't matter. Is that contradictory? You betcha, and it should be, since EL use in BLP is community-reviewed, and sometimes a negative link--negative being a perception--is part and parcel for BLP and NPOV. This isn't one within the AC's authority even vaguely to decide anything on, and they'd be pretty far out of bounds for it. And I'm saying that as an obvious fan of BLP. How do you treat 3rr for ELs on BLPs? The same as 3rr for BLPs in general. If outside uninvolved consensus says that you or I were out of line for our 4rr or 10rr on a BLP, then guess what? We should get blocked, until we stop abusing BLP to further our viewpoints or we're stopped from editing altogether. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 07:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that BLP violations often aren't obvious, and the question of a violation can be open to interpretation. In this topic, we've had assertions that too many sentences on a topic are a BLP violation. The EL section of the BLP policy and the BLP section of the EL guideline aren't very clear. This is a situation where editors on one side of a POV divide decided that a BLP violation existed and then edit warred to enforce that determination. The BLP policy itself says that if there is a recurring problem to go to a noticeboard and request help. That's why "BLP defense" is no excuse for tendentious editing or edit warring. WP has ample mechanisms to cope with policy enforcement of this type.   <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    09:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Domain names are not external links
1.2) A reference to a website byt its domain name, whether Google.com or Ex-premie.org, is not an external link. A link is a technical term referring to hyperlinked text that may be clicked on with a mouse to go to a different page. A domain name is a designation of a website, which may or may not be hyperlinked. A reference to a website which isn't linked is not covered by WP:EL. Only hyperlinked URLs are covered by WP:EL.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This is based on the responses received at WPT:EL#Unlinked domain names. Even unlinked references to Ex-premie.org in the text have been deleted despite adequate and reliable sources that mention it. Wikipedia isn't censored, and we don't avoid mentioning a website's existence just because it may contain negative material that we wouldn't add to the encyclopedia itself.   <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    09:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding a domain name should be treated as an EL because the intention and the outcome is the same - to direct the reader to an external source. Otherwise we can put in "Barack Obama has been criticized on kukluxklan.com and blaxsuk.com" Momento (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's incorrect. We can discuss a location without intending readers to visit that place, we can discuss a book withount intending readers to read it, and we can discuss a website within intending readers to visit it. If scholars are able to mention the website then I don't see why it's mere name should be censored on Wikipedia.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    05:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * From a completely technical perspective of how the Internet works, and which we should not play games with, Will is 100% technically correct. "Bob Jones stated on suchandsuch.com," if suchandsuch.com is viewed by 'some' as negative, is no reason to exclude it if the context and name of 'suchandsuch.com' is notable for the context of the article it's used on. We don't censor content, and that is a part of content. If people chose to link it, that's for them to decide to do. You can build a variety of poisons, find truly nasty pornography, or probably build a working nuclear device with links on our site and if you got your hands on some working plutonium. Does that mean we should start scrubbing such links from any contextual usage? Nonsense. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 05:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (following on from above) Where a living biography is concerned, it isn't nonsense to exclude websites that contain malicious and defamatory material. WP:BLP makes it crystal clear that living biographies are a special area of Wikipedia, not to be compared with general technical or philosophical articles. And putting the link in as text just adds one keystroke...it is still directing the reader to that site. Rumiton (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree--if the content is considered by consensus--and I mean EXTERNAL consensus, not OUR consensus--to be defamatory, then sure we can exclude it on a BLP. If the subject just doesn't care for it, or his "people", I say: too bad. That's not ever how BLP has worked or can be allowed to work. I'm reminded of Tim Eyman, a local political operative here. He became in the mind of one citizen such a pest that he used our government initiative system to have it added to a statewide vote that "Tim Eyman be declared a horse's ass," or some similar language, and almost pulled it off. The Eyman article reports this, and includes a reference to the URL that was used to push it, but it's very notable, it's very much a BLP, and Eyman very much dislikes the whole thing. A notable site about Eyman, for criticism of him, http://www.horsesass.org, exists now. It would be valid to mention this in the article. Same principle. And before anyone asks, yes, it's certainly notable in the context of Washington State in the United States, which is the only place that Eyman is notable. Should that be excluded from mention if Eyman or his people dislike it, because they may link to it, and because someday Eyman may call it defamatory? Certainly not. Ditto for ex-premie.org, or whatever that other URL is. Now, if Rawat or Eyman sued their respective annoyances successfully, I could see a case-by-case basis for this. But our jobs are not to be Internet cops for possibly hurt feelings--that is not and has never been the point of BLP. If a critical site is worthwhile, and notable, and integral to the narrative of the subject--as it apparently is in the case of Rawat--then there is no reason to exclude it beyond appeasing Rawat and his people because it contains info they dislike or dislike having "out there". That, in and of itself, is a completely invalid reason. They are public figures, heading a public religious and social movement. We should no more shield them or readers from valid critical URLs than we should for the Pope, the Catholic Church, Scientologists, or the Republican or Democratic parties here in the States. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 16:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources
2) The most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * We don't need to re-write WP:V.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    19:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Too vague, and shows confusion over the word "source" which can mean a piece of writing, its author or the publisher. And "prominence" could be argued about forever. Rumiton (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Support. Msalt (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Msalt (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Activist editing
3) Wikipedia is not a soapbox for propaganda or activist editing. What Wikipedia is not.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Straightforward statement of policy.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    19:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, 2nd choice (I prefer it with the mention of promoting websites). Jayen  466  13:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support.Momento (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Rumiton (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Support. Msalt (talk) 04:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Msalt (talk) 04:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. --Zanthorp (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Tendentious editing
4) Tendentious editing is editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view, and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This is the text from Tendentious editing.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    19:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Jayen  466  13:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Don't support the "connotation". Allows groups of editors to over rule other Wiki policies or guidelines.Momento (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Warning bells. The "multiple other editors" seems like an invitation to ballot-stack. Wikipedia is not run by a vote. Rumiton (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Support. It's amazing that anyone could oppose it. Msalt (talk) 04:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. It's amazing that anyone could oppose it. Msalt (talk) 04:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Warning Bell. Its a green light to group-think. The result could lead to group domination of an article. Who gets to decide what is "partisan,biased or skewed?"--Zanthorp (talk) 04:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
5) Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. COI editing is strongly discouraged. When editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as neutral point of view, what Wikipedia is not, and notability, accounts may be blocked. COI editing also risks causing public embarrassment outside of Wikipedia for the individuals and groups being promoted. Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested. Editors who disguise their COIs create a perception that they are trying to distort Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This is the text from Conflict of interest, slightly edited for brevity.   <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    19:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose if this is intended as a broad argument that religious affiliation itself represents a conflict of interest, especially in the context of religious minorities. Jayen  466  13:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Broadly, this is triggered in any circumstance where an editor places an outside interest above Wikipedia's aims. It comes in when advocacy for or against a topic prevents neutral editing. It doesn't matter whether the topic is a religion or a football club. Aside from the general problem which obviously applies to this case, there is also a specific issue with an editor who may have had an undisclosed conflict of interest and who may have promoted his own writing as a source. To avoid outing, I've sent that evidence directly to the ArbCom.    <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    00:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose if this is to be used to favour secular interests, as I feel it would be. Support if it really could be used to sound the alarm neutrally when an editor displays one-eyed behaviour on either side of the fence. Rumiton (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Support. I don't see this as a broad statement that religious affiliation is a COI at all.  However, religious motivation should not be EXEMPT from COI.  It should be treated the same as any other affiliation, whether to your home town, lover, family, football team or favorite band. Bias is bias. Msalt (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. I don't see this as a broad statement that religious affiliation is a COI at all.  However, religious motivation should not be EXEMPT from COI.  It should be treated the same as any other affiliation, whether to your home town, lover, family, football team or favorite band. Bias is bias. Msalt (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Again a simple statement of appropriate, enforceable, current policy.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest: sources
5.1) Editors should not propose using sources which they helped produce without disclosing their involvement.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This is based on confidential information I sent to the ArbCom that shows an editor has promoted the use of a source which he wrote without disclosing his involvement. The proper behavior would either have been to be upfront about his authorship, or to have remained silent.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    20:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Support. If this isn't already an established policy, it should be. Msalt (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Forum shopping
6) Forum shopping is the practice of repeatedly asking for additional outside opinions until you get an opinion you like. It is a form of canvassing. Inappropriate canvassing is generally considered to be disruptive.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Adapted from the text at Canvassing.   <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    19:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Support.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith
7) Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without particularly strong evidence.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Copied from Assume good faith. There have been repeated accusations of bias, of intentional lying, and other forms of bad faith, on many pages.   <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    21:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Support. More civility would help these pages a lot. Msalt (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. More civility would help these pages a lot. Msalt (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The inability of some users to approach even the basic requirements of Assume good faith has been a perpetual challenge for anyone attempting to improve the Rawat articles.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism
8) Text copied directly from another source should be set off with quotation marks or as a blockquote. Failure to mark text in that manner, even if a citation is provided, gives the appearance that the text is written by the editor, and is a form of plagiarism.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * It's important for the integrity Wikipedia's articles and for the editing process that quotations are marked correctly and not passed off as our own writing.   <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    19:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I can't see the point. A lot of articles I have worked on are composed largely of phrases supplied by authors and scholars, with cites. The cite tells the reader where the words come from. If we followed this suggestion they would be just a jumble of quote marks, to no good effect. Rumiton (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See Let's get serious about plagiarism in this week's Signpost.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    19:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Support.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, both for copyright reasons and reasons of fundamental honesty. If words come from an author, that needs to be clear so that readers can evaluate that author's credibility. Msalt (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, both for copyright reasons and reasons of fundamental honesty. If words come from an author, that needs to be clear so that readers can evaluate that author's credibility. Msalt (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Locus of dispute
1) The dispute concerns editing of Prem Rawat and related articles by editors with strongly held views of the topic. There have been edit wars, failures to adhere to consensus, deletions of sourced materials, and other efforts to promote a certain POV of the subject. The disputes have resisted resolution despite one previous Arbitration case, nine arbitration enforcement requests, extensive informal mediation, and dozens of noticeboard postings, RfCs, or other requests for input.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * General statement of the dispute.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    21:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But not a fair statement. What some might call "edit wars", others call complying with their obligation to protect a living biography. "Consensus" has been used to refer to an agreement by a minority of editors, "sourced" to cover very poorly sourced and disputed material. Rumiton (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This reflects the evidence presented. If you have evidence of the problem you refer to then it needs to be added to the evidence page. Simply asserting that it is a fact without evidence doesn't help.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    23:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Support. Evidence shows that there have undeniably been edit wars. Rumiton may feel that some edit warring was justified on BLP grounds -- though the BLP policy is ambiguous, both saying that some material should be removed immediately but also saying that editors should use dispute resolution to resolve these issues -- but the edit warring is there either way.  And evidence has been provided for edit wars that do not involve BLP issues. Msalt (talk) 07:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Evidence shows that there have undeniably been edit wars. Rumiton may feel that some edit warring was justified on BLP grounds -- though the BLP policy is ambiguous, both saying that some material should be removed immediately but also saying that editors should use dispute resolution to resolve these issues -- but the edit warring is there either way.  And evidence has been provided for edit wars that do not involve BLP issues. Msalt (talk) 07:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Broadly agree.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Advocacy
2) Advocacy of specific points of view has repeatedly taken place in the disputed area. Properly sourced, neutrally presented negative material about Prem Rawat has been suppressed. Positive material material with poor sources has been added.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Adapted from Requests for arbitration/Fringe science.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    20:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See above. Rumiton (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Any specific examples? Jayen  466  13:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've added more evidence on this, particularly regarding Momento. While I only document a few, there have been numerous occasions when he's deleted sourced information with claims of bias, undue weight, BLP, etc. As for adding poorly sourced information, every citation to Cagan is poorly sourced. An editor who is now retired has also added self-serving material from press releases and other self-published sources. While he's gone, the practice of deleting well-sourced negative material and adding poorly sourced positive material is a general problem with this topic.   <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    23:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Inviting Admins to join the anti-Rawat group.Momento (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Support. I've been criticized in this very Arbitration for removing claims of computer skills sourced to Prem Rawat's personal resume.  However, you repeated the word "material" in the proposed finding "Positive material material". Msalt (talk) 04:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree to the extent that it's a polite way to say there's been sustained BATTLE in attempts to stop the use of sources not compliant with a preferred POV.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree to the extent that it's a polite way to say there's been sustained BATTLE in attempts to stop the use of sources not compliant with a preferred POV.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith disputes
3) Many of the disputes in the area do not appear to be good faith attempts to reach consensus on the proper neutral coverage, but attempts to promote or suppress points of view in articles. Accordingly, much of the discussion has been adversarial rather than collaborative and prevents reaching consensus rather than working towards it.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Copied from Requests for arbitration/Fringe science.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    20:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. That has been a problem at times, though I think less so than in the fringe science area. My impression was that the presentation of significant points of view has on the whole been negotiated in something approaching a satisfactory manner. (Which is not to say that everybody got to insert or delete everything they wanted to.) Jayen  466  13:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support.Momento (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Rumiton (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Support. Msalt (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Msalt (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Helpful reference case.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Momento
4) has acted against consensus, removed sourced statements appropriate to articles, and generally edited aggressively above and beyond what would be necessary and justified by a neutral point of view.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Momento has not edited with Wikipedia's best interests in mind, and has acted as a POV warrior.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    20:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While there is room for improvement in Momento's behaviour, and he could relax a bit, the situation is not as clear-cut as this makes out. Jayen  466  13:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose.Momento (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Strongly, for reasons given above. Rumiton (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Support, per the evidence presented as well as Momento's attitude expressed in this arbitration, in AE and on Talk page discussions. Msalt (talk) 04:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, per the evidence presented as well as Momento's attitude expressed in this arbitration, in AE and on Talk page discussions. Msalt (talk) 04:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support as per evidence page.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I agree with Jayen. The evidence shows that there is room for improvement. The evidence does not support that out of somewhere near 2000 edits (?) M has "generally edited aggressively above and beyond..."etc. Please see my comment, bottom of the current Prem Rawat discussion page.--Zanthorp (talk) 04:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Rumiton
5) has made negative personal remarks, removed sourced statements appropriate to articles, and generally edited aggressively above and beyond what would be necessary and justified by a neutral point of view.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed, in light of the evidence presented.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    10:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose.Rumiton (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Compared to FrancisSchonken and WillBeback, Rumiton's a saint.Momento (talk) 02:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Support, based on evidence as well as Rumiton's 1 week topic ban for disruption. Msalt (talk) 04:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, based on evidence as well as Rumiton's 1 week topic ban for disruption. Msalt (talk) 04:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support as per evidence page (80+ diffs).--Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose for the reasons stated above in the section about Momento. --Zanthorp (talk) 04:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Momento topic banned
1) Momento is banned from editing Prem Rawat and related articles and pages for one year.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Momento has had many warnings about his behavior and has continued to be disruptive.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    21:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Disproportionate, see above. Jayen  466  13:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose.Momento (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. Most of his so-called disruption has been in defense of a living biography. Rumiton (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a question. Will, your evidence asserts that Momento is an SPA with a COI who habitually disregards policies when it suits his POV to do so.  Normally the distinguishing factor between a topic ban and a siteban is whether an editor contributes well to other areas.  Without commenting on the merits of your evidence, it seems odd that you follow up that presentation with this milder proposal.  Could you explain your reasoning for doing so? <font face="Verdana"> Durova  Charge! 15:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Durova, I see no evidence that Momento has ever contributed to other topics except for a relative few edits that he made in support of Jossi (which would tend to indicate tag teaming rather than a range of interests). I see the logic of your comment. The immediate problem is the editing of Prem Rawat articles, but I wouldn't object to a wider ban. More stringent bans have now been proposed, and I'd support those as well.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    21:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, Momento not only concedes being an SPA, but calls SPAs a benefit to Wikipedia. Msalt (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case, second choice. See above for my first choice. <font face="Verdana"> Durova  Charge! 01:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Support. I would suggest an indefinite or permanent topic ban -- including talk pages -- for Momento, and equal (one month?) topic bans (editing only) for Frances and Rumiton. Msalt (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Rumiton was topic banned briefly, as was Nik Wright2. There hasn't been much, if any, evidence submitted about them, and only a little about Francis.   <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    05:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Editing is a privilege, never a right for anyone, and based on Will's incredibly sourced clear-cut evidence, a topic ban or bare minimum firm-hand probation (1rr, 0rr perhaps limiting Momento to only talk pages) would be helpful. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 17:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on Will's convincing evidence, a 1-year topic ban for Momento, including talk page participation, appears to be the minimum appropriate measure. Cla68 (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on Will's convincing evidence, a 1-year topic ban for Momento, including talk page participation, appears to be the minimum appropriate measure. Cla68 (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Committee needs to demonstrate determination that emotional connection to the subject is not an excuse for endless unacceptable behaviour. Topic banning is a relatively light sanction, leaving the editor free to partipate in a million plus other articles.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The proposal is Draconian. As stated above, the evidence page lists claim and counter claim, accusation and counter-accusation. Amongst these I can find no examples of gross incivility. Momento and other editors are not threatening each other or using 4 letter expletives. Discussion may get a little heated at times, but that does not justify banning anyone, and certainly not for a year. Please see my comment at the bottom of the current Rawat discussion page.--Zanthorp (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Per Above.  « l | Ψrometheăn ™ | l »   (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Support, from what I witnessed in mediation, Momento is a textbook example of a single purpose account, and was one of the main reasons that the Prem Rawat medcab had such limited success. They continously refused to accept consensus, were highly unwilling to compromise on several issues. I think Momento fails to realise that, in life, and on Wikipedia, you need to give a little to get a little. Not everything can go your own way. Sure, most users had conduct concerns, but Momento's was the one that stuck out the most, hence why I'm commenting here. <font face="Verdana" color="blue">Steve Crossin Talk/<font color="#CCC000">24 08:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Editors reminded
2) Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world disputes, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary. Wikipedia cannot solve any of the disputes that exists among people engaged in real-world conflicts. What Wikipedia can do is aspire to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the people involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict. The contributions of all good-faith editors on these articles who contribute with this goal in mind are appreciated.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Adapted from Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    21:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Bitter and long-standing real-world conflict" is not quite as appropriate in the present context as it was in the Eastern European one, but I support the general sentiment which follows that description. Jayen  466  13:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As per Jayen, the comparison seems a little over-reaching, but the general principles are entirely worthwhile. Rumiton (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * A very useful statement.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A very useful statement.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Editors counseled
3) Editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counseled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Adapted from Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    21:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good and reasonable broad advice. Rumiton (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Support.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong support. Msalt (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support --Zanthorp (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support --Zanthorp (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed principles
1) The task of WP editors is to produce articles within terms that are defined by WP policy.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support.   <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    04:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Since the creation of the Prem Rawat article and throughout its editing and the creation of associated articles, there has been a consistent move by some editors to warp the obvious applications of WP policy to meet sectional interests. A statement of this most basic principle is where this Arbcom case should begin.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems uncontroversial. Msalt (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Seems debatable. "Warp the obvious applications of WP policy" needs a serious look. If the applications were that obvious, we wouldn't be having this debate. (misread the proposal.) Support. Rumiton (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Lack of Clear Policy Expression
1) There has been a consistent lack of clear policy expression all matters connected with the creation and editing of the Rawat articles, this has been exacerbated by a failure to provide independent administrator support for those editors who have sought to make progress within policy requirements and outside of, the sectional interests pursued by those editors intent on co-opting Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Edited following suggestion from Msalt

There has been a consistent lack of clear policy expression on all matters connected with the creation and editing of the Rawat articles. This lack has been exacerbated by a failure to provide independent administrator support for those editors who have sought to make progress within policy requirements and to not accede to the sectional interests pursued by editors intent on co-opting Wikipedia for promotional purposes.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Over the years a number of admins and responsible editors have tried to improve the situation but for whatever reasons most such efforts were short-lived. I agree that the previous ArbCom decision did little to resolve the problems. All participatns in the RfAR bear some responsibility - we didn't identify the problems clearly enough.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    04:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Over the years a number of admins and responsible editors have tried to improve the situation but for whatever reasons most such efforts were short-lived. I agree that the previous ArbCom decision did little to resolve the problems. All participatns in the RfAR bear some responsibility - we didn't identify the problems clearly enough.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    04:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Arbcom and Administrators collectively must take responsibility for the chronic failures to support adherence to WP policy in the editing of the Rawat articles. The 2008 Arbcom was an opportunity to rectify a long running problem, in that case the Committee failed to address any of the substantive problems placed before it.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * First, this could use some editing: "clear policy expression ON all matters", period after Rawat articles and new sentence, not sure what's going on after "and outside of, the sectional"... -- I can't quite parse that.
 * Second, seems a bit contentious and broad. ALL matters? Msalt (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hopefully the statement now reads more clearly. My comment says what I intended, I'd prefer to leave it to the Committee to decide if it will accept it or not.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Way too one-sided. I think most everyone here has tried to use the articles to promote their viewpoint from one side or the other. Calling one side "responsible" and "independent" while using terms like "intent on co-opting" and "sectional" for the other is not going to win any hearts and minds. Also many (such as me) find the "policy expression" to be crystal clear. If it isn't to some, they are most welcome to go to the relevant policy pages and suggest changes. Rumiton (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty outrageous failure to assume good faith, Rumiton. I challenge you to say what viewpoint I am trying to promote, or correct your charge.  Personal feelings aside, this is an example where you too are using Wikipedia as a battlefield.  Several editors including myself have stated directly that we have no POV on Rawat -- I know that might be difficult for you as a devotee to believe, but he's just not that well known -- and until you can demonstrate that we are insincere, you owe us the assumption of good faith.  This combative attitude is a big part of the problem here. Msalt (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty outrageous over-reaction, Msalt. You don't need to have a direct opinion of this subject to have a viewpoint. A lot of people distrust groups and leaders in general, as Will Beback has said he does, or public figures, as your website (The Skeleton Closet) indicates you do. That general distrust can be just as strong a point of view as that of the pro-PR folk. It isn't a case of one-eyed proponents versus intelligent pragmatists, however hard some might wish to have it seen that way. Rumiton (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ...A lot of people distrust groups and leaders in general, as Will Beback has said he does... Diff?  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    17:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Rumiton
2) Rumiton has acted far beyond any grounds of acceptable editor behaviour.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Agree that Rumiton has not applied polivcies consistently and has repeatedly shown poor behavior including incivility.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    04:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose.Momento (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * As per Evidence page--Nik Wright2 (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A bit strong I think. Rumiton has frequently joined in POV-driven edit wars and supported Momento's tendentious editing, but I have been encouraged by the more civil tone R. has taken lately. Msalt (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Initially I had no intention at all of putting evidence forward about Rumiton as an individual editor, and was only looking through diffs for details of tag teaming and article ownership involving several editors. However I was stunned by the sheer volume of incivility by Rumiton which is why I submitted over 80 diffs detailing his unacceptable behaviour. The most notable thing was who Rumiton was targetting for what amounts to attempted bullying; it was not at all part of a premie/ex premie war but a battle against those editors offering content not approved of by Rumiton. The problem with bullies is that when under scrutiny they often play by the rules – only to revert to type when the authority figure is looking elsewhere. I think the Committee must act on the basis of the evidence, which itself is only a sample of Rumiton’s anti Wikipedia attitude.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Momento
3) Momento has acted far beyond any grounds of acceptable editor behaviour.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support. Momento has made a career on Wikipedia of tendentious editing and POV pushing. He has not acted to advance the project but merely to advocate a cause. Rather than settling disputes he's reignited them over and over.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    04:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No evidence of misbehavior provided. Momento (talk) 02:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * As per Evidence page--Nik Wright2 (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Msalt (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Jayen466
4) Jayen466 has made a statement which implies undue withholding of appropriate AGF toward other editors


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * As per Evidence page--Nik Wright2 (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Momento topic banned
1) That Momento be permanently topic banned including from talk pages in respect of all articles having association with Prem Rawat


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I agree iwth the concept, but I beleive bans are limited to one year.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    04:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose.Momento (talk) 02:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Momento has shown himself incapable of Consensus editing of those articles in which he has a strong emotional investment.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. His disruption has been as bad or worse on talk pages, fighting against consensus, etc.  Shouldn't he also be banned from editing the article?  Or is that automatically included? Msalt (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In using the wording "topic banned including from talk pages" it was my intention to convey the sense of banned from editing and talk pages. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, I see it now. Apologies. Msalt (talk) 04:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * oppose for reasons given above.--Zanthorp (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Rumiton topic banned
2) That Rumiton be topic banned for one year, including from talk pages, in respect of all articles having association with Prem Rawat


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I'm not sure what the best remedy would be.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    04:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Rumiton has shown himself incapable of Consensus editing of articles in which he has a strong emotional investment, however unlike Momento Rumiton has shown a capacity to work within policy on other articles and it may be that after sufficient time separated from the Rawat articles Rumiton may develop the capacity to work on those articles in which he has an emotional involvement as well as he does on other WP articles, in which he is not so invested.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As I've said elsewhere, I think Rumiton and Francis have both contributed to the edit-warring and disruption and should face equivalent topic bans. I'd probably go with something shorter, a month or 3 months maybe. Msalt (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've not seen anyone put together a concise compilation of Francis's failings, and I personally never experienced any of the claimed disruption. What I also have not seen is any evidence of Francis failing to adhere to WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, the failures of which in my view have been the greatest impediments to progress. It is precisely those failing that I've documented on the evidence page in respect of Rumiton's behaviour. I can not see how Rumiton and Francis can be judged to be equally culpable given Rumiton's sustained incivility.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There is no evidence of "Sustained incivility" given the large number of edits by this editor. Occasional incivility, yes, but "sustained", no. The proposal is draconian. --Zanthorp (talk) 04:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Jayen466 to Clarify
3) Jayen466 be asked to clarify his position regarding his apparent unwarranted withholding of WP:AGF as per this issue:


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I'm happy to clarify my position. Given that none of us are professional scholars in this field trained in dispassionate writing, I believe that good articles on Wikipedia result from having a mix of editors represented. Every editor arrives with their own level of prior knowledge, individual strengths, sensibilities and blind spots; it's rare for an editor to be able to represent all of the related points of view equally well, or to step back from overinvolvement, whether based on a positive or negative stance towards the subject. Having to deal with editors opposed to your own POV can often be a pain, but it is also a fundamental element of how Wikipedia works. Jayen  466  01:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your statement specifically states your with-holding of goodfaith. It is axiomatic that on an encyclopaedia that "anyone can edit", goodfaith must provide an acceptance that other editors can competently edit any article on their own - unless of course there is demonstrable evidence to the contrary. Had you justified your position by quoting tendentious actions committed by those from whom you intend with-holding goodfaith, then in that particular case your statement might be acceptable, however you appear to be making a 'class point' in comparing (your assessed) balance of one POV group with another.
 * As far as your reply here is concerned, I suggest you be very careful what you assume about others; you may not be a "professional scholar[s] in this field trained in dispassionate writing" but that certainly does not allow you to accord such a limited level of capacity to other editors. Perhaps you would like to re-present your 'clarification' in terms specific to you, and not some generalist sense of 'we'.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A storm in a teacup. Jayen's remarks were a simple statement that multiple editors are more likely to produce a good and neutral result than single ones. Wikipedia 101. Warning Jayen to "be very careful" as above seems to me itself an assumption of poor faith. Rumiton (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Future progress on the Rawat articles will not be made unless all editors make a clear commitment to working within both the letter and the intent of policies.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, quite right. --Zanthorp (talk) 04:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Behavior of Admins
1) As per, Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained poor judgment or multiple violations of policy may result in the removal of administrator status.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed


 * No evidence of inappropriate administrative actions has been presented.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    17:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Interesting that this language is taken from the Sarah Palin case, in which Jossi (since resigned from Wikipedia, and the subject of much evidence in the first Prem Rawat case) was strongly admonished for his behavior. I sure don't see any admin actions comparable to reverting other admins' protections against consensus, though. Msalt (talk) 04:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Fraudulent complaints
2) Making complaints that are without merit for the sole purpose of harassing another editor or seeking to get them banned is contrary to the interests of Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * How would the Committee make a determination of intent? Even if a complaint is meritless it's easy enough to misunderstand policy, or get carried away with frustration, or otherwise have some better purpose than deliberate abuse of process. <font face="Verdana"> Durova  Charge! 04:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This appears to be an attempt to punish editors who complain about the actions of Momento (who proposed this, and appears to feel some impunity from punishment at Arbcom despite his many blocks and warnings.) Momento himself has made many outrageous, incivil complaints in this proceeding against Will BeBack and myself, many without any evidence whatsoever (e.g. he charges me with edit warring and opposing consensus, groundlessly).  So certainly I could accuse him of this same thing, but I don't think it's a fruitful path for the Arbcom to take.  Of course people disagree about what happened; that's why this is before the Arbcom.  It seems like a backdoor way to describe content disputes as policy issues, and seems very hard to square with [WP:AGF]. Msalt (talk) 04:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

False evidence
3) Lying or giving false evidence in an AE or RfA is a unacceptable from any editor.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Per Msalt. <font face="Verdana"> Durova Charge! 04:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Of course, but my comments about the previous principle apply here too. How do you decide evidence is false rather than mistaken or poorly analyzed, especially give [WP:AGF]? Msalt (talk) 04:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If someone says "You added links to this article" but the edit history shows you didn't, that's a lie.Momento (talk) 09:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Where, on the evidence page, has this happened? Is asserting that some folks are "fiercely anti-Rawat editors" without providing evidence of it a lie? It's common to make assertions that aren't entirely backed up by evidence. If that in itself is a violation then there are probably several editors here who're in trouble.   <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    17:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Selective enforcement of policies and guidelines
4) Allowing other editors latitude when enforcing policies and guideline but strictly enforcing compliance on others is a form of harassment.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * No evidence of selective enforcement of policies and guidelines.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    17:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Francis Schonken
1) Francis Schonken has a history of ignoring consensus, edit warring, tendentious editing, harassing me by filing 6 complaints (only one was proven) and filed two fraudulent complaints to AE for the sole purpose of harassing me and trying to have me banned.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I count only three AE postig initiated by Francis concerning Momento, one of which resulted in a ban. I don't see any evidence to show that his sole purpose was to harass Momento, or that Francis has acted in bad faith.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    17:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * A good indicator of axe-grinding is when an editor's proposed finding of fact includes the word "me". Msalt (talk) 04:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Nik Wright2
2) NW2 has made less than a dozen edits to the PR article since Feb last year. The first was an undiscussed insertion of 12,000 bytes of contentious material that he re-inserted when removed, resulting in page protection. The most recent was to break a long standing consensus to have only one link in the PPR article. When it was removed he filed a fraudulent complaint with AE in which he omitted his own edits from the edit history he provided for the sole purpose of harassing me and trying to get me banned.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Again, the presence of the word "me" in a proposed finding of fact is, IMHO, an indication of an editor's difficulty viewing this situation from the interests of Wikipedia rather than a personal POV. Msalt (talk) 04:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Momento claims "he filed a fraudulent complaint with AE in which he omitted his own edits from the edit history" when in fact the diff shows just the opposite [] and it was on the basis of the evidence that I presented, that Sandstein judged that I should be topic banned. There was no attempt to harrass Momento, merely my frustration that he refused to engage in any discussion about the link inserted by a new editor to whom no one was giving an adequate explanation as to why the link couldn't stay, (I still haven't seen the diffs that define the point at which concensus was reached) and Momento merely repeated monotonously the mantra that he was justified by BLP. I miss-counted the number of reverts in 24 hours, and I also did not see that BLP policy justified the INCIVIL treatment of a new editor, I therefore believed the article probation conditions had been broken and sought admin intervention. I didn't engage with Momento, other than to ask him to explain his actions to other editors [][][][]--Nik Wright2 (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Francis Schonken
1) Francis Schonken should be indefinitely banned from editing any Prem Rawat related articles or talk pages.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Oppose. If there's one thing clear about these pages, it's that Francis and Momento don't care much for each other's editing.  Momento is the only one who has proposed banning Francis.  As I have said elsewhere, Francis has (unlike Momento) made many impressive contributions to these pages but has also engaged in edit warring.  I would support equivalent "time outs" for Rumiton and Francis, probably a month, maybe three. I suspect that, if Momento were not present to incite, both would be solid, constructive editors. Msalt (talk) 05:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

WillBeback
2) WillBeBack should be indefinitely banned from editing any Prem Rawat related articles or talk pages.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Oppose. While I often disagree with Will, this is unwarranted. Jayen  466  14:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Absurd. Msalt (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Nik Wright2
3) Nik Wright2 should be indefinitely banned from editing any Prem Rawat related articles or talk pages.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Nik was already topic banned for a month for edit warring over the external links. He hasn't made any problem edits since then.   <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    17:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Special 1RR probation for all Prem Rawat articles
1) All Prem Rawat articles are indefinitely limited to a hard 1RR restriction. All editors currently named or participating in this RFAR are bound by this. Any future editors, once notified of the probation, are similarly bound. Violation of this 1RR restriction will be treated as a 3RR violation, with blocks of escalating duration. The current named parties in this RFAR, or any previous or future Prem Rawat-related RFAR, are barred from invoking any exemptions on this 1RR restriction under any current or alternate username(s), including the BLP and copyright exemptions, to ensure all the deeply involved editors are on an "even playing field" at all times. Uninvolved editors who were at no time a party to a Rawat RFAR may make use of the BLP or copyright exemptions.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I appreciate Rootology's input, but I don't believe this would solve the problems. First, 1RR probation was attempted before, last year. It failed and the failure led directly to the previous RfAR. Second, frequent reverting hasn't been the biggest problem with this topic, though there have been a few occasions when there've been several reverts in a day. Third, 1RR is not well-defined, and I don't think it should be proposed as a remedy in any case until that problem is fixed. (WP:1RR seems to discuss 0RR instead.) However I do agree that one of the edit-warring problems has involved claims of exemptions to 3RR. I would support (and may propose) a remedy that would limit use of that exemption by involved editors. If there is a problem so severe that it outweighs the 3RR limit then an outside editor should be brought in to fix it, via WP:AN or another noticeboard.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    20:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is an interesting proposal. Unlike Will, I thought 1RR worked quite well for a while last year in slowing things down and forcing dialogue rather than edit warring. But if something along these lines is attempted, then the list of editors should be clarified; I don't recall who exactly was a named party last time round. "Anyone who has submitted evidence and proposals in Rawat arbcom cases" would seem like a better definition, I'd say. Jayen  466  23:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed as a suggestion. Reading through all of this (my only significant involvement was that I successfully ran an AFD versus one division of Rawat's corporations, I forget the article name now) it seems like 99.9% of this mess is clashing personalities, specifically for content--it's a series of content disputes blown up from differing interpretations of policy on the surface, with all sorts of mudslinging only barely under the surface.
 * Limiting every single person involved in the Prem Rawat RFARs up to this point and warned in the future to a rigid 1RR will quickly weed out those that are here to work collabaratively on improving Wikipedia, and those that are here for any other inappropriate reasons. While this may restrict some people (possibly unfairly) it would be a hard probation on the articles themselves, forcing discussion for changes with a heavy stick to back it up. Those that fall on the bad side of the stick, given it's simple black and white requirements, will be obviously here for the Wrong Reasons, and we can frankly do without them. Heavy handed? Yes, but if nothing else can break the endless warring, sometimes you have to use a leash. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 19:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Very interesting. My concern is that if someone is prone to exploiting loopholes such as BLP to continue POV edit wars, it won't be hard to find the loophole here too.  Momento always seems to have one ally at a time who is also a Rawat devotee, and these keep changing (Pongostick, earlier Pedrero, Janice Rowe, Louise Po, Rainer P., etc.)  The next new ally would be free to continue BLP edit warring.
 * I would recommend taking this further - no 3RR (or 1RR) exemption from edit warring on these articles, for anyone ever. Resolve the contradiction in BLP (exemption from 3RR vs. don't edit war) in favor of the second sentence I quoted above, which says roughly "seek support from an admin at a noticeboard instead of edit warring." Msalt (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Any future editors, once notified of the probation, are similarly bound." Anyone can recruit all the meatpuppets they want, it will only work the first time with this idea. The only way to "beat" it would be sockpuppetry, which once rooted out would be the end of those editors anyway. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 17:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Standard. --bainer (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agree.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    18:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Neutral point of view
2) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view; that is, they must fairly portray all significant points of view on a subject in accordance with their prevalence. Wikipedia is a mirror for human knowledge: it seeks to reflect, and not distort, the current state of thought on a subject.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Again, standard. --bainer (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agree.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    18:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Neutral point of view and sourcing
3) The requirement of the neutral point of view that points of view be represented fairly and accurately, and Wikipedia's nature as an encyclopaedia, demand that articles should always use the best and most reputable sources. A neutral point of view cannot be synthesised merely by presenting a plurality of opposing viewpoints, each derived from a polarised source.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * From cold fusion, etc. --bainer (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In my view, presenting a plurality of opposing viewpoints can be a step in the editing process towards NPOV when there are disputes. But to avoid synthesis, reliable independent secondary or tertiary sources that indicate the relative weight required, are needed to help get the balance right. In entrenched disputes (especially those that involve real-world disagreements), editorial discretion is no longer sufficient. Carcharoth (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Definitely tricky - opposng views need to be weighted to consensus and fringe guidelines. Might be worth mentioning those in this principle. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I support idea behind this proposal. Loading up an article with opposing views from polarized sources does not make the article be NPOV because polorized sources EXAGGERATE the importance of information. Having loads of EXAGGERATED content from opposing points of view does not result in an article that is written from a NPOV. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 14:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I don't understand how this squares with WP:NPOV, which says that articles "must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." Polarized sources, if otherwise reliable, often represent signicant views. So long as they are presented using the neutral point of view, they can be an important part of an article. The alternative is to use, when available, teriary sources that describe the view. That seems less desirable.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    18:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems clear. When sources give contradictory accounts the best sources are used to resolve the issues, and they become the voice of Wikipedia. Rumiton (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. That implies that there's a single right POV, and that editors whould decide which one it is based on which source they think is best. There are many good, reliable sources and all of the significant views expressed in them should be included, not just the single "best" one.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    07:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree. In Rawat's case, Melton writes, "His arrival in the United States was met with some ridicule, as the teenaged Rawat was seen as immature and hence unfit to be a religious leader". Just look at the sources used in one Rawat article - 4 cites from "Who Was Maharaj Ji? The world's most overweight midget. Forget him.", Oui;, 14 cites from "Over the hill at 16", Ramparts Magazine; "How I Was Stood Up by the Venusians", Los Angeles Times; 8 cites from "Goom Rodgie's Razzle-Dazzle Soul Rush". But once it's in, how can you remove "sourced material from reliable sources"?Momento (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As encyclopedic sources go, these article titles are not confidence-inspiring. Jayen  466  06:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Accuracy of sourcing
4) The contents of source materials must be presented accurately and fairly. By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor represents that the quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes the contents and meaning of the original source, and that it is not being misleadingly or unfairly excerpted out of context.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * From PHG. --bainer (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A good general principle, but if something is excerpted from one source to present one viewpoint, then it is not always necessary to use that same source to present other viewpoints. However, a source should not be presented as only supporting one viewpoint, if it in fact presents a more balanced view. It is a question of whether the source is simply being used in passing to support a specific claim in an article, or whether it is being used to support the balanced overview used in the article as a whole. Those are distinct uses of sources, and should not be confused. Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agree.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    18:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Rumiton (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Biographies of living persons
5) Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Standard. --bainer (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Responding to Will Beback - agreed, BLP policy applies to all living people (i.e. all living people mentioned in the Prem Rawat article) and to all articles. Mentions of Prem Rawat and his estranged family in other articles are also subject to BLP. Recently deceased people and their families should also be protected by BLP as well (by common courtesy). And writing about historical events in a way that affects living people is also subject to BLP, in my view. Carcharoth (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agree. I don't know if it's worth mentioning that the BLP policy applies to all living people, not just the immediate subjects of articles. The editors of this topic have not always applied the policy equally to Prem Rawat and to members of his estranged family who are mentioned in the articles.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    18:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. Wise words and well written. Rumiton (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Objective of the biographies of living persons policy
6) While the objective of the biographies of living persons policy in preventing potential harm to the subjects of articles is of the utmost importance, and the immediatist stance that the policy calls for requires a broadly conservative approach in the application of content policy, the policy should not be applied so rigorously and with such a high level of granularity that all negative or positive material is excluded from a biography of a living person. In particular, the neutral point of view is an article-level objective.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This one is not standard, and may be controversial, but I think it is important to note. Unlike verifiability or original research, which may be assessed on a very fine level, whether an article achieves a neutral point of view cannot be answered in the same way, it has to involve a consideration of surrounding parts of the article and of the article as a whole. --bainer (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would add that NPOV is also an encyclopedia-level objective, in that groups of articles, and topic areas, must also achieve a balanced treatment of a subject that reflects reliable sources, which requires no POV forks and requires careful use of summary style and consideration of an article's context. Carcharoth (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agree (with wording above or below). This is an important principle. The goal of WP:BLP is not to whitewash biographies. It is to make sure that whatever we say about a living person is in strict accordance with the core policies of WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    18:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The phrasing of WP:BLP regarding removal of poorly sourced and derogatory statements is very clear. This appears to be a poorly worded attempt at circumvention. Rumiton (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * The wording is rather complicated - and I think that linking a meta-wiki philosophy will further complicate it. How about something like:

"The goal of the biographies of living persons policy is to prevent harm to the subject of biography articles, and requires that editors quickly apply a high level of scrutiny to content on these articles. This scrutiny should not be so strict that it prevents an article from being factual, and well written from a neutral point of view."
 * This is less specific, but avoids jargon.--Tznkai (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How about, instead of "the immediatist stance that the policy calls for", saying "the policy's call for immediate action"? Msalt (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This certainly begins to address the problems there have been in practice on the Rawat articles, however there is a fundamental problem with the unmoderated use of the word ‘harm’. As written it promises a level of protection to a BLP subject that is simply not reasonable in the context of a globally available resource such as Wikipedia. The wording after the second comma does of course provide a moderation but it is so distanced from the word ‘harm’ as to allow the same level of abstruse wikilawyering as seen previously.
 * The current BLP policy has only this to say about ‘harm’ “The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.” It would be far better to start from that construction than to introduce the terms ‘objective’, ‘potential harm’ and ‘utmost importance’, which actually provide a contradiction to the apparent intent of - “the policy should not be applied so rigorously and with such a high level of granularity that all negative or positive material is excluded from a biography of a living person. In particular, the neutral point of view is an article-level objective.”
 * I would also suggest a clear separation of meaning in respect of the actions of creating new content, and of removing unacceptable content with refrence to current policy,thus Objective of the biographies of living persons policy would read:


 * The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment, however the neutral point of view is an article-level objective which requires that both positive and negative material is likely to form notable parts of every article. Timely removal from BLPs of unsourced content  is an expectation of all editors, however this is not permission for edit warring, the involvement of an administrator should be sought at an early stage where there is controversy over the  permissability of  content slated for  | Removal   --Nik Wright2 (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Identify sources
7) Even when adding sourced and cited material to an article, it is very often useful to identify the source used in the article text. Doing so not only facilitates evaluation of the veracity of the material by the reader, but helps to delineate the article's presentation of various points of view. This is particularly the case where the material is challenged or likely to be challenged. Weasel words should be avoided.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This is very important to this case; there are far too many weasel words used in these articles. --bainer (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think bainer means instead of saying "It is said", or using the passive voice, with a footnote pointing to the source, the context needs to be brought up front into the article text. e.g. "Reporter Y, writing for newspaper X, said in 1990 that...", and "...was stated in a press release from organisation Z in 2008", rather than pushing source details and dates down into the footnotes. Rewording slightly might help make bainer's point clearer. Carcharoth (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I haven't seen any evidence presented about this. One problem has been the moving of citations or material with the effect of splitting the material for its citation. But in general there has not been a problem of people adding unsourced material. On the other hand, the question of whether to attribute specific facts or viewpoints to their sources has been a subject of recurring controversy with this topic, but those are ordinary editing decisions that every topic has to deal with. Could Bainer point to some specific problems?  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    18:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I cannot really see this as a problem. And if every statement in every Wikipedia article had to be doubly attributed like that, the result would be unreadable. Rumiton (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd further note that in many cases the same or similar assertions are made by more than one source. A principle I've used sometimes is to attribute a POV or contentious assertion when made by a single source, but not to do so when it's made by two or more. It'd be unwieldly to write, according to X, Y, and Z. On the other hand, if it's asserted by several sources it'd would be inappropriate to arrtibute the view to only one source, as then it would seem as if that were the only source making the assertion. Do we need this principle in this case? Is this required by existing policy?  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    00:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Sources in languages other than English
8) It is entirely permissible to use sources written in languages other than English in Wikipedia articles. However, for the convenience of readers, equivalent English language sources (if any) are to be preferred. Translations published by reliable sources are to be preferred to translations by Wikipedia editors.

The Babel system may be used to find users able to translate such sources in order to assist with verification of references.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * A less significant point perhaps, but one that needs to be made as the arguments about which sources may be used regularly recur. --bainer (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikisource may also be able to help in cases where the documents are public domain. Carcharoth (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * After reviewing loads of BLP articles, I've come to think that the exclusive use of non-English sources for living people (especially people of minor fame) is extremely problematic. It is almost impossible to verify sources later and update stale articles if the articles have no English sources. For these reasons, adding English sources is more than a convenience and is good practice whenever possible to do so in order to assist in writing high quality articles. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agree.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    18:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Not "entirely" permissible. Many words and phrases exist in any language that have no equivalent in any other language. Elsewhere on this page I have referred to "teddy bear types." Would you like to translate that into Mandarin? This is an invitation for a POV editor to insert gibberish into an article he intends to ridicule, claiming it to be literally what the source said. Translations should be used, if at all, with extreme care. Rumiton (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

External links and biographies of living persons
10) Just as biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, the process of deciding whether or not to include an external link in a biography of a living person must be motivated by the objective of preventing potential harm to the subject. Particular attention should be paid to the desirability of either treating within the article, or else excluding, resources which do not live up to the standards of neutrality and accuracy such that they may stand alone, without any context or complementary material.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * An important practical point in the context of the many edit wars covered below. --bainer (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Edit wars over external links? Really? External links should have a clear purpose, and should provide information about the subject of the article. Links to sites critical of the subject of the article should probably be used as sources for criticism within the article, rather than as an external link. I would have thought that in cases of disputes, the obvious external link would be to an official site for that person, regardless of how inaccurate, biased or hagiographic it is. We should trust our readers to know that when they are being sent to an "official" site, they may only be getting one side of the story. Think of sites like the BBC and the links they provide next to their news stories, with the disclaimer: "The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites ". For example, this news article has 'external' links to: UKIP; Conservative Party; and News of the World. I would say an article on Prem Rawat could well do with just one link to whatever is the official Prem Rawat site. And put everything else in the article. However, if an organisation critical of PremRawat had an article, then that article would have a link to the official website of that organisation, and not to any official Prem Rawat site. In other words, no editorializing in the external links. Keep them strictly limited to the subject of the article and nothing else. Carcharoth (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agree, but the question of how linking to a website can actually harm a public person is wide open.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    18:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not wide open at all. Every person with a public persona also has a private family and friends, and they have friends of their own. Some websites like to throw mud, and mud sticks, however unfairly. Wikipedia should not take part in the throwing of it. Rumiton (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * >We should trust our readers to know that when they are being sent to an "official" site, they may only be getting one side of the story.<


 * That is a reasonable position. However the article from which the link is made should not serve as a non discriminating promotion of a product or service. Take a hypothetical BLP subject –a Doctor Saunders, the inventor and purveyor of a meat based energy drink sold as "Dr Saunders"; the WP BLP contains only limited references to criticism of the Doctor’s business practices and these are many decades old, all the other material is a favourable treatment of his life, work and the benefits of his invention. The external links  section of the BLP  lists only a link to the Doctor’s ‘personal’ page which is full of promotional material about his famous product. Although there are no sources which meet the RS criteria concerning criticism of the "Dr Saunders" product, there is an active online forum for individuals who claim to have suffered significant health impairment because of imbibing the "Dr Saunders" drink,and the forum includes references to the health impairments associated with products comparable to Dr Saunders’ invention. Supporters of Dr Saunders argue that no reference can be made to this online forum bcause it breaches BLP considerationd.


 * In the Dr Saunders case there is clearly a problem, a product which may be harmful, or at least which fails in the eyes of some consumers, may in effect be given protection as though it were a Living Person. The option to address this through having a linked article on the product would be hampered if the product ingredients are secret; of course here any analogy with the Rawat articles breaks down because consumer protection laws in most developed countries demand publication of ingredients, which not the case with a 'secret' meditation practice. Nevertheless one can see how, in some circumstances WP could be in danger of being no more than an intermediate marketing page where consumers are merely forwarded on to a sales pitch. In such cases any consumer advocacy, even if limited to a self published online source, should be considered for mention within any article where there is a link to a probable sales pitch. If the existence of product specific consumer advocacy can not be explicitly named within an article which identifies the product, then inclusion of an External link should be considered appropriate, because while the link may breach BLP guidelines, it is being published in relation to possible product marketing. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This argument does not appear persuasive. If a product of any kind has proven inferior or harmful we have to reply on reputable sources to tell us so. The alternative is linking to gossip and innuendo, which is unfair to the product and its promoters. To descend (or ascend) into levity, consider the witness at the witch’s trial in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, "She turned me into a newt!" Not unless reputable sources say so. Rumiton (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Also the self published online source in question contains no item that is offered for sale, so terms like "consumer", "sales", "marketing", "product" etc should not be applied. Rumiton (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply to Rumiton: Your argument is that consumer advocacy must not be mentioned in a WP article, even if there is the most basic primary source evidence for the existence of that advocacy, unless there also exists RS sources for failure of the product/service for which the consumer advocates are offering criticism. That is a wholly unreasonable test and places Wikipedia in a pro product/service provider position which would be against NPOV; there is a preponderance of evidence that consumer advocacy is frequently in advance of Government and Scientific caution over harmful products and services and it is therefore entirely reasonable that Wikipedia should record the ‘fact’ of the existence of product/service specific consumer advocacy. This is not the same thing as using product/service specific consumer advocacy as an RS for material about the product/service or its provider.


 * The issue of self published is surely a separate issue, I don’t see the connection. What is relevant is that "consumer", "sales", "marketing", "product" are all significant when considering the principles Wikipedia needs to apply when dealing with the Rawat articles. Just because a product or service is delivered ‘free’ at the point of delivery, does not make that product or service immune from normal judgements of safety, intrinsic value, associated cost and matters of personal and social health. Nor does it mean that the provider does not engage in sales and marketing and other promotional activities – the Global budget for Charity promotion runs into hundreds of millions of dollars, and while the purpose of that expenditure is primarily to gain income rather than promote take up of free products/services, the process of promoting one in direct relation to the other is frequent. In which respect note how the ‘donation facility’ is prominent on every web site of a Rawat promoting organisation. Those who use or acquire a service or product, whether or not the service or product is charged for, are consumers of that service/product.  The only potential alternative way to look at Rawat and his meditation, is as a system of religious belief, but Rawat has constantly claimed he is not leading a religion. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that Prem Rawat's life is hard to categorize, which makes it hard for us to deal with. But the use of words like "advocacy" imparts a credibility to critics that may not be justified. For example: I might have cancer and be convinced it was caused by my drinking Coca Cola. I could post my complaint on the Internet, and the Internet being what it is, I could probably find 40 other people around the world who agreed with me and had similar stories. Our ideas might be in advance of professional opinion but statistically they would probably not be. My opinion would therefore have no place in the Coca Cola article and I would have wait for the professionals to catch up with me and validate my claims. Rumiton (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no difficulty at all in categorising Rawat, it is merely that he and his followers are resistant to the idea of categorisation, that doesn't mean that the categories do not apply. Trying to establish the application of principles from specific cases is always problematic – which is why I introduced the hypothetical Dr Saunders. Coca Cola is a product which is sold in advanced markets where declaration of contents is required and where scientific testing of the effect on human health is mandatory. The WP article Coca-Cola has a section | Health Effects where ingredients are listed with on-links allowing readers to research those ingredients individually.  In the case of Indian produced Coca Cola there is also information given regarding pesticide inclususions. Coca Cola is a Global brand and it should be expected that RS would exist for the majority of conceivable health related issues. It is absurd to suggest that every product or service which is referred to in Wikipedia can only have the existence (not use as RS) of associated consumer advocacy mentioned in an article if that consumer advocacy is supported by the same level of published product testing as that applied to Coca Cola.


 * The term consumer advocacy is well understood and does not imply official standing or exceptinal credibility Consumer organization, although presumably by capitalising the term some official status might be implied. The existence of the internet allows different action models to the formal organisations of the  Public Citizen type and on the basis of article specific editorial judgement, such consumer advocacy must reasonably be  recorded in a Wikipedia article. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The determination of the majority view is an important issue with this and similar topics. In this case it is complicated because Prem Rawat changed his image. In the late 1960s and 1970s, he was Guru Maharaj Ji, the sole living "Perfect Master" and the "Lord of the Universe", who had millions of followers in India and tens of thousands in the West. Then he split from the Indian movement, dropped the titles, and dramatically lowered his public prominence. It's easy to determine the majority viewpoint of the 1970s-era Guru Maharaj Ji because we have dozens of popular sources that discuss him. The majority view of Prem Rawat in the 1990s and 2000s is more complicated to discern because so little has been written about him in the last 20 years. It is likely that the view of followers is a minority view, and that the view of ex-followers is closer to the view of the majority, but since there are fewer sources it's harder to determine absolutely.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    18:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It needs to be understood that "perfect master" and "lord of the universe" are translations of Hindi or Sanskrit terms, and the connotations these terms have in their native environment are quite different from what a Western mind associates with Masters of the Universe. Religious scholars are familiar with these aspects of Eastern religion and don't tend to make fun of them. Jayen  466  18:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The point I was making is that the majority viewpoint is not necessarily the one held by followers, and that we can determine that fact definitely for the 1970s but less definitely for later periods. I don't know what "Master of the Universe" has to do with it since that's a TV show created in 1981, after Rawat had already dropped the title. Nobody in the 1970s would have confused the two.   <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    19:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I have seen, the internet activity of those who call themselves "ex-premies" centers on unsubstantiated allegations of immoral and illegal behaviour by the subject. It seems that just about any accusation would find a supporter there. To say, as Will does, that this represents today's majority view of Prem Rawat is a wildly tendentious argument. These are much more multi-culturally inclusive and open-minded times than were the 70s. It is also untrue that there is a lack of modern sources. From [] we have:


 * Barrett, David V. (2001).
 * Beit-Hallahmi, Benjamin (1993)
 * Björkqvist, K (1990)
 * Bromley, David G. (2007).
 * Chryssides, George D. (2001)
 * Fahlbusch, Erwin.; Geoffrey William. Bromiley (1998)
 * Galanter, Marc (1999).
 * Geaves, Ron (2004-03)
 * Goring, Rosemary (1995)
 * Hadden, Jeffrey K. and Elliot III, Eugene M., (2002)
 * Hunt, Stephen (2003).
 * Kent, Stephen A. (2001).
 * Kirschner A (2001).
 * Miller, Timothy (1995).
 * Melton, J. Gordon. (2003)
 * McGuire, Meredith B. (2002).
 * Lippy, Charles H. (2002).
 * Lipner, Julius. (1994).
 * Lewis, James R. (1998)
 * Lewis, James; NetLibrary, Inc. (1998)
 * Leech, Kenneth. (2001)
 * I would also mention that it is subtley tendentious to write that he "dropped" Indian titles when he never picked them up in the first place. He inherited them, and in this period he began actively discouraging their use. Rumiton (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a single one of those sources deals with criticism of Rawat after the mid 1980s and only the hagiographer Geaves deals with Rawat's activities in the last fifteen years; quite simply Rawat is not of interest to current academia. Current criticism of Rawat is to be found not in academic literature but in the writings of former followers, these may not amount to RS, but they do warrant acknowledgement of existence. As to the hair splitting over "dropped" versus "picked/inherited", that just takes us back to the prevarications of the Article Talk pages.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is no good arguing that there is not enough criticism of Rawat in the last 20 years' publications for your liking. We are simply required to reflect what the most authoritative sources say, no more and no less. Jayen  466  18:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Jayen your response is bordering on tendentiousness and UNWP:CIVIL. No where have I argued for the use of anything other than RS – this discussion is about External Links and the value to WP readers of information that follows from the existence of web resources, if you have any doubt about that, read what Bainer and Carcharoth have written. Further your assertion that “We are simply required to reflect what the most authoritative sources say, no more and no less.” is patently inadequate as NPOV requires that the existence of criticism, where that criticism has a verifiable existence, should at the minimum be acknowledged. This workshop is supposed to offer solutions to the case as it has been brought to Arbcom – “simply required to reflect what the most authoritative sources say”  merely restates a false principle that has been used consistently to justify WP:BATTLE on the Rawat articles, this hardly advances the cause of resolution. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (outdent) response to Jayen466. What does “Eastern Religion” mean – every religious belief held by all those who live east of the Bosphorus and west of the Aleutians ? Really these notions are complete OR and lead us no where. There is no ‘mystery’ involved in understanding the terms used in English by the Divine Light Mission and its leaders; English was the primary language used by the Rawat family (excepting the mother) and the senior Mission functionaries when promoting the Hans Rawat belief system – both Hans Rawat’s Hans Yog Prakash and C.L. Tandon’s  Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji Maharaj’  were published in English by the Indian DLM,  and there was no ambiguity in the way that the terminology was being used in English. Neither was there any ambiguity in the way the terminology was used by Prem Rawat, the Rawat family and the English speaking mahatmas from 1971 onward; any assertion that there was ambiguity should be supported by evidence not OR assertion.  Lord Of The Universe was the title of two films, one produced for broadcast on PBS in 1974, the other produced by in the UK by the Divine Light Mission, the title of the PBS broadcast might be considered ironic, but the DLM 1971 production of the same name was clearly a serious use of an unambiguous phrase, further its use is explicit in the Shri Hans Productions © 1973 ©  book Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji? --Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am pointing out that "perfect master" (= satguru) and "lord of the universe" are spiritual titles used in Hinduism, Sikhism and the Radhasoami tradition which many authors assert was Rawat's parent tradition. These terms did not come out of a vacuum. They have a cultural context.  Jayen  466  18:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC) This for example is from a 1939 book on the Radhasoami/Sant Mat tradition, written two decades before Rawat was born: "The disciple knows his Master as the giver of all life, the Lord of the Universe. That is so, because on the inner planes the Master is identical with the Supreme One" (my emphases). This speaks of an inner attunement with the source of all life, which the disciple feels they can achieve through attention to and attunement with her or his master's inner quality. The scholarly paper by Lucy DuPertuis (How people recognize charisma: the case of darshan in Radhasoami and Divine Light Mission) goes into all of this in some detail. It is quite different from what a Western mind would understand by "Lord of the Universe" (hence the humorously-intentioned pointer to Masters of the Universe above – the Western mind thinks in terms of exercising control, rather than attunement, so the concepts are quite different).  Jayen  466  12:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This posting introduces arguments and content issues that weren't discussed on talk pages previously. I don't see how it concerns this RfAR. Let's stick to addressing the disputes that the ArcBom can deal with, and not treat this is an article talk page or a discusison forum.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    20:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What has been a regular flashpoint is editors arguing on the talk page that Rawat claimed he was God, and that the article must clearly say this, so as to properly expose and ridicule Rawat. Some of the media treatments that have been marked by a more liberal dose of levity have indeed taken that sort of line. My argument is that this is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. It is a popular view that can be described, just like we can say that the press described him as an overweight teenager, but this POV should not usurp the editorial voice of the article. This latter, I feel, is what some editors have argued for, strenuously. We had several kilobytes of discussion on this issue here. Jayen  466  20:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume that the ArbCom isn't going to make a decision about whether or not Prem Rawat or his followers used to say he was divine. If they do want to address that issue then a fresh proposal should be made to cover it. The topic of this thread is how to deal with material in websites that don't qualify as reliable sources. Regarding the linked discussion, it appears to have been a pointless discussion in which no one was actually proposing any additions to the article, not a locus of this dispute.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    21:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above relates to the thread above, and the discussion you and Momento had there. Cla68's additionof "Lord of the Universe" to the lede, and your reverting it back in, was one of the contributing factors to the ensuing edit war. Frankly, the insertion of "also known as Lord of the Universe" struck me as a facetious and immature edit, and I quite understood the premie editors taking exception to it.  Jayen  466  21:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the thread. Let's try to post our remarks on the relevant threads.   <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    22:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How is this anything more than a content issue ? What principle is it that follows from your contention, which is supposed to inform the arbitration process ? All you seem to be saying is that academic appreciation of culturally specific semantics is more extensive than that found amongst the general public, which is a pretty obvious truism. The issue that Will raised was the “determination of the majority view” and as far as I can see no one has provided a source that in anyway deals with how Rawat is viewed by a majority in India, either now or in the past. The majority of sources, both media and academic, are European and American, and deal with Rawat prior to the mid 1980s, the period (as Will points out) when Rawat was identified in English, to a predominantly English speaking audience as the Perfect Master and the Lord of the Universe. The majority view must therefore be understood, in terms limited by WP:V as that appreciated by a non academic, English speaking public. Even amongst those academics concerned with the cultural origins of Rawatism,  the only research carried out is limited to Rife  Lane,  Juergensmeyer and Dupertuis all, of which are referenced the pre 1980s Divine Light Mission, and Geaves’  2004 and 2007 papers; (and Geaves refutes the Rhadasoami link). All the other academic treatements are encyclopaedisms. So how is the current majority view to be assessed ? On the basis of Geaves’ and Cagan’s hagiographies ? Or on the basis of the last published encyclopaedism which rehashes 30 year old academic opinion ? While at the same time the views of two hundred plus former followers can not even be acknowledged to exist ? --Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Their existence is acknowledged in the current version of the article (which for some reason now seems to be locked) though not very politely. I agree that dissatisfied former members should be acknowledged. I do not agree that Wikipedia should become a soapbox for their opinions, either directly or as an EL. Rumiton (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Locus of dispute
1) The locus of dispute is the article Prem Rawat, and to a lesser extent, certain other related articles concerning the Prem Rawat movement. The dispute broadly concerns the inclusion or exclusion of a variety of material critical of Rawat, of organisations associated with Rawat, of Rawat's supporters and detractors, and of Rawat's teachings.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Agree with Will Beback that entire area of dispute should be described. Something like "material that praises or is critical of Rawat" (adding the bits in italics). Carcharoth (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agree, though I'd note that there have also been disputes over material praising or favoring Prem Rawat, not just material that's critical of him.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    18:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with above. A whole recent biography, Peace is Possible by Andrea Cagan, was disallowed by some editors as overly hagiographic. I do not entirely disagree with them, but the topic should be covered. Rumiton (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * While there may have been editors who objections to Peace is Possible as hagiographic, the main objection to that work was that it contains many serious omissions and errors, and was published by a one-book publisher owned by followers, thus qualifying as a questionable source.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    00:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was one of those who found it hagiographic. If the main objection by others is that it was published by followers, then would that not allow it as a self-published source? Rumiton (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's self published by followers then it's usable as a source for the views of those followers, not for 3rd parties like Prem Rawat. There's no reason to treat a book self-published by followers differently than a book self-published book by ex-followers or anyone else. The problems with Cagan's Peace is Possible are legion and have been discussed exhaustively at User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat. Add to those Rumiton's assertion that it's hagiographic. Yet it's still being promoted as a reliable source by the same people who reject the New York Times as a source. The uneven evaluation of sources is definitely a locus of this dispute.   <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    17:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it could be argued that his followers' views might express the Prem Rawat's opinions, which would make it self published by the subject. Rumiton (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That argument is extremely weak and, when taken in combination with the attacks on highly reliable sources, it is another indication of the POV pushing that has existed on this topic for years.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    19:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the argument against the book also seems to put the cart before the horse. The author of the biography, Andrea Cagan, is a notable author in her own right, with numerous #1 places on the New York Times best-seller lists. The book is not self-published, because Cagan has not published it herself. We know it is published by associates of Rawat. They started a publishing company, Mighty River Press, and this book has so far been its only publication. The book has been translated into three or four languages, and translations have been published by regular and established publishing firms. On the face of it, there is nothing to justify an a-priori exclusion of the book. It actually isn't hagiographical either; e.g., it includes many embarrassing incidents of Rawat's life (including some not covered elsewhere). But at the end of the day, it is a very sympathetic account, perhaps comparable to a Hollywood star's authorised biography. I've argued we should treat it as a self-published source in line with the provisions of WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB. You, however, argue that it is self-published but not by Rawat, and therefore cannot be used for statements on Rawat and other third parties, as per WP:SPS. But, clearly, the book is not self-published. Cagan authored it, Mighty River Press and three or four other established publishers abroad have published it. WP:SPS does not apply with respect to Cagan. So at the end of the day, I have never understood your objection to using it as per WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB, i.e. self-published by Rawat, which already excludes its use for anything unduly self-serving or contentious, and seems a reasonable compromise under the circumstances. Jayen  466  20:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We've been over all of this before, and this page isn't the ideal location to rehash all of the arguments. My objection has been that it is a questionable source due to the poor reputation of the author (best-sellers notwithstanding), the non-existent reputation of the publisher, and the numerous errors and omissions in the book itself. Since virtually every issue conserning this topic is contentious, and almost every assertion sourced to the book is self-serving, there is no way to use the book even if it were deemed to be an SPS. If it's not an SPS then it's just an unreliable source. Here is an example of Rumiton (who calls the book "hagiographic") reinserting a self-serving claim about 3rd-parties sourced to it. Here Momento adds an assertion sourced to Cagan that directly contradicts a mainstream source, and here he argues that Cagan is more reliable than numerous press accounts and scholars. Does Jayen support this behavior?   <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    20:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the first discussions I ever took part in on the Rawat talk page concerned a quote from Time magazine that Rawat's mother and his brothers kissed his feet whenever they met with him. I have no reason at all to doubt Cagan's account here; the family accepted Prem Rawat as his father's successor, so touching his feet would have been second nature – it is simply the traditional Indian way of showing respect, equivalent to a bow, or a curtsey. As for the second example, if you have a reliable contemporary source that contradicts Cagan's timeline here, Cagan goes out, and we change the text. As for the third diff, that was discussed at length here.  Jayen  466  19:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This thread concerns the locus of dispute. Bainer and Carcharoth have proposed: The dispute broadly concerns the inclusion or exclusion of a variety of material that praises or is critical of Rawat, of organisations associated with Rawat, of Rawat's supporters and detractors, and of Rawat's teachings. Does anyone dispute that formulation? If so, this is the place to dicus it. If we want to discuss Cagan's book then it'd be more appropriate in another thread.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    19:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It isn't just "the inclusion or exclusion of a variety of material critical of Rawat", it is also "the inclusion or exclusion of a variety of material praising Rawat". PS. What "mainstream source" contradicts Cagan? And even a cursory glance at the diff shows I didn't "argue that Cagan is more reliable than numerous press accounts and scholars". An RFC on Cagan garnered four independent opinions of which three said Cagan can be used. Momento (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This discussion is getting farther and farther away from the issue of the "locus of dispute". Clearly, Cagan and other sympathetic sources are part of the dispute. If folks want to discuss Cagan further, let's do so on one of the talk pages.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    04:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Prior remedies
2) In the Prem Rawat case the Committee, recognising a broad background of problematic editing to Prem Rawat and related articles, placed those articles on article probation and reminded involved editors "who have or may be perceived as having a conflict of interest with respect to these articles... to review and to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on [the neutral point of view] and conflicts of interest." The article probation remedy superseded an existing one-revert rule restriction imposed by the community following an administrators' noticeboard discussion.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Important background. This is not a new dispute, and hence any sanctions needed will need to be more stringent. Carcharoth (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agree.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    18:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Enforcement of prior remedies
3) The aforementioned article probation remedy has proved difficult to enforce. While some blocks and topic bans have been applied under it, arbitration enforcement noticeboard discussions have generally been intractable and unproductive, with many descending into arguments amongst the disputants (examples: May 08, Sep 08, Jan 09, Feb 09, Feb 09). This difficulty was noted by administrators and, both of whom had responded to enforcement discussions, in their statements to the Committee.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Might need at least a rudimentary examination of the AE threads to check that difficulty was due to the disputants and not for any other reason. Most trainwreck AE threads are due to the disputants arguing, but sometimes they are due to poor handling by admins (not saying that this is what happened in any of these threads, but it is a possibility), or unhelpful commentary by uninvolved parties. Carcharoth (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agree.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    18:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Prior mediation
4) This dispute was subject to informal mediation, conducted by, from April to August 2008. The mediation ended, however, after a request for an upgrade a switch to formal mediation was made, but unanimous agreement among the parties on proceeding to formal mediation could not be secured. Furthermore, the Unfortunately the coincidental retirement (and subsequent banning) of the original mediator precluded a return to informal mediation.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Mentioning this as the mediation seemed to be quite successful, and mediation may be an option for the future here. --bainer (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Re Tznkai, you're correct that I do actually think that the mediation was productive, and as such it wasn't my intention to imply that. I've altered the text to hopefully avoid that suggestion. --bainer (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Re Will Beback, I've seen a number of comments relating to how external input (whether from RFCs, RSN, etc) has been received, but no real evidence substantiating such. Certainly if there are problems in the way that internal and external consensuses are being respected then it would be good to address them here. Perhaps the parties can help here; there is an exorbitant amount of potential evidence here (6300 revisions and 40 talk page archives on the main article alone) and aside from my investigations in the first case, I have no familiarity with the history of the article. --bainer (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If this amount of detail is needed, then maybe we should explicitly find that the mediation was helpful, rather than just saying that it took place (which is a rather bland finding). Maybe a finding of fact that encourages a return to mediation if further issues arise after the case? Possibly suggesting a new mediator, if that is best, while still thanking Steve for his previous efforts. Carcharoth (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agree. The informal mediation overseen by Steve Crossin did result agreement on several blocks of text. However, one problem whih hasn't been explored in the evidence, but could be, has been the discarding of material that was agreed upon in mediation. It's frustrating to spend a lot of time and effort finding agreement with many editors participating, and then have the material removed or substantially altered a short time later without a similarly broad consensus.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    18:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: Bainer: I'll add some evidence concerning how external input and mediation agreemnts have been treated by editors on this topic.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    23:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added some evidence about ignoring external input here: I'm going away fro the weekend and until I get back I won't be able to add evidence concerning rewriting text agreed upon in mediation.   <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    21:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * On further research I've found that much of the carefully-crafted text agreed upon after long discussion in mediation was deleted by user:Collect with little discussion or consensus. Those edits were ultimately quite disruptive and perhaps his actions should also be reviewed in this case.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    00:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * The text of the finding implies the original mediation was unsuccessful (your comment suggests you see otherwise), and implies that Steve Crossin was banned as a result of the mediation. I wouldn't use "upgrade" here, but thats a minor quibble.--Tznkai (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I echo the thoughts of Carcharoth, I think this finding is rather bland. I don't need or want a commendation for the work I did, but saying that the mediation just "happened" says too little. Is it really necessary to mention me at all? I've added a proposed alternative below. <font face="Verdana" color="blue">Steve Crossin Talk/<font color="#CCC000">24 00:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring
5) The Prem Rawat article, and to a lesser extent related articles, have been subject to a plethora of edit-wars, involving a number of different editors. Examples include:


 * inclusion or exclusion of various external links (Feb 2008): Francis Schonken, Momento, Francis Schonken, Janice Rowe, Francis Schonken, 24.176.193.149, Francis Schonken, 32.155.57.53, Francis Schonken, Momento, Francis Schonken, Rainer P., Francis Schonken


 * inclusion or exclusion of the word "Balyogeshwar" in the article's lede (Feb 2008): Francis Schonken, Momento, Francis Schonken, Momento, Francis Schonken


 * a passage concerning Rawat's father's death (May 2008): Momento, Francis Schonken, Momento, Francis Schonken, Momento
 * Note that this edit war commenced only a day after the Prem Rawat case closed.


 * concerning the lede and a section entitled "lifestyle" (Oct 08): Rumiton, Will Beback, Momento, Will Beback


 * concerning an external link (Jan 09)
 * On Prem Rawat: 99.245.228.162, Momento, 80.225.154.116, Rumiton, 41.223.60.60, Rumiton, Nik Wright2, Pongostick, Nik Wright2, Momento, 41.223.60.60, Momento, Nik Wright2, Momento, 41.223.60.60, Momento, 41.223.60.60, Rumiton
 * On teachings of Prem Rawat: Nik Wright2, Pongostick
 * On Elan Vital (organization): Nik Wright2, Jayen466


 * concerning external links (Jan 09): 66.253.10.227, Will Beback, Pongostick, Will Beback, Pongostick


 * concerning the lede (Jan 09): Cla68, Rumiton, Cla68, Momento, Pongostick, Jayen466 (partial revert), Rumiton (new addition), Will Beback, Rumiton (partial revert), Surdas, Pongostick, Will Beback, Pongostick, Surdas, Momento (partial revert), Wowest, 32.172.21.9, Surdas, 32.172.21.9, Mike R, Pongostick (partial revert)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This is, unfortunately, just a taste, although it does cover some of the worse ones. Smaller scale edit warring occurs quite regularly. --bainer (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Re Momento, in relation to the lede (Jan 09) edit war, I've added descriptions after some of the diffs as there were a number of different reverts happening during that edit war, not every revert was reverting the same content. The labels are to identify when the different reverts were happening. Some of the lists may not include the original edit adding the content being edit warred over, but that is immaterial, as what is of concern is the behaviour of the editors in reverting, not the substance of the content. --bainer (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Re Will, I'm aware that there were discussions about external links, the issue is not the substance of the content being edit warred over but the behaviour of the editors in choosing to edit war in the first place. If an editor is disrespecting an established consensus then the answer is not to edit war with them. As for the lifestyle edit war, here is the diff between your first and second reverts; such small changes do not do enough to change the reversionary character of the edits. --bainer (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Would like to see some response from those named above, or is this just intended as a general "edit warring took place" finding? If so, naming specific editors may not be needed, or maybe more specific findings (like the ones below) are needed? Carcharoth (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * In the interests of accuracy and context -


 * Inclusion or exclusion of various external links (Feb 2008) & an external link (Jan 09) & concerning external links (Jan 09). It should be noted that editors had agreed to limit links to one before Francis Schonken broke consensus and added the links as per . This consensus was restablished before 99.245.228.162 broke it, and again before 66.253.10.227 broke it.


 * Inclusion or exclusion of the word "Balyogeshwar" in the article's lede (Feb 2008). This summary is misleading as it omits Francis Schonken's first insertion of Balyogeshwar without discussion or source.


 * Concerning the lede and a section entitled "lifestyle" (Oct 08). This summary is misleading as it omits WillBeback first insertion of the "Lifestyle" section without discussion.


 * Concerning the lede (Jan 09). I can't understand why you chose to describe Rumiton, Momento, Pongostick & Jayen466 edits but have omitted to describe Cla68's edits as "new additions", WilllBeBack's reverts, etc.Momento (talk) 05:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My response to the above is to suggest you click on my name. My edits there were attempts to create a better article by improving the syntax. Certainly not any kind of warring. Rumiton (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding concerning the lede and a section entitled "lifestyle": They were not simple reversions. In both cases I changed the material to address specific complaints.
 * Regarding concerning external links (Jan 09): As detailed in the evidence page, the frequent edit warring over external links was resolved only after all the involved editors agreed, at my suggestion, to limit the section to a single link to the subject's own webpage. I deleted the additions (made by an anon and a brand new single purpose editor) to enforce that consensus, as I've done several times in the past.
 * Regarding concerning the lede: The two reverts I made were to restore sourced material (in one case deleted by the new single-pupose editor, and in one case a partial revert that also removed unsourced original research).


 * In summary, I'm not proud of having been so quick to respond to the edits of others, but I don't think that I made incorrect edits. In each case I was responding to inappropriate edits. While edit warring takes two or more editors, all participants are not equally at fault. At no time have I come close to breaching 3RR. I have never coordinated reverts with other editors off-wiki. Given that this listing covers more than twelve months, the fact that I've only exceeded 1RR a few times (if that) is not an indication that I'm an edit warrior or that I should be named as requiring a special limit. I've made more than 85,000 (non-tooled) edits to this project over nearly five years, with never a ban or restriction of any kind. I'd appreciate it if the committee would not break that record because of a few slow reverts I did months ago.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    09:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This comment of WillBeback's concerning the lede is untrue. WB claims - "The two reverts I made were to restore sourced material (in one case deleted by the new single-pupose editor, and in one case a partial revert that also removed unsourced original research). Both edits added the title "Lord of the Universe" which was neither discussed nor sourced. (unless it's on page 224 of Beckford).Momento (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As Momento undoubtedly knows, "Lord of the Universe" is a title that was used for Prem Rawat in the 1970s for which ample sources are available. It was discussed at least a couple of times. But if that was the only issue then that is all that needs to be removed. The LOTU matter was no excuse for deleting the "Balyogeshwar" sobriquet. And speaking of undiscussed, unsourced material, Momento and Rumiton's addition of "philanthropist" certainly qualifies.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    05:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So it is as I said. Contrary to your statement above, both of your edits inserted "Lord of the Universe" into the lead without discussion or source.Momento (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Shall we demonstrate for the ArbCom how discussions on this topic typically play out? Above, I gave three links for discussions about adding "LOTU" to the article. Here they are again. Sources? I can find dozens that use the term to refer to the subject, including journalistic sources like TIME, UPI, AP, and the New York Times, and scholars like John Saliba, Kirpal Singh Khalsa, and Johannes Aagaard. However that's all beside the point, which was that I wasn't really adding "LOTU" so much as reverting edits which deleted it and much other information. While the inclusion of "LOTU" is perhaps an editing decision, deleting it can't be justified based on a lack of sources or discussion.   <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    08:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's irrelevant whether you can find sources now, what counts is that the addition you made wasn't sourced when you added it. And you were "really" adding it because it has never been in the lead before. As for the links, the first is from 2007 and is about the video called "LOTU", not adding "LOTU" as a name to the article; the second, over 9 months old, didn't decide to include it and your third nine month old link concluded that "LOTU" shouldn't be included in the lead, as per your draft 19 . But you're right about one thing, this is exactly how these discussions play out. You defend adding unsourced material to the lede and I defend the BLP policy that says "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion".Momento (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Asserting that Rawat used to be called "Lord of the Universe" isn't contentious. It's a widely known fact. As a longtime editor of this topic, Momento is familiar with the sources that confirm the use of the title and he has even edited the article "Lord of the Universe" which concerns a documentary about Prem Rawat. Deleting such a well-known fact on the basis of it being an unsourced is tendentious editing.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    18:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't contentious? It is a title of a song that has the chorus "Open up your heart to the Universe of Love" sung in the early 70s. Rawat never used the title about himself and the rare occasions it was used by others, it was in the early 70s by people who were either familiar with the song and the "Universe" he was Lord of or the media who look for something titilating to attract readers. But since the first sentence is in the present tense and LOTU is not a current "alternative name" or pseudonym, for you to say he is known as LOTU is incorrect. But it doesn't alter the fact that no source was cited and therefore you shouldn't have added it, the Lead isn't the place to insert material that isn't covered in the article and there was no discussion in the previous 9 months about adding it.Momento (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Rawat never used the title about himself and the rare occasions it was used by others, it was in the early 70s by people who were either familiar with the song and the "Universe" he was Lord of or the media who look for something titilating to attract readers.
 * We have dozens of sources, including scholars, which say that he was called LOTU, including an interview (published in a magazine of which he was editor in chief) in which he's asked what it's like to be the lord of the universe. We have a prominent follower confirming that the title isn't a metaphor and that Rawat actually is the lord of the universe. Yet Momento apparently insist that his own personal knowledge outweighs those sources. Again, that's been a typical problem with this topic.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    22:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you should have cited one of the "dozens of sources" instead of asking us to rely on your "own personal knowledge". The note on the talk page is very clear - "Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information". As Jayen said about Wikipedia policies and guidelines –" in some cases, it seems to me Momento has been the only one to uphold them". Momento (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see Jayen provide more support for that assertion. Regarding the lead, where did Momento discuss this significant change? Here? In that thread he accuses me of harassment for complaining that he had deleted sourced and stable material, and that he'd added unsourced, undiscussed material in its place. This dispute appears to be another example of tendentious editing by Momento, and the proximate cause of this ArbCom case.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    23:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as we all understand that you have added unsourced material to the lead without discussion and edit warred over it. And that everything I am accused of you have done. Then what ever penalty applies to me should apply to you. And a reminder that Cla68 was the first person to add unsourced material to the lead. And a reminder that the article already contained the sourced info that "Rawat founded the The Prem Rawat Foundation (TPRF),[115] a Public Charitable Organization for the production and distribution of materials promoting his message, and also for funding worldwide humanitarian efforts. TPRF has provided food, water and medical help to war-torn and impoverished areas.[116]" My addition of "philanthropist" to the lead was not only sourced but reflects the contents of the article. Momento (talk) 02:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think we can agree on that at all. I didn't add "Lord of the Universe" - I reverted the deletion of a significant amount of sourced and stable material, which also contained that term. Further, the list above contains many examples of edit-warring by Momento, and the evidence page contains many other problems with Momento's editing.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    03:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the facts of this edit war are still contested, I've posted a new section of evidence on it. While I accept that your adding "Lord of the Universe" as a current title in the lede was inadvertent, it remains a fact that you and several other editors kept readding it, over and over again, all the while claiming to be reestablishing the longstanding consensus version. Jayen  466  11:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've responded to an error in your evidence here: Your evidence also omits the long discussions we had about "Balyogeshwar" in 2008. It's simply inappropriate for Momento to decide, all on his own, to ignore the previous agreements and consensus on the lead, and to delete well-sourced and stable material without further disussion. That's the type of tendentious editing behavior which has made lasting consensus impossible with this topic and has led to endless churning. "LOTU" wasn't the problem - Momento was, with aid from Rumiton and yourself.   <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    18:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Momento
6) has:
 * 1) treated Wikipedia as a battleground: ,
 * 2) absent adequate justification based on policy or consensus, repeatedly removed sourced material:, , , ,  (with a misleading edit summary), , , , , , ,  (with a misleading edit summary)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Would like to see a response from Momento. Carcharoth (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Re Momento, you are correct as to this diff, I had missed noticing that it comprises multiple revisions. I've altered the proposal accordingly. With the battleground matter, the issue is you becoming engaged in the historical debate (eg, making content decisions based on your view that a particular source is a bigot) rather than acting as one following NPOV should and merely documenting the debate. --bainer (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There was no "historical debate" to engage in or document. And I didn't make "content decisions based on my view that a particular source is a bigot". I made a content decision on the basis that VdL's comments were so extreme and unsupported by any other scholars that I should relocate existing material to provide a more complete picture. As the edit summary says, the additional material will show "what a bigot van der Lans was". VdL was an obscure Catholic cleric paid to write a book in Dutch by a Catholic publisher for Dutch Catholic readers. If it wasn't for the fact that the section was called "Criticism", his "tiny-minority view" about how Rawat became a guru and continued to be a guru would not have been included at all. So according to NPOV, I didn't remove it or say it was wrong, I simply added another perspective. FYI Jacob Belzen, who holds four doctorates in the social sciences, history, philosophy, and sciences of religion, wrote in VdL's obituary that van der Lans work "was not without theological preferences and bias, but he presented himself as an empirically oriented psychologist".Momento (talk) 07:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The other perspective added and the way it was presented in direct opposition to van der Lans's assertions was OR though; it's more or less a synthesised rebuttal. We can't do that. (I'll say in Momento's defence that this was nearly two years ago; the standard of editing has generally gone up a bit since then, in my perception.) Van der Lans wrote what he wrote. It's proper to point out his and his publishers' Roman Catholic allegiance, but it was fine for him to have his say in the article. Jayen  466  13:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The bit about flying the "707 to forty different cities, and spoke on 120 occasions etc" was already in the article. I relocated it for balance. But as you say Jayen it's a two years old and a look at the article of May 2007 shows a much lower standard of editing by all editors.Momento (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Response from Momento.


 * 1) treated Wikipedia as a battleground: This 2007 edit  involved adding much needed context - as per the year that VdL wrote"that Rawat's "life was one of idleness and pleasure", Rawat, a father of four children under 10, flew a Boeing 707 to forty different cities, and spoke on 120 occasions, crisscrossing North America four times and toured South America, Europe, India, Nepal, Australia, New Zealand, and Malaysia. This edit  was to remove 20 year old material inserted without context. I cannot see how these two edits turns Wikipedia into a battle ground.


 * 1) absent adequate justification based on policy or consensus, repeatedly removed sourced material:


 * The PR article was once 105,000 bytes. It is now 66,000 bytes because we all agreed it was bloated and unreadable. Every editor has with "consensus, repeatedly removed sourced material". Here are edits with the policies that govern them.

Edit one was to remove material that was translated by an editor without providing the original, contravening policy WP:RSUE. The article itself violated NPOV policy in three ways. Being called "Criticism of Prem Rawat" is violated Article Naming, by "Segregating text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself", it violated Article Structure and by allocating 8 negative scholars 10 times the space of 20 non-negative scholars, it violated Undue weight

Edit two removed in accordance with BLP. Inaccurate gossip about Rawat buying a house when scholastic and all other media agree it was bought by DLM as per the current article.

Edit three was to remove an exceptional claim contradicted by more reliable sources. A joke that ETs would attend Millennium presented as fact when available sources said "As a joke someone put up a sign that said "Mars" around an empty section of seats", a reporter was hoaxed with "Just be in the northeast corner of parking lot G. The Venusians are landing. You will get the first interviews" and the noted DLM expert wrote " Another often-reported prediction, made by Davis and others in half jest, was that extraterrestrials would attend".

Edit four was to remove an article so biased that the newspaper printed another article the next day to compensate.

Edit five (with a misleading edit summary) was according to Grapevine. The cite is incorrect. It doesn't appear in Melton's 1986 book.

Edit six was to remove material about DLM from the Rawat article.

Edit seven was to remove material about follower's actions and because it omitted Rawat's and DLM's positive actions as per later version.

Edit eight was in accordance with NPOV policy. Another eight sentences about his Rolls Royce is Undue weight given the previous references.

Edit nine to remove material about the 70s incorrectly located in the "Westernization" section and already adequately covered in the "Coming of Age" section.

Edit ten to reduce verbiage as the incident is already covered in the previous six sentences.

Edit eleven to reduce verbiage as the incident is already covered by the other five sentences.

Edit twelve (with a misleading edit summary). Carelessness on behalf of Bainer. The edit summary belongs to this edit, not the six edits that Bainer amalgamated.Momento (talk) 07:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Momento says, "It is now 66,000 bytes because we all agreed it was bloated and unreadable." That statement touches on one of the key problems with this topic at one time. In 2007, the topic was dominated by a few editors who shared a POV and who agreed among themselves to remove all of the material they didn't like. Consensus does not override NPOV. A lot of the work of the past year has been to bring the articles in the topic back to NPOV by including important events and significant points of view that had been deleted or simply left out. Momento has opposed such additions at every turn.   <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    00:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The "amalgamated" edit, #12, included substantial deletions of sourced material. (and the creation of a run-on sentence ).  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    09:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If this is about "substantial deletions of sourced material", forget about me removing a sentence here or there, here's WillBeback removing 6,000 bytes of sourced material in Nov 2008, nearly 2,000 bytes of sourced material in Nov 2008 and 2,000 bytes in Jan 2009.  Momento (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The first deletion was in response to several comments at FAC that the Millennium '73 article was too long an detailed. The Prem Rawat deletions were to remove material cited to a questionable source and to minimize coverage of an incident already covered in greater depth in another article, per WP:Summary style. Momento immediately reverted the Prem Rawat edits.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    02:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How come you're allowed to remove sourced material from an article that is "too long and detailed" or is "covered elsewhere" and I can't?Momento (talk) 06:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a system for bringing in outside views to improve articles and resolve disputes, including noticeboards, RfCs, and the FAC process. I removed material in response to direct advice from uninvolved editors. On the other hand, you contravened that advice by adding more material instead. That is characteristic of the many times that you and Rumiton ignored outside input.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk   
 * But you were also adding more, more, and more quotes against FAC advice.Momento (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Question for Bainer
 * Could you please explain to me what's wrong with Edit five (with a misleading edit summary). My edit was according to Grapevine. The cite is incorrect. It doesn't appear in Melton's 1986 book. Thanks.Momento (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If the assertion isn't contained in the source, then why did you make this edit?  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    04:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * These are different assertions. Melton's book says, on page 222, "... even information has been rare since the organization has granted no interviews and publishes no general announcements of Rawat's visits." Momento's edit made the text conform to what the source says on the cited page number. Jayen  466  12:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a very minor adjustment. I doesn't explain his outright deletion.   <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    16:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Momento asserts above that Melton's book, in the cited 1986 edition, did not say that "Rawat stopped giving interviews and avoided contact with non-members". He may very well be correct. Jayen  466  16:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Even more to the point, it looks like Momento's deletion was fully justified by the fact that prior to Momento's edit, the article actually said pretty much the same thing twice in close succession: "Rawat stopped giving interviews to the press and avoided contact with non-members.[61]" and then, 5 lines further down, "Rawat stopped giving interviews or making public announcements of his travels.[66]". Surely removing one of these statements, while leaving the other, and making it conform to what the source actually said, are uncontroversial, and actually commendable edits? I'm sure Bainer was not aware that this material was duplicated in the article text prior to Momento's edits.  Jayen  466  16:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The material was hardly "unsourced", as Momento claimed. Whether the interviews were being conducted by the DLM or by Prem Rawat is a minor detail, and if that were Mometo's concern then he should have fixed it rather than deleting it entirely. There is a long history of Momento deleting entire blocks of text because he disputes a small portion. As for the duplication, certainly that is a valid reason for deletion. It's not the one that Momento gave.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    19:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You say, "he should have fixed it rather than deleting it entirely." But that is exactly what he did – it was there twice in the article, he deleted it once, and corrected the other occurrence. Furthermore, if I see a sentence in an article with a citation, and I look up the cited page in the indicated edition of the book, and it does not say anything like what I have in the article there, the article text is unsourced. Jayen  466  19:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * The purest evidence of Momento's battleground mentality is his own words summarizing his evidence in this case: "We are here because of three fraudulent complaints made against me by a cabal of anti-Rawat, and therefore anti-Momento, editors."    Msalt (talk) 04:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This may be the wrong place for this question, which is late as well, but who decides who is a "party" and who is an "other"? Can we form a list of parties in this case please? Rumiton (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Rumiton
7) has:
 * 1) removed sourced material, stating that the source is wrong: ,
 * 2) altered a direct quotation from a source: ,
 * 3) treated Wikipedia as a battleground:, , , ,


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Would like to see a response from Rumiton. Carcharoth (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Response from Rumiton. OK, but I think if you look closely at these allegations they will refute themselves.


 * Khushwant Singh is certainly a source; he is the source of a weekly newspaper column titled “With Malice Towards One and All.” He is precisely the kind of source that Wikipedia Living Biographies WP:BLP forbids us to use, for a whole bunch of excellent ethical and legal reasons.


 * “Goon squad of tough-looking teddy bear types” did not make sense to me. What is a “tough looking teddy bear”? The gentle bear phrase is at odds with the “goon squad” that preceded it, and it seemed like an obvious typo, especially since I am of English-Australian background, and “goon squad of Teddy Boy types” does make some sense to me. It was a good faith revert, though perhaps wrong. Anyway, the effect of my revert was to make the sentence harsher towards the security people, which is at odds with my alleged POV in these articles.


 * Similarly my opposition to using James Randi as a direct source. He is a professional debunker of most anyone who teaches from outside the Jewish-Christian milieu. He ridicules the techniques that Prem Rawat teaches, which the best sources say stem from ancient and revered practices. See Khecari mudra.


 * Also Vishal Mangalwadi. Will Beback wanted to include his description of the Millenium festival as the zenith of Rawat's popularity which overshadowed that of all the gurus and religious leaders in the world. Is there any way such nonsense could be taken seriously? More popular than the Pope? The Dalai Lama? To me, not including stuff like this counts as intelligent editing. Will calls it edit warring.


 * The other diffs above show only the normal to and fro of robust (and polite) editing. Rumiton (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Rumiton misstates the material I was proposing to use from Mangalwadi. My draft was this:
 * The festival has been described as the high-point of Rawat's prominence as a guru.
 * It was Momento who wanted to include the assertion about overshadowing other religious leaders, apparently in order to make an extreme assertion as a strawman argument:
 * Vishal Mangalwadi described the festival as the he zenith of Rawat's popularity which overshadowed that of all the gurus and religious leaders in the world. 
 * As for James Randi, he is a professional skeptic and debunks all religious traditions, even Christian ones. Jossi added this text to the Randi bio:
 * For example, Randi refers to the Virgin Mary as being "impregnated by a ghost of some sort, and as a result produced a son who could walk on water, raise the dead, turn water into wine, and multiply loaves of bread and fishes", and questions how Adam and Eve could have two sons that killed each other and yet managed to populate the earth without committing incest. He ends his assessment of religion stating that "The Wizard of Oz is more believable. And more fun." 
 * If Rumiton thinks that Khushwant Singh's article published in the New York Times is a poor source, then that's typical of the problem with this topic. Singh is one of India's most eminent journalists, and the New York Times is considered the most reliable newspaper in the U.S.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    03:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I do think it is poor. As an article written for amusement, rather than elucidation, this is a very poor source for a living biography. Stinging criticism is what he promotes himself for and what readers expect when they turn to his writing. When he describes himself as "malicious towards all" he is advising the reader not to take him too seriously. As for Randi, I think again that you are shooting down your own argument. Is he used as a source for the Mary (mother of Jesus) article? Why not? Perhaps because he is known as a joker, not a serious source of information on spiritual/religious topics. Rumiton (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no indication that Singh's article was "written for amusement". It isn't funny or humorous. The article generated many letters to the editor, none of which describe it as amusing. The rejection of Singh's New York Times article is typical of the attacks on reliable sources, often combined with promotion of a questionable source (Cagan), that has been a continuous problem with this topic. As for Randi, not only did the uninvolved editors at the WP:RSN confirm that he's a reliable source, but we can see that he is used as a source or a significant point of view in scores of articles, even Sanctuary of Our Lady of Lourdes.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    18:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Will is right in that Khushwant Singh has been one of the most highly respected, most popular, most honoured journalists of India. He is in his nineties now, but his voice still carries considerable authority. Having said that, his article for the NYT does contain clear errors: "Once the neophyte is considered fit to be enrolled, Balyogeshwar gives him the diksha (spiritual gift) of a sacred mantra whispered in the ear. This may be just one word, like the name of one of the gods, Rama or Krishna, or a verse---'Repeat the name of Shiva and your difficulties will be resolved.' This is the guru mantra, the secret bond between guru and disciple which must never be divulged." This, unfortunately, bears no resemblance to Rawat's actual teaching, as per multiple sources that are simply more reliable when it comes to questions of theology – it is poor research on Singh's part, who admits in the article that he does not know what this "Knowledge" is of which Rawat's devotees speak. Even the most reliable sources contain errors, and we have to cross-check them against other sources and make editorial judgments. (I'll gladly point out though that Singh, as a native Hindi speaker, correctly mentions in that article that the Hindi word "Balyogeshwar" simply means "Child God", explaining why it was inappropriate to begin the article "Prem Rawat, also known as Balyogeshwar, is ...". Prem Rawat is in his fifties now.) As for Randi, I am more in agreement with Rumiton than with Will; if we were writing the Britannica article on Rawat, or indeed the Wikipedia article on the virgin birth, Randi would not be among the sources we would draw on. Jayen  466  21:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue here isn't whether Randi is a reliable source or not. (He was never advanced as a source for facts, but as a significant view to include per NPOV.) What matters here is the behavior. Outside editors at WP:RSN were asked to give input, and then that outside input was rejected. That's been a problem repeatedly.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    21:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct me if am wrong, but what I remember from the RS/N discussion is that editors there said that Randi was a reliable source for his own opinions, but that the question whether his opinion was worth including in our article was a matter for consensus on the article talk page. Jayen  466  22:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 *  Hence, I think that Randi's views are fine to include as criticism, if properly attributed to him.
 * ...his opinion is worth mentioning.
 * Agree also. Attribution is necessary, but his work can be used. 
 * Remember that Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored, however. That said, perhaps you could work out a compromise, say, paraphrase Randi's somewhat inflammatory language into something more neutral.
 * If you can point to where Rumiton or Momento were ever willing to compromise on this issue I'd be happy to see it. They rejected any mention of Randi's views, with your support if I recall correctly.   <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    22:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your excerpts above are not a summary of that debate as a whole and how it concluded, and you know that very well. Jayen  466  10:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The last excerpt is a verbatim quote from the final remark, so it is indeed how the discussion concluded. Your insinuation that I am intentionally misstating the discussion indicates a failure to assume good faith.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    16:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The last excerpt you posted is the second half of the final remark. The first half was this: Agreed. This just isn't a reliable sources issue, it's a consensus issue, and the effect of using this noticeboard in this manner, sidestepping consensus, would be inappropriate. (Obviously, that does not mean that it was the intent of the original posters.) This needs sorted out at the article, with reference to WP:NPOV and perhaps WP:NPOV/FAQ for more guidance.
 * Preceding that, there were several comments from uninvolved editors pointing out that not every view found in an RS is necessarily a significant view deserving of inclusion, and that this latter question should be discussed at the article talk page. Jayen  466  00:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * The subject of the article is largely notable for his claim to have a special ability to connect people with an inner peace. A NPOV Wikipedia article would fairly balance viewpoints opposite this extraordinary product claim.  Such a claim must attract proportionately robust criticism such as that from Randi and Khushwant Singh who represent an important mainstream view.  How can NPOV be attained if such voices are not included? They should not be seen as personally offensive to Mr Rawat but, only in the context of his claimed product Anotherchap (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC

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

Momento topic banned
1) is banned from editing Prem Rawat or any related article (including talk pages) for one year.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Oppose. No evidence of misbehavior produced.Momento (talk) 05:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Editors like Momento have a role to play in keeping the article from becoming a cartoonish affair, as illustrated by the recent edit war, where half a dozen editors lined up to defend a poorly researched edit. I would suggest a general and drastic revert limit on the articles that all editors have to adhere to. Despite the collaborative problems, the quality of the articles is good; there is little need for any major revisions. Jayen  466  13:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Rumiton topic banned
2) is banned from editing Prem Rawat or any related article (including talk pages) for one year.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Oppose. An extraodinary proposal considering FrancisSchonken, WillBeback and NikWright@ are allowed to edit.Momento (talk) 05:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As per opposition to Momento's topic banning in the preceding section. Jayen  466  13:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Revert limitations
3) Users, , &  are subject to an editing restriction with respect to the Prem Rawat article and any related articles for a period of one year. They may not revert any given changes to such articles more than once within a seven day period. Furthermore, if they themselves make any changes to an article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period.

In the event of edit warring by any other editor, an uninvolved administrator may at their discretion apply an editing restriction, on the same terms as these restrictions, to that other editor.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Somewhat complicated, but preferable in my view to an article based revert limitation. Hopefully this should be easier to enforce, by being more direct, while still allowing admins some flexibility. --bainer (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Re Matt, yes, this is intended to be in addition to the existing discretionary sanctions remedy. Hopefully by taking away the problem of edit warring, the situation will be clearer for admins handling enforcement, and that prior remedy will be easier to enforce. Yes, I did have the community-imposed 1RR in mind when drafting; in hindsight it was probably a mistake to remove it (though note that it would have expired within a month of the case closing anyway). --bainer (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Re Will, enforcement of arbitration remedies is always undertaken at arbitration enforcement, unless otherwise specified. As to your mention of sockpuppetry, I have not seen any evidence relating to sockpuppetry presented. --bainer (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Re Will, ah yes, I had forgotten about that since it was resolved last month. Which you know, because, as you mentioned there, the relevant CheckUser operators were in contact with you. And there has been no evidence presented relating to User:Janice Rowe. --bainer (talk) 08:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Re Will, the only contemporary and relevant allegation you made in that was the same allegation made in the SPI request, it was similarly disposed of last month. And you have still not mentioned what evidence you have with respect to User:Janice Rowe. --bainer (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Won't this just slow down the edit warring, rather than end it? And it will be complicated to enforce. What alternative remedies are possible? Carcharoth (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * An alternative would be a revert limitation attaching to the article. I've proposed this limitation attaching to particular editors instead, given that so many of the edit wars involve the same few editors. --bainer (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * The key parties in the edit wars listed above are Momento and Rumiton. This remedy won't be necessary if they are not editing. Speaking personally, I don't think the few reverts I've done over the past year warrant being named in this remedy.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    18:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is adopted, I think it'd be best to apply it to the articles rather than to selected editors. We've already seen new accounts pop up in response to past editing restrictions and there is a history of sock pupptry with this topic. Further, if this remedy is adopted there needs to be clear direction on which noticeboard is to be used to enforcement.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    00:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * To Bainer: I sent the ArbCom two sets of confidential evidence. One concerned an editor who promoted work that he had apparently written himself as a reliable source without disclosing his authorship. (I have proposed a principle concerning that matter above: .) The other concerned sockpuppetry by Jossi. Most relevant to this proposal is that one of those socks, user:Janice Rowe, was used to subvert the previous 1RR restriction. Perversely, it was Jossi himself who had proposed that restriction.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    06:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * To Bainer: I am not referring to Pongostick, though the sudden involvement of that new account is an example of why this remedy would be better applied to the topic rather than individual editors. In February I sent a large file of evidence regarding Jossi's sock activities. Please check with John Vandenberg.  <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    15:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Won't this just slow down the edit warring, rather than end it? Ideally, it might do a bit of both. For one, it would reduce the amount of hours the involved editors spend on these articles every day, reducing tunnel vision and giving more time for reflection. This might result in better edits (and also free editors to do work elsewhere). Jayen  466  11:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Steven, that was certainly an interesting read. I see that on March 7, Will Beback insinuated that I was a puppeteer of someone called Pongostick. The investigation closed with: "Unlikely that Pongostick and Rumiton are technically correlated. ++Lar: t/c". On March 25, apparently not liking this result, Will added his own conclusion: Closed with no finding. Now he states above "there is a history of sock puppetry with this article." Rumiton (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I would find a revert limitation attached to the article preferable to editor-specific restrictions and topic bans. My feeling is that editors here have for the most part edited in good faith – even if they may have differing POVs, and even if their nerves may have frayed over time. I wouldn't mind seeing the articles locked for a few weeks either, just so everyone can step back and gain perspective. Jayen  466  00:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Stephen, for record keeping purposes is this an additional editing restriction only on the named parties or a revocation of the discretionary sanction at SANCTIONS. Given a broad reading of its wording, it looks like it is re-instating the community 1RR that was superseded by the Committee in the first case.  Thanks.  MBisanz  talk 05:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement by block
1) Should any user subject to a topic ban or an editing restriction in this case violate that ban or restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Enforcement by extension of bans or restrictions
2) Should any user subject to a topic ban or an editing restriction in this case violate that ban or restriction, their ban or restriction may be reset, instead of or in addition to taking enforcement action by block.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: