Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2

Statement by Jehochman
I routinely patrol WP:AE and am the one who referred this matter to arbitration. Enforcement of lengthy or complex threads risks the enforcer getting drawn into the dispute. Observers will not read a wall of text to determine whether the enforcement is proper or not. When a thread does not provide a simple answer to the question was an arbitration remedy violated? it cannot be acted on. This particular situation is too messy to be cleaned up by any single admin acting under prior findings or authorizations from the Committee. We need new, comprehensive findings of fact to establish what's been going on and who may be subject to sanctions. In particular, I would like to see all the evidence related to the alleged socking by Jossi and the alleged harassment by Will Beback. This evidence should be presented in public, the same as the accusations were. Jehochman Talk 18:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I posted the above before seeing Durova's invitation to comment. Jehochman Talk 01:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
As one of the admins involved in discussing and closing some of the several recent WP:AE requests with respect to this area of conflict, I comment here on Durova's invitation. , which is a WP:BLP and therefore particularly sensitive, is the subject of numerous long-running disputes. These may, as Will Beback believes, be a manifestation of the strong and contrary views some editors seem to have about the subject, but mostly, I think, they have caused disruption (edit wars, personal attacks, frivolous requests for admin intervention etc.) because many of the editors involved on either side do not have the social skills or mindset necessary for productive collaboration in a consensus-based neutral encyclopedia project. Since AE is manifestly unable to deal with the issue, I recommend that the Committee accept the case, identify said editors and issue them with lengthy topic bans.  Sandstein  21:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68
Having observed the situation surrounding the Rawat articles for quite some time, I decided to try and get involved a few weeks ago. I felt that Jossi's sudden departure would allow for improved collaboration with the Rawat articles since Jossi's continual attempts to control the POV of those articles would be absent. To start, I did a google search about Prem Rawat and related topics and looked for books that covered the subject. What I quickly found was that there really isn't anything out there that wasn't already presented in the Rawat articles. As far as I can see, the majority, if not all, of the reliably sourced information on Rawat is already included in the article. I'm aware that the anti-Rawat editors have been trying to introduce unreliably-sourced information into the articles, and the pro-Rawat editors have been trying to add or keep positive information, mostly taken from pro-Rawat websites, into the article.

Thus, the problem here is two groups of editors who are trying to push their POV, either pro- or anti-Rawat, in the article. Neither has any intention of giving up, they're too personally committed and obsessed with it. Conflict resolution is clearly exhausted. Therefore, I second Sandstein's view that indefinite topic bans be imposed. I believe that the evidence will show that Francis Schonken, Momento, and Rumiton, are probably the least blameless in this mess. Momento's comments above appear to show that a few other editors should also be considered for topic bans if the evidence supports it. Indeed, it wouldn't bother me if you included me in a topic ban if you all decide to try and entirely flush the current crew of editors away from those articles. In short, I hope the Committee will consider the nuclear option, because everything short of that has not resolved anything. Cla68 (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Sylviecyn
The only reason I have ever bothered to comment on the Rawat article(s) is because it started out as a puff, promotional piece, courtesy of the editors who are current followers, mainly Jossi Fresco in the beginning. And then it became a bad habit. I've done little to no editing on the main article space(s) over four years, but have argued vociferously for the truth about the life of Rawat to be told in his biography, according to available reliable sources. I haven't always been polite about making my arguments.

The incident that precipitated this recent blow-up was Momento's removal from the lead of the Hindu title Balyogeshwar, meaning "Born of the Yogis" which had been stable in the lead for quite some time as one of Prem Rawat's a/k/a's (he many of them). It's not a negative term in the least, quite the contrary, it's a term of reverence. But, it is an Indian term. For some reason, followers don't like to have Rawat associated with any Indian things (the fewer the better), even though he's an Indian-American man.

Momento was uncompromising about allowing Balyogeshwar to be placed back in the lead. I disagreed with him but thought the issue could be resolved by using the terms "formerly known as" (as it was before its removal) which Will has been against doing. I tried to explain to Momento, Jayen, Rumiton, and the other pro-Rawat editors that a/k/a generally is used to encompass all of a person's a/k/a's, past and current. That didn't fly at all. It became an all or nothing issue. Will insisted that since the term is still used in reference to Prem Rawat in India, that it should stay in the lead as a current a/k/a, i.e., not use the "formerly known as" phrase. So that is what this is all about. ''This month. '' I have also, on occasion recently, asked editors to stop editing contentious content in the main article without first presenting it on the talk page and gaining consensus. That fell on deaf ears, even when I said "please."

Since last year's ARBCOM, the results of which praised Jossi for his "use of restraint" (while the ARBCOM virtually ignored the mountain of evidence provided about his questionable and bad behavior), it's been difficult to keep a straight face whenever any Administrator has shown up with chest puffed out in order to lecture either side of the Rawat camps about behavior. One reason I think Wikipedia ARBCOM is so useless, in my opinion, is because I don't believe that one can arbitrate with people when the issue of behavior is separated from the issues about content. That's based on my real-world experience working with people as a human resource administrator and business woman. People simply are not all about what they do or how they behave. People are also about what they think and believe, which btw, makes no one "neutral." Also, the format used by arbitrators in their decisions is ridiculously obtuse and formal; nearly incomprehensible. Therefore, I've come to a decision. I will never write another word on Wikipedia again. This is it for me. I'm finished with all of this nonsense. I wish you the best with this Sisyphean task (also known as the Prem Rawat series of articles), and the editors. Believe me, it's not worth your time. It's been a huge waste of mine. Sincerely, Cynthia Gracie a/k/a Sylviecyn (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Msalt
I am not officially a party to this conflict, but have been (on and off) an active editor on Prem Rawat and related pages, and was a party to the Arbcom proceeding last year. I strongly support Arbitration to get a handle on the excessive POV pushing, edit warring, name calling and other incivility among editors, which have resisted many other methods of resolution.

I don't know what the formal role for non-parties is here, but I believe I can offer some perspective as an editor who has both spent a lot of time interacting with each of the parties on these pages, yet has a relatively "outside" or independent angle on everything. (I took almost a year off from these pages after the Arbcom proceedings, and have no direct involvement with Prem Rawat or his followers or organizations, unlike many editors involved.) In my opinion, the root of the problem lies in a very small number of editors who are unable to remain civil, and simply dislike each other (and/or dislike some of the more civil editors) personally. I would be happy to supply diffs and opinions as appropriate. Thanks. Msalt (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Protonk
May be more appropriate for the evidence phase, but there is a proliferation of Prem Rawat discussions on the various noticeboards (NPOVN, BLPN, and RSN). E.g. this discussion on a specific source. This may be time consuming, but I urge the committee and the parties of the case to dig through those noticeboards (probably fewer than 25 discussions total) and find out where that portion of dispute resolution has worked and where it has not. As a corollary, you may mine those discussions to determine who is moving the discussion forward and who is filibustering. Arbcom is a blunt tool (and probably less effective than we wish it to be), but the alternative (waiting for admins to thread the needle every single time in this contentious issue or engaging in a never-ending dispute over BLP's dark side) is not appealing. The long term use of competing policies as tools to massage an article (or a collection of articles) to a desired state is grounds enough for intervention.

Statement by User:John Nevard
While Rumiton may be right in saying that the article on Maharaji began with a essay with a great deal of criticism, it took less than a day before it was replaced by this fluff piece- and so the story goes, until it was captured by Rawat proponents. It seems clear that the involvement of neutral editors like Jayen and Will focused on implementing Wikipedia policies, not just their version of what the article should be, has brought a great deal more stability to the article. Nevard (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Prem Rawat 2

 * (initiator)
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * Related AE thread (permalink)
 * Related AN/I thread (permalink)

Statement by Will Beback
WP:RFAR:Prem Rawat 2 closed in April. One of the remedies reads:


 * Revert limitations
 * 3.1) The Prem Rawat article and all related articles are subject to an editing restriction for one year. No user may revert any given changes to a subject article more than once within a seven day period, except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations. Furthermore, if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period.

There is a dispute over the exact meaning of this remedy, especially the last sentence. User:Sandstein contends that I violated it and blocked me for it, while I believe that he is misinterpreting the remedy and the relevant edits. In response to a complaint at WP:AE by Jayen466, Sandstein blocked both myself and Pergamino.


 * My first edit: This edit added a section of material.
 * A series of edits by Pergamino: These edits altered the text I'd posted, and moved it, but did not revert my addition of the basic text.
 * My second edit: This edit undid Pergamino's edits (on account of his failure to discuss them).

So I don't believe that there was ever a revert of my original edit, and hence there was no violation of the remedy. If the intent of the committee is to prohibit repeating the same edit within a one week period, which is what some folks seem to think it says, then it should be made explicit because it does not seem to say that now. If the block did not follow the existing wording of the remedy then I request an acknowledgment that there was an error.  Will Beback   talk    20:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply to LessHeard vanU
 * There are two clauses to the remedy. The first prohibits making more than one revert in a week. LessHeard vanU seems to be proposing that it says no reverts are permitted. However the enforcement actually concerned the more complicated second clause, which says, I believe, that if an edit is reverted it may not be restored for a week. I contend that my original edit was only altered, not reverted, and that this situation is not covered by the language of the remedy.    Will Beback    talk    20:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply to AGK
 * It wrong to say that I reverted instead of discussing. On the contrary, I reverted the changes because the editor who made them didn't explain them or even leave accurate edit summaries. The talk page shows ample discussion on my part. Commenting without ascertainng the facts first isn't helpful.   Will Beback    talk    19:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate AGK's clarification and accept his apology.   Will Beback    talk    21:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply to Roger Davies
 * Roger writes: "It seems clear enough to me that reverting any change is prohibited."
 * The remedy says: "No user may revert any given changes to a subject article more than once within a seven day period,..."
 * So regarding the first clause, there seems to be a disagreement over whether it's "1RR" or "0RR". However this clarification principally concerns the second clause, which is more difficult to interpret. It seems to say that you may not restore your edit if someone reverts it. It does not seem to say that if someone changes your work you may not revert it. That's the crux of this clarification request.   Will Beback    talk    19:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply to Newyorkbrad
 * I have edited numerous contentious issues on Wikipedia for nearly five years, and have made over 90,000 edits, without ever having been blocked before. On the same day that I was blocked an article I wrote related to this topic was promoted to featured status. I sincerely believed at the time I made the edit in question that I was following the applicable remedy. If this remedy is so obtusely worded that an experienced editor such as myself breaks it without realizing it then I suggest that it is not clearly written, and that it will discourage any further participation in this topic by outsiders, which in turn may lead to the topic once again becoming dominated by single purpose editors. That would be counterproductive to the overall intent of the ArbCom's decision in this case.   Will Beback    talk    19:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply to Sandstein/FloNight
 * This is intended as a clarification of the remedy, but that necessarily involves discussing whether the remedy was interpreted correctly by Sandstein. Sandstein eventually said that the blocks were to enforce the second clause of the remedy: "...if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period." (emphasis added) It's my contention that the changes I made were not reverted. I request that Sandstein or FloNight please provide the diffs showing the supposed revert. If there was no revert then either Sandstein misinterpreted the remedy, or the remedy does not mean what it says and so it should be reworded to reflect the actual intent of the committee.   Will Beback    talk    21:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Pergamino himself claims that he did not revert my changes. Rather, he says below that he "made a few copy edits, added some new text, and changed the sub-sections a bit".   Will Beback    talk    00:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note
 * I've e-mailed the committee requesting that this discussion be suspended pending the resolution of a related matter.   Will Beback    talk    00:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by LessHeard vanU
If content is added by party A which is then "altered" in part or whole by party B and party A then removes those alterations so that the content is the same as when party A added it, what other term than "reverting" applies to the actions of party A? Is Will Beback arguing that the wording only applies to the reverting of a (whole) revert? This would make the remedy comparable with WP:WHEEL - where it is only the reverting by an admin of another sysops revision of the original admin action that triggers that situation. My reading, as provided at AE, is that any edit that substantially undoes another contributors edits to a section of content to return it to the previous or original edit is a revert and not allowable until 8 days has elapsed since the first edit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply to Will Beback; I refer to the latter section - my concern is to the interpretation of "revert"; you appear to argue that only a wholesale revert of the original edit (in this case the introduction of content) would thus mean you should not return the content (the revert noted in the remedy) within the 7 days, whereas my reading is that returning the content to what you originally edited, even though it had been only altered rather than removed, within 7 days violated the remedy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply to Roger Davies; "Clarification" is why we are here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply to Newyorkbrad; Further to the above response to Roger Davies, it is because there may be good faith interpretation of remedy or decision that differs from which is intended (or understood to be that intended) that there needs to be careful application of language. This is a Wiki after all, and while the best is always the intention it may be found that better is yet to come. Against the necessary restrictions provided to diminish disruption there are the allowances that provide editors with the freedom to try to improve content within their understanding of policy. Careful wording provides the line where both needs are met. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Sandstein
This is just in case I am expected to make a statement here as an involved party. With respect to the interpretation of the remedy at issue, I do not think that I have anything to say in addition to what I have already said in the discussion threads linked to above.  Sandstein  21:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Milomedes

 * "Revert limitations ¶ 3.1) ... Furthermore, if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period." [Emphasis added] ''


 * LessHeard vanU (21:04) states, "I refer to the latter section - my concern is to the interpretation of "revert";..."


 * Will Beback (20:05) states, "I don't believe that there was ever a revert of my original edit..."


 * LHvU (13:07) states, "...what other term than "reverting" applies...". LHvU (21:04) states, "...my reading is that returning the content to what you originally edited, even though it had been only altered rather than removed, within 7 days violated the remedy."

This clarification seems to turn on whether Pergamino did or did not take an action defined as a "revert" during these four edits: Pergamino 17:56, Pergamino 18:04, Pergamino 18:08, Pergamino 18:14; and also, what other term than "reverting" applies to Pergamino's four edits.

A dictionary definition of "revert" requires a return to a former condition:
 * "Random House/Dictionary.com 'revert': '1. to return to a former habit, practice, belief, condition, etc...'"

Pergamino's four edits made changes in Will Beback's text, but they don't seem to have been changes that returned WB's text to a former condition. Thus they don't seem to described by a dictionary definition of "revert".

Wikipedia Help makes a distinction between "revert" and "reword", as well as between "revert" and "modifying":
 * "Help:Reverting reads: '...if you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, then try to improve it, if possible - reword rather than revert. Similarly, if only part of an edit is problematic then consider modifying only that part instead of reverting the whole edit...'' [Emphasis added]"

Pergamino's four edits made changes in Will Beback's text, that appear to be consistent with "reword" and "modifying", which Wikipedia Help distingishes from "revert" or "reverting".

My analysis of the above facts concludes that Pergamino did not revert Will Beback's original edit, as defined by both a dictionary and Wikipedia Help. Without a revert by Pergamino, Will Beback was free to revert Pergamino's reword and modifying edits without violating WP:RFAR:Prem Rawat 2#Revert limitations 3.1. Milo 03:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to Newyorkbrad : I agree with LessHeard vanU's thoughtful exposition (17:59 to NYB), including "Careful wording provides the line where both needs are met." The alternative is a form of rough justice whereunder editors with fine-parsing skills, useful in locating the neutral point of view, will be chilled into avoiding topics under arbitration restrictions. In another case, section #Review of articles urged, the committee urged "...knowledgeable and non-conflicted users not previously involved..." to "...address any perceived or discovered deficiencies." A lack of commitment to progressive rewording of demonstrably misunderstandable remedies, sends a counter-message to users not previously involved: Look what happened to an editor who tried to follow the rules – stay away. Milo 23:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by AGK
Sandtein's block of the editors was quite correct; one simply needs to take five minutes to review the arbitration enforcement thread to evaluate so. Will Beback's complaint therefore, I suggest, is with the validity of the arbitration decision: evidently, he is contesting it because he finds it to be unfair.

It is the Committee who are responsible for hearing complaints over past cases. Jury nullification is largely absent from arbitration enforcement. In this case, Sandstein did as required: he evaluated the complaint against prior Committee decisions and acted accordingly. No blame lies with him.

As to whether the Prem Rewat decision itself is conducive to a positive editing atmosphere (as enquired by NYB below), I confess myself to be fairly unfamiliar with the subject area and therefore not confident in my ability to offer a reliable response. However, it does strike me that, in the lack of widespread complaints from editors of the subject area that the arbitration decision is proving a serious hindrance to editing, this may clarification may simply be the manifestation of an editor's frustration at being called out for resorting to reverting rather than to discussion.

AGK 15:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply to Will Beback : Generally, the response to an editor who makes an edit without offering a rationale, either in his edit summary or on the article talk page, is to open a discussion—and not to revert the change. I would concede that, practically, the situation may dictate that the appropriate response to an undiscussed change may be slightly different, but I hope you see the reasoning behind my comment. I didn't intend to dishonour your record as a quite reasonable and sensible editor, and would apologise if you felt I did. AGK 21:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Pergamino
What Will Beback is not saying is that the initial edit he made, although it was discussed, it was not agreed upon. Actually, there were many well-argued objections for that edit, but he decided he knew better and made the edit despite the objections. I came along and made a few copy edits, added some new text, and changed the sub-sections a bit. Will Beback's rationale to delete what I did and put back his version again, is that I didn't discuss it first. So basically, Will Beback is applying rules in an arbitrary manner: If he adds text that was discussed but not agreed, it's OK if he does it, but if I attempt to improve upon his work, then it's "undiscussed" and can be summarily deleted (BTW, he never said what was wrong with my edits, so I was left guessing). He also claims that the rule established by the arbiters "will discourage any further participation in this topic by outsiders", when in fact is that by not following the rule he is doing exactly that. Furthermore, he claims that "this remedy is so obtusely worded that an experienced editor such as myself breaks it without realizing it" — but me and other people told him several times that he had it wrong, and suggested to him to undo the edit so it will not be in violation of the rule, explanations that he ignored in toto. Is it too much to ask from Will BeBack to listen to his experienced peers, take it on the chin, and promise not to act like this again? Pergamino (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * Recuse, obviously. AGK 17:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Recuse, per previous involvement in the topic area, in accord with my recusal from the relevant arbitration case. --Vassyana (talk) 03:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The remedy refers to "any given changes" and uses the plural "changes" four times, apart from in the final sentence ("repeat the change"). It seems clear enough to me that reverting any change is prohibited. I suppose, for the avoidance of any doubt, "the change" could be amended to "the change/s" and will support that if there's sufficient agreement from my colleagues but I'm not convinced it's necessary.  Roger Davies  talk 10:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I genuinely believed I had clarified my understanding of this. My take is that, as drafted, editors are prohibited from reinstating in whole or in part reverted changes within seven days of the reversion.  Roger Davies  talk 11:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It strikes me that, rather than just finely parse the meaning of "revert" or "change" in the decision as we might if this were constitutional interpretation or biblical scholarship, an equally important question is which interpretation would best serve the purposes of the decision and the remedy, which were to allow for continued editing and improvement of the article as a part of the encyclopedia while minimizing sterile edit-warring. I'd welcome comments on this issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sandstein's interpretation of the the sanction. And per the related discussions at, AE and AN/I, the consensus was that the blocks were administered in a fair way. The intend of the proposal is to create an atmosphere where discussion is used to settle content disagreements instead of reverting. Hopefully overtime this will help us reach the goal of stable articles that are well sourced and written from a NPOV. I think it is too soon to judge the success of the remedies. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Prem Rawat 2

 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 4 - Mediation encouraged.


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (mediator)
 * Involved parties


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * Article talk page)

Statement by Steve Crossin
I will keep it brief. I'm conducting this MedCab, once again, and I think that in the interests of mediation, and freer discussion, that the committee bestow this mediation case with the same protection that MedCom cases automatically acquire, that the contents of the mediation are priveliged, and cannot be used in other DR proceedings, such as ArbCom.

Last year, I observed this sort of behaviour quite a lot, and while I can't provide diffs (they've been lost in time), I observed that it had a stifling effect on the mediation. People would often hold their tongue, and not express their points of view on certain areas of the dispute, out of fear of retribution. This, as well as other things, caused the mediation from last year to have limited success.

I've thought this out quite a bit, and I do think it would be in the best interests of this case to pass a motion somewhat similar to this. Adjust it at your will.

4.1) The contents of mediation proceedings in disputes related to Prem Rawat will be priveliged, and cannot be used in other forms of dispute resolution. However, deliberate attemps to game this remedy, such as delibeate bad behaviour, will not be looked upon kindly, and may be dealt with, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee.

Obviously, there will be some conduct issues within the case, but that's inevitable, and it's something that I am able to deal with myself. I have the means and the methods to do so. But making the mediation priveliged would allow freer, more candid discussion, and I think that's for the best. Steve Crossin   The clock is ticking.... 23:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to Newyorkbrad

It's long-standing policy that cases mediated formally by the Mediation Committee are protected from use in other dispute resoltuion proceedings. This request is basically asking for the same protection. I'm mediating this in a formal manner, quite like how a case would be mediated at MedCom. I'm happy if this is voted in with a simple motion that doesn't set any precedents, but I feel that this would be for the best. Steve Crossin   The clock is ticking.... 04:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to Jayen466

The wording of the motion was meant to make clear that the mediation would be protected by the same privelige that MedCom cases get, however attempts to game this privelige would be looked upon unkindly, and may be dealt with. I think Coren is thinking along the same lines as I am. In response to Wizardman, I'd like a motion to be written up, if possible. The wording in my motion isn't quite up to scratch. Steve Crossin   The clock is ticking.... 21:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to Seddon

I'm not suggesting that all medcab cases be granted the standard privelige that MedCom cases get, only this case. It's a contentious area, and i wish to remove the eggshells, so to speak. But i'm happy if arbcom notes this is a one-off, which won't set precedent. Steve Crossin   The clock is ticking.... 00:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional statement by Steve Crossin
There's something else I want to address. Two matters, one, relatively simple, the other, somewhat controversial. One, it's been suggested that all the Prem Rawat articles be blanket semi-protected, for an indefinite duration. As an outsider, I can see the benefit to this. While, yes, this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, it's not the encyclopedia that anyone may edit. The fundamental principle of the wiki is that anyone can edit it's articles, however it doesn't give anyone the right to do a drive-by edit, repeatedly, without discussing their reasoning, which has happened, on several occasions. This has obviously caused some disruption, and I'd suggest an additional motion (no idea where it would go in the RFAR) be added, to note that all the articles related to Prem Rawat, are semi-protected, either indefinitely, or liberally at the discretion of administrators. I'm not really sure, but I think it's unfair that users in this mediation will agree to refrain from editing disputed content while it's under discussion within mediation, and anon users don't have to abide by this agreement, which would undermine the mediation process. I guess this needs to be discussed more.

Secondly, this is somewhat more controversial, but I think it might be wise if this mediation is given a little more teeth. The problem that I've observed over the past 15 months or so is that, due to the fact that mediation, in any form, is not binding, when discussions within last year's mediation achieved a clear consensus and were implemented, any new user could just say "I don't like this", make large changes, and dig their heels in when reverted. I'm not suggesting that the result of this new mediation, when achieved, should be permanently binding, but I would like to see some clause included that once issues in this mediation had a clear consensus, there needs to be a clear consensus before significant changes to that content are made. An exemption to the 1RR rule has also been discussed, but I guess this is for the committee to discuss. I realise that the committee normally won't involve themselves in content disputes, in any shape or form, but this is a long-standing dispute on Wikipedia. Numerous attempts to solve this dispute, in prior times, have proved mostly fruitless. Some "teeth" is required, to help solve, in part, this dispute. The other part of solving, or at least, managing this dispute, would be providing long term mediation of the article. Perhaps article mentorship might be a good idea, as well?

I know what I'm asking is complicated and somewhat controversial, but this hasn't been something I've rushed to thinking about. I've considered it for a day or two before deciding what I'd say here, and how I would say it. Please do consider this carefully, as I think this would make a great improvement to the prospects for this article to succeed at mediation, and we all want that, right?

There was somethnig else...but I've forgotten it. For the time being, I'll leave it at this. Regards, Steve Crossin    The clock is ticking.... 10:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jayen466
I think the wording needs to be tweaked. It says "cannot be used in other forms of dispute resolution", but then says, "may be dealt with, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee". On the face of it, that seems contradictory. Also, it should be clear that the arbitration remedies will continue to remain enforceable during mediation.  JN 466  12:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Seddon
Speaking as both a mediator on MEDCOM and as a former coordinator at MEDCAB, I must say that extending the priveleged nature to MEDCAB, across the board, would be a mistake. The privileged nature is a tool in mediation rather than something that should be used regularly. This applies to Prem Rawat as a whole too. It would be better to state that if a mediator wishes for a case to be exempt from future DR, that he apply to arbcom.

In addition to that, Steve Crossin isn't going to be the only mediator in this area and wont be around forever himself, and I consider it unwise for unexperienced mediators (like at medcab) to be using this priviledge. Steve has a decent level of competence, but it is worth considering having a fresh set of eyes to help him out on this. I do not believe that he nor anyone could handle this by themselves.

May I also point out that the priviledged nature which is applicable at MEDCOM exempts the mediation from being used in Arbitration cases and given the nature and size of this dispute, anything less is worthless in my opinion. Sedd&sigma;n talk|WikimediaUK 00:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel
I was going to make a statement last night, but didn't get around to it. Pretty much, I fully agree with Seddon - extending this to all MedCab cases would be a mistake and lead to gaming (as there's very little screening of MedCab cases, nearly anything could therefore qualify for privilege simply by having one of the parties file a case). However, I agree with Steve and Seddon that extending the privilege to this case as an individual exemption would be worthwhile. Daniel (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Will Beback
I do not believe that a lack of candor was a problem with the last mediation, nor do I expect it to be problem with future mediation. However, this dispute needs all the help it can get and if this helps even a little it is worth trying. There are even more significant problems that we face and I expect Steve or another editor to bring additional amendments to the ArbCom for consideration.  Will Beback   talk    09:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by AGK
I have multiple comments to make (from my position up here on the peanut gallery) - which I hope will be of some use.


 * On extending the 'privileged' nature of mediation to all mediation cabal proceedings: I do not think that would be a good idea, and so would agree with Seddon and Daniel (above). If a case is problematic enough to be ripe for arbitration (and thus for it to be at all likely that the mediation privilege would be exercised), then I should hope that deferring the dispute to formal mediation would be a step that would have been already undertaken. Consequently, there seems to be no need to accord the privileged nature of mediation to cabal cases. (I am, of course, aware that Steve is requesting no such thing; I am commenting in response to requests below for input on this issue.)


 * On this application to extend the privilege: I suppose I am minded to support this application for a one-off extension of the privilege to Steve Crossin's MedCab case. If the resolution of this dispute is being hampered by a reluctance on the part of many participating in the proceedings to engage in discussion because of a worry that what they say will be used as evidence against them in a future arbitration case, then I suppose there is no option but to extend the privilege. However, I would ask that we consider whether a number of the reluctant parties are simply seeking a license to act without checks on their conduct – or, in other words, to disrupt.)


 * On why the privilege exists only for formal mediation: Taking a flippant attitude to the privileged nature of mediation would be unwise. The mediation committee is a formal institution of Wikipedia (inasmuch as such things can exist on this project), lead by an appointed chair and staffed by vetted editors. Consequently, it can probably be trusted to play sensibly with the privileged nature of mediation. MedCab is by no means a 'free-for-all', but it does operate a more informal role. As an organisation, it is simply not subject to enough oversight to make it wise to extend to all its cases the privilege. I never thought I would say this, but there are some things that only a committee should handle. (Additionally, upon the MedCab's establishment, nobody actually instituted the privileged nature of mediation - unlike the creation of the MedCom.)


 * On Steve Crossin as the sole mediator: Steve has considerable experience with the Prem Rawat dispute. To my mind, he is a suitable mediator for these proceedings. As I have elsewhere opined, however, I think this dispute to be one that is too complex and on too large a scale to have only one mediator staffing it. I would like to see additional mediators—from the mediation cabal's regular team or elsewhere—join Steve in guiding this dispute through mediation. Resolving this disagreement is undoubtedly not going to be an easy process, and fresh eyes would be of value. (I may, in the end, put my money where my mouth is and offer to assist Steve, but for now I'll settle for directing a plea to others.)

AGK 14:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).


 * Recuse. I have had some involvement in the Prem Rawat dispute (as a third party and as an advisor to the mediator), which I think would make it sensible for me to defer all paperwork on this topic to another clerk. AGK 13:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * The general principle that conduct during a mediation convened by the Mediation Committee cannot be cited in arbitration proceedings, although it has not actually been an issue in any case that I can recall since I've been arbitrating, is recognized in the Arbitration Policy. The suggestion here is that that the same "privileged" status should be accorded to this mediation even though it's being run under the auspices of the Mediation Cabal rather than the Mediation Committee. I am not as familiar with the history of MedCom and MedCabal as I am with that of ArbCom, so I can only speculate on why this distinction is currently made. I invite comment on this broader issue as well as the narrow proposal offered by the mediator. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd favor expanding the protection afforded to the Mediation Committee to the efforts of the Cabal as well&mdash; good faith efforts to solve a dispute should not be used as bludgeons in later dispute resolution. I would make certain, however, that the wording isn't inclusive enough to cover behavior outside the actual mediation or gaming disruptive to it: paying lip service to mediation as a license to misbehave in the disputed area should be strongly discouraged.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I support the medcab mediation being privileged; if a motion needs to be written i'll put one up. Wizardman  15:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Per the comments of the people most familiar with the difference between the Mediation Committee and the MedCabal, I agree that extending privileged status to all MedCabal case is not a good idea. I see no reason that in individual situations that all parties to a case and a mediator could not agree to using this model for that situation. I would honor such an agreement that was put in writing and signed by all parties and the mediator whether it was some done through the MedCabal or another informal mediation in a different venue. My suggestions get agreement from all parties and the mediator and sign a statement to that effect. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sunray, thank you for updating us. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Flo.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 01:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to have been adequately resolved. I endorse the outcome here. Carcharoth (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Acceptance of case by Mediation Committee
In response to Steve Crossin's request and in light of discussion here and on the MedCom list, MedCom has agreed to accept this case with a MedCom member assisting Steve. As a MedCom case, privilege is automatically extended to the participants once they agree to the mediation. This decision is specific to this case only and was based on the long history and circumstances of this dispute. Sunray (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Archived request and motion.

Amendment request: Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2

 * Initiated by: Rainer P.


 * Case affected : Prem Rawat 2


 * Remedy to which an amendment is requested


 * indefinitely banned from all articles and discussions related to Prem Rawat


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment


 * (initiator)
 * (notification)
 * (notification)
 * (notification)


 * Information about amendment request


 * Rainer P. indefinitely banned from all articles and discussions related to Prem Rawat. Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat_2


 * Request : Rainer P. unbanned.

Statement by Rainer P.

 * I have been indefinitely topic-banned by The Blade of the Northern Lights, for “persistant battleground behaviour” but he provides no evidence or diffs to support that charge.


 * I have never engaged in “battleground behavior”. I regard my influence there as neutral, moderate and conciliatory. About the only comment about me notes “Rainer's attempt to pull this discussion back on track seems a move in a positive direction”.


 * I have edited Prem Rawat articles less than 10 times in three years. I have made edits only with full consent from all after previous discussion, like my last edit to the article on October 19th.


 * Most of my edits have been to the Talk Page because I have extensive knowledge of the subject and want to help the article editors. I have never been uncivil despite being frequently provoked.


 * I have never been warned or criticised in over three years of editing.


 * I have never been part of an Arbitration action. And so, as per Discretionary Sanctions, I should have received a warning before banning.


 * I have never been banned or blocked or otherwise been subject to disciplinary actions.


 * I have looked at all my edits and I cannot see what I have done wrong.

Statement by Rumiton
Thanks for inviting me to comment. I don't understand the reason for Blade's implementation of these bans so I will wait to hear from him before commenting further. Rumiton (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, Blade has made a statement. For the record, I am not a SPA. In 5 years, I have made 9316 Wikipedia edits to 1138 pages, including helping develop several high-profile articles to FA status (see my Talk Page.)

I have now read Blade's comments 4 times, but I still find them problematic. He says: "What I could see was a pattern of editing that was slowly but surely slanting the article away from criticisms of Rawat." This may be true, but is it necessarily a bad thing? If an article starts off by being unduly weighted against a subject; if it is packed with long-ago trivia and gossip from lesser sources and ignores or minimises the real recent achievements that sources tell us a subject has made, is restoring a balance not what we are supposed to do? OTOH, if someone believes that this is not the case, should they not vigorously present their argument on the talk page?

He then says, "Rainer P. came by with some frequency to support the first two." (Momento and me.) Is this also a bad thing? "Although Rainer P. didn't edit the article a lot, he made a large number of comments now located at Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 49." Yes, that's true, he did.

"Jimbo stated his intent to get involved in trying to remove the bias from the article." I don't want to add lese-majesty to whatever may be my other crimes, but IMO Jimbo's editing was hardly directed at "removing bias" when he added the word "cult" prominently to the lead. The word now appears twice three times in the first paragraph, without even the specific in-line attribution which is recommended in the Style Manual.

It seems to me that Blade has overstepped the line in deciding for himself what is undue weight, and especially in banning Rainer P. who is one of the mildest and most conciliatory editors I have worked with. Rumiton (talk) 11:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Littleolive oil
I have a few impressions of the recent dynamics of this article discussion page and editing that includes Blade of the Northern Lights recent blocks. I had very little knowledge of Prem Rawat and of the editors who edit on this article until a few months ago with one exception, a now banned editor. I came to the page because of a comment I saw on Jimbo's talk page which seemed to me to be very uncivil.

Clearly discussion and editing on this page is highly contentious. However, while editors had strong opinions about how policy applied to content and sources, I did not see anything unreasonable in the issues raised. it seemed to me that some editors where intent on protecting past edits and content, while other editors were interested in contesting some content. I don't see anything wrong with any of this. Discussion pages are for discussion. This is contentious and a BLP so there's going to be lots of differing opinion. Once an uninvolved editor (olive) had come onto the page and Blade had made a few warning remarks in reference to civility, I felt things on the page settled down and editors were making a real effort to work collaboratively. I think that general process was ongoing and working. Issues were being discussed and then acted upon and there was little edit warring. The only inappropriate aspect of the process was periodic incivility which tended to degrade the process. I didn't see battleground behaviour in Memento, Rumiton or Rainer. Nor did the three of them always agree with each other. That isn't to say they didn't have strong opinions and were willing to express them. Rainer was always mild mannered, polite, and conciliatory in his positions. (I'm not taking credit for any quieting down on the page. I suspect any outside person requesting quiet above the din could change the long standing dynamic on that page)

It was after the page had quieted down and following a comment on Jimbo's talk page, and when progress was being made in terms of talk page dynamics that Blade sanctioned 4 editors silmultaneoulsy with out diffs to support the sanctions. Blade's ban didn't appear to follow the normal WP process by pointing to diffs of threads showing problematic behavior so I think posting diffs especially within context of the discussion as a whole would be a good next step for the banning admin to take. In theory, sanctions in WP are meant to improve behavior. One can't improve if one doesn't know specifically what one has done wrong.(olive (talk) 03:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC))


 * @Sir Fozzie: Editors have been sanctioned already. I may not have understood your statement.
 * My points, and I may have not articulated them very well is that It would be helpful if diffs indicating sanctionable behaviour for each editor be shown rather than a simultaneous editor sanction with no diffs.
 * @ Commenting Arbs: My first reading of the article when I came to it a few months ago was that it contained, as some contentious articles do, subtle tiny points which together serve to colour the article as a whole. This is an insidious form of editing dangerous for an encyclopedia especially on a BLP article. As is now, the article reads in a pretty neutral way excluding the second sentence of the lead which serves to describe another human being in only one way. Not good and not neutral. My experience with the editors on this page was that there was a genuine effort to improve their editing. The sanction came as a shock, especially the sanction of  Rainer, in light of the improvements I saw in editing behaviour. Perhaps the difference with someone coming in, who is aware of the history and contentious nature of the article in general,  but has no view of the editors, nor preconceptions about the topic area is that I didn't know or care what Rawat is  in a personal way, nor do I care about editor  motive. I'm looking at the present situation. I as a reader now, as the article is, sense that Rawat is controversial, has detractors and supporters, and I have a sense of what his tenets are. I no longer feel I am being manipulated to see  Rawat in any particular way. The slant when I came in was pejorative. The Nixon article is probably a good example of a neutral article  that could have easily been slanted in a pejorative way. This means to me process on the article is starting to work. I have left the article because support of edits was seen as support of editors which left me open for a a lot of abusive comments. Not what I have time for.(olive (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC))

Statement by EdJohnston
In response to Roger Davies, if you want to switch the remedies over to discretionary sanctions, and want to find a way to deal with the existing bans, you could decide that any existing bans placed under the old remedies are vacated, but are replaced by new bans of the same duration subject to arbitration enforcement appeal. Once you had made that change, you could deal with Rainer P.'s appeal by having a clerk copy it over to WP:Arbitration enforcement. EdJohnston (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Momento
Where is the evidence of Rainer's "persistent battleground behaviour"? I can't see it. Little Olive Oil and Silk Tork can't see it. BOTNL can't provide a single diff. And no one has raised it on Rainer's talk page or Prem Rawat talk. The only person accused of "battleground behaviour" on the Prem Rawat articles this year is PatW. Four separate editors have found it necessary to go to PatW's talk page and ask him to modify his behaviour to no avail. And that doesn't include numerous comments on Prem Rawat talk. As for BOTNL's observation that "it was becoming obvious the article was being stifled by the incessant fighting and tendentious editing", I think this comment from an independent editor who wanted to contribute sums it up nicely - "I came to this page to see if the allegations being made about Memento's editing were true, but what strikes me as more egregious are the constant personal attacks by PatW and Surdas.  Because of the hostility and unconstructive comments by those two, I'm unwilling to get involved at this point.  PatW and Surdas, if you will work on getting your behavior back in line with WP's policies, I think more page watchers, such as myself, might be willing to get involved in the content discussion". Rainer may be an SPA but he is, as WP:SPA notes "a well-intentioned editor with a niche interest" and "the community seeks to attract new and well-informed users knowledgeable in a particular subject". Rainer's appeal should have been over in five minutes, he has done nothing wrong and "the project" is diminished when "mild mannered, polite, and conciliatory" editors are hounded and sanctioned for their personal beliefs.Momento (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Despite Silk Tork's optimism I think it is highly unlikely that, despite that fact the Rainer has done nothing wrong, he will get "a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at AE" agreeing with that. We've already seen him sanctioned without a shred of evidence. And two Abitrators have already made it clear that simply being an SPA is cause for concern.Momento (talk) 08:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify. BOTNL says that "he had initially intended to institute the topic bans in late October, but first Hurricane Sandy and then a nasty snowstorm had other ideas". In fact BOTNL made more than one hundred edits from Hurricane Sandy until he decided to ban me on November 15th, less than 24 hours after PatW wrote on Jimbo's page. He now characterises my edits between November 10 and 15 as giving "the article a very pro-Rawat slant". Have any of you looked at these edits? Here's a synopsis. And note that 17 editors were editing the article in the preceding month and not one of them objected to my proposals or edits. From October 1st to the time of my banning 20 different editors made 72 edits to the Prem Rawat article "hardly an article being stifled" as claimed by BOTNL. So who is turning Prem Rawat into a "battleground"? The editor BOTNL avoids discussing. An editor whose talk page has been visited 18 times by editors asking him to stop his "battleground" behaviour. Not to mention the countless times he has been asked to stop on the PR talk page. And yet BOTNL did nothing until he banned Rainer.Momento (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement from The Blade of the Northern Lights
Let me begin by saying I also think a blanket lifting here would be a bad idea; as noted below by Risker, there's something else at work with PatW's situation, and in any event these sorts of issues are normally considered on a case-by-case basis. In early April of this year, an ANI thread brought my attention to the Prem Rawat topic area; since that time, I have been watching over the Prem Rawat article and a few associated articles. From April to August, Rumiton was under an indefinite topic ban, but I was monitoring the other users linked above, and when I lifted his ban I continued to watch him. What I could see was a pattern of editing that was slowly but surely slanting the article away from criticisms of Rawat. Although Momento, Rumiton, and PatW (PatW being the sole voice of opposition) were clearly the most active of the three, Rainer P. came by with some frequency to support the first two; the percentage of edits these editors had to Prem Rawat and the talkpage referred to by Roger Davies below also caught my eye. With the exception of a couple of outbursts from PatW, it's not something that can easily be packaged in diffs, but watching it happen it was becoming very clear what was going on. User:Steven Zhang had come in to mediate in August, and he was seeing exactly the same patterns I was. By mid-October, it was becoming obvious the article was being stifled by the incessant fighting and tendentious editing. Although Rainer P. didn't edit the article a lot, he made a large number of comments now located at Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 49 ( which for some reason isn't linked in the archive box at Talk:Prem Rawat; someone who knows how such things work may want to fix that seems this has been fixed; many thanks to Hahc21).

As was stated in the messages I gave them each, I had initially intended to institute the topic bans in late October, but first Hurricane Sandy and then a nasty snowstorm had other ideas, and I didn't think it'd be fair of me to topic ban people and disappear for several days; in those couple weeks, I saw a series of edits between November 10 and November 15 from Momento and Rumiton. These edits clearly gave the article a very pro-Rawat slant, and the tone on the talkpage made it readily obvious that was the intent. It was to the point where another editor noted on the talkpage how obvious it was, and even Jimbo stated his intent to get involved in trying to remove the bias from the article (something he later did); this made it even more obvious to me the continued presence of these users would be detrimental. I knew none of them would want to raise an AE thread because it would almost certainly result in the filer[s] being banned as well, and knowing the article was under article probation I decided to unilaterally do it myself.

I don't have a particularly strong opinion on whether or not to remove the article probation sanction and replace it with standard DS; though the current article probation makes it easier for one administrator to manage major problems without requiring 15 threads in 10 places, I also understand not wanting to give administrators too much power over articles. As to the lifting of the topic bans, I think allowing SPAs who clearly have some sort of agenda back into the article will lead to exactly the same problems there were before. If you're going to replace article probation with standard DS, I'd support EdJohnston's suggestion above. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 18:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

@Roger Davies; thanks for cleaning up the logs. It makes the job of AE admins a lot easier if we're certain we're logging things in the right place. @Newyorkbrad; the case of Rainer P. is certainly a bit murkier than the others, but here's my take on it. Two users, Momento and Rumiton, were by far the most vocal pushing a particular POV; although Rainer P. didn't himself initiate many proposals on the talkpage, I saw that he was showing up to support the other two with an extremely high level of frequency. As mentioned above, I also noticed the extremely high percentage of edits to both the article and talkpage. When considering what to do, I thought given his history that if I were to only ban Momento and Rumiton, Rainer P. would almost certainly pick up right where they left off; given this would defeat the purpose of stopping users from stifling the article, I decided to ban him as well. It's not unlike some AE cases where upon looking at a situation, you not only see a problem with the subject of the thread but with someone else not originally mentioned. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 15:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

@Momento; just as I didn't want to hand out a topic ban and then disappear for several days, I also didn't want to come out of nowhere after being almost completely gone for almost a week and do something this drastic. Sandy hit my area Monday, October 29; I didn't get my internet back until the 3rd of November, Sunday afternoon. The very next day, I heard of the snowstorm, and while it ended up not knocking my power out it debilitated several towns immediately around mine and the threat of it lingered until about 4 or 5 days afterwards. I also have some other interests on Wikipedia as well, so it wasn't really the first thing I thought to do once I knew I was in the clear. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 22:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement from {other editor}

 * {Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary.


 * Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I've looked back at the contributions of Rainer P. (which are mainly to the talkpage of Prem Rawat) and I cannot find any problematic edits. I think it would help if The Blade of the Northern Lights could identify the problem areas for us.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  05:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And would this be better placed at AE?  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  05:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support replacing the 2008 remedy with Standard Discretionary Sanctions, and then moving this individual's appeal to AE where the other users may also make an appeal if they wish. That a user has most of their edits in one location is not in itself a reason for a topic ban (even if the location is controversial) - it is the nature of the edits that matter (as discussed in Single-purpose account), and I expect that during the individual appeals at AE it will be the nature of the edits of each user that will be examined rather than the amount.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  00:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've had a look at this too, but a slightly different perspective. The authority for the sanctions comes from the 2008 Prem Rawat Article Probation remedy. The 2008 remedy does not require prior warnings, and has no appeal provisions. Whatever else happens, we probably need to consider whether the 2008 remedy needs to be modernised by replacing it with Standard Discretionary Sanctions. If we do go down that road, we could consider replacing the current indefinite topic bans with warnings to bring enforcement into line with current provisions, though probably not for all four editors involved. In any event, I'd like very much to hear from Blade of the Northern Lights before this amendment request gets much older. Parhaps one of the clerks would be good enough to notify User:The Blade of the Northern Lights as well as the other topic-banned editors, User:Momento, User:Rumiton and User:PatW. Thanks in advance,  Roger Davies  talk 14:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just looking at the contribution histories, 71% of Momento's edits are either to Prem Rawat or its talk page; 37% of Rumiton's; 86% of Rainer P.'s; and 77% of PatW's. Between them, they've added 11,800 edits to these pages.  Roger Davies  talk 18:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * @EdJohnston. That's a good idea. I'll think on the other mechanics/implications,  Roger Davies  talk 18:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with bringing the remedy into the modern DS framework, however, a blanket lifting of the sanctions would be a bad idea. This appeal, however, we need to hear from Blade before proceeding further.  (A motion on the underlying remedy would be in order before that, though) Courcelles 23:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Would be interested in bringing this into line with the current discretionary sanctions framework. I will note that I recently blocked PatW indefinitely for an attempt to out a user in relation to this topic. I am quite concerned about the fact that we seem to be dealing with several editors whose sole contribution to the project is in the Prem Rawat topic area, and I am unconvinced that any steps that permit these accounts to continue to monopolize the topic area is beneficial to the project. Risker (talk) 03:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that we need to bring this case in line with "modern" discretionary sanctions, but I don't think a blanket lifting of sanctions is workable, nor desirable. I share Risker's concerns that there are a number of SPA's who are very close to the edge of a sanction here. SirFozzie (talk) 09:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I completely understand why The Blade of the Northern Lights perceived problems in the editing of Prem Rawat, but if Rainer P. is correct that he "had never been warned or criticised in over three years of editing," then I can understand his perspective that immediately escalating to an indefinite topic-ban might be a bit drastic. I'd welcome The Blade of the Northern Lights' thoughts on that aspect. I also agree with the suggestion of moving to a discretionary sanctions regime on Prem Rawat and related articles, and allowing editors who are currently the subject of sanctions based on the 2008 decision (including Rainer P.) to request reconsideration of their status on AE. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Motion: Replacement of "Article Probation" with "Standard Discretionary sanctions"
By motion, the committee resolves that:Standard Discretionary sanctions are authorised with immediate effect for all pages relating to Prem Rawat, broadly construed; this supersedes the existing Article Probation remedy.Any current non-expired Article Probation sanctions are hereby vacated and replaced with standard Discretionary Sanctions in the same terms and durations as the vacated sanctions. If appropriate, these may be appealed at Arbitration Enforcement.The Logs of blocks, bans, and restrictions at the Prem Rawat 2 case page is to be merged into the original Prem Rawat log at Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat, which is to be used for all future recording of warnings and sanctions. Enacted - Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Support
 * There appears to be consensus for this in the discussion above. As a bit of gold-plating, I have consolidated the logs for RfAr:PR and RfAr:PR2 as they are currently separated. I should add that this motion is purely an administrative action and is in no way critical of User:The Blade of the Northern Lights. Please tweak if needed.  Roger Davies  talk 12:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 13:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] 13:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Appropriate tidying up - including the merging of the logs.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  14:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This makes good sense as an amendment to the two Prem Rawat decisions. If it passes, could a Clerk please answer any questions Rainer P (or anyone else) might have about the procedures, as I expect that the distinction between an appeal to ArbCom and an appeal to Arbitration Enforcement may be opaque to editors unfamiliar with the arbitration pages. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Good housekeeping. Courcelles 17:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 07:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Upon implementation of this motion, Rainer's appeal should be submitted in the usual way to the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard. AGK  [•] 23:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Arbitrator comments
 * When this motion is enacted. would the clerks please notify all the users currently under the old sanctions to let them know of the change, given this creates a route of appeal that did not exist prior? Thanks. Courcelles 19:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The only users under current sanctions are those here.  Roger Davies  talk 07:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)