Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-07-06/Prem Rawat

Ground rules
I am concerned that initiating this mediation will effectively ban all participants from editing 17 articles for an indefinite period of time, simply in order to resolve some relatively minor disputes, while at the same time allowing unlimited editing by unregistered users and drive-by accounts. I suggest a much narrower rule. Instead of refraining "from any editing of any of the disputed articles", I think that limiting it to "text related to the dispute" is sufficient and more appropriate to the current, low-level disputes.  Will Beback   talk    23:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable, will adjust. Steve Crossin    The clock is ticking.... 23:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. Upon the understanding that if disputes arise in other areas, they should be added to the list of issues mediated.  JN 466  23:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, as issues arise, they will be added to the list, and the "no editing" rule would be put into place. Steve Crossin    The clock is ticking.... 00:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly.   Will Beback    talk    00:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added myself to the list of parties
What's good for the gander is good for the goose. I intend to start editing the Prem Rawat articles and after I've had a chance to review the mediation requirements, maybe I'll accept them, or maybe not. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Accidental removal
Steve, i did not mean to remove the material - don't know how it happened either. Terry Macro (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine, don't worry about it :) Steve Crossin    The clock is ticking.... 08:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Disclosure
Jayen 466 has commented at COI /N regarding the possible COI of editors who are party to this mediation. and, while Sylviecyn has questioned the lack of resolution regarding Terrymacro’s suggested COI. Jayen466 has also contended that I am compromised as an editor because people connected to Prem Rawat have ‘attacked’ me

It would seem desirable that all editors party to the Mediation should take note of the above, and any editor who has not disclosed a material off Wiki involvement should now do so, so that the mediation can progress without these issues being continually re introduced. There is of course a difficulty in interpretation. Jayen seems to be arguing for a lesser test than provided by WP:COI, which would place not only anyone who expresses an opinion off Wiki, but also anyone who is subject to ‘attack’ by parties connected to an article subject, in the position of having a COI. It would be helpful if the Mediators could say what level of Disclosure they would see as helpful. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm also interested in who Steve thinks might have a COI so that we can deal with that issue. I don't see how we can move forward as a group without resolving these COI questions first. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 16:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would be very happy to see a third party interpretation of the alleged COI against me and how COI should apply in general in the PR, DLM, EV and related sites. I am trying to track down COI precedents but have been unsuccessful to date. Terry Macro (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You don't need precedents, you only need to read the policy page, which has been quoted to you so many times that doing so again is a waste of time. If you don't understand the policy, I don't see how you are going to think any precendent is going to apply either. Like any analogy, there's always going to be a difference somewhere between your situation and your "precedent", so there will always be a reason to say "that one is different". The policy page is very clear, and I think trying to move the discussion to a precedent comparison is just a way to argue against something where it should easier to say "that's not like my situation". But since I have time to waste this morning, here's another quote from WP:COI...


 * Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article. As a rule of thumb, the more involvement you have with a topic in real life, the more careful you should be with our core content policies


 * -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 15:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Maelefique, I am being guided by the advice of other editors. If the editors comments were resoundedly in favor of me declaring a COI I would have done so.  Some editors stated that I had a COI, other editors said I did not.  However you have made me realise that the whole COI issue should probably be part of the mediation process as potential COI issues may exist with a nuumber of other editors than just me.  I am going to add it to the list of points. Also, since I also have time to waste this morning I will go back and read the case related to Momento and Rumiton as i only read it once yesterday morning for the first time and I may have missed some relevant point I have overlooked which has some bearing in my case. I still have not found any other precedents for COI - do you know where i can find them?  Also, I don't intend to make a do or die stand on the COI issue, if in my situation I should declare a COI I will - simple as that.  Now i am not a lawyer but in my over 30 years in finance, administration and businesses I have had to be involved in numerous legal issues, contracts, agreements etc., so while I may not be up to speed with the Wiki rules and guideleines, compared to you and most other editors in this mediation process, I have lots of experience in these kind of things. I am letting my expereince guide me until I receive some clarification that indicates otherwise. The more I am exposed to the Wiki process, the more I like it.  If according to Wiki standards I should declare a COI I will.Terry Macro (talk) 01:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)