Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 12 active Arbitrators (excluding 1 who is recused), so 7 votes are a majority.

Proposed motions[edit]

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

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.

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill 04:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 19:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. James F. (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Neutral point of view and sourcing[edit]

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. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is unforgoable.

The neutral point of view's requirement 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.

Support:
  1. I've tried to incorporate some relevant material here from Sathya Sai Baba 2. --bainer (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I'm not sure that "unforgoable" is a recognized word. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears in my Roget's at least; if that's too unwieldy the clause could be changed to something like "and is a foundation issue". --bainer (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill 04:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 19:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. James F. (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Conflicts of interest[edit]

3) An editor has a conflict of interest when their interests in editing Wikipedia, or the interests of those they represent, conflict or potentially conflict with the interests of the Wikipedia project in producing a neutral, verifiable encyclopaedia. An editor will have a conflict of interest with respect to an article if, for example, they stand to benefit financially from editing the article, or if the article is about them or about a business or organisation that they represent.

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

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Good summary of existing policy. I am strongly guided by the fact that an absolute conflict of interest is restricted. I will explain further below. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Although there are various degrees of conflict of interest which may impact the degree to which an editor is encouraged or discouraged from particular activity. Kirill 04:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 20:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. James F. (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Consequences of a conflict of interest[edit]

4) Though the presence of a conflict of interest can often explain the production of problematic content, its mere existence is not problematic; indeed, a well-managed conflict of interest can lead to productive contributions.

Thus, when a user with a conflict of interest makes contributions, the presence of the conflict is a good reason for close review of those contributions by the community, but the contributions are not necessarily problematic; scrutiny must always be with reference to content policy. The focus, as always, must be on the content.

As the conflict of interest guideline states:

"Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to. The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles."

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Essentially, it's ad hominem circumstantial otherwise. COI rightfully makes material suspect; but this requires stronger examination, not excision. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill 04:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 20:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. James F. (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Use of administrative tools in a content dispute[edit]

5) Administrative tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a content dispute.

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill 04:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Paul August ☎ 16:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Decorum[edit]

6) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill 04:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Paul August ☎ 16:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Biographies of living people[edit]

7) 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.

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill 04:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Paul August ☎ 16:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Summary style and content forking[edit]

8) Summary style is commonly used to break down long articles into a series of shorter child articles. When implementing the summary style, care must be taken that child articles do not become content forks.

While there is no consensus whether or not "criticism of..." child articles are invariably considered to be content forks, such articles must be adequately summarised in the parent article, and their existence does not obviate the necessity that the parent article must by itself represent a neutral point of view.

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC) Content not conduct[reply]
  2. I don't think we need to stray into this region with regard to this particular arbitration case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mostly content. Kirill 04:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 16:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
I'm also not convinced this is needed here, but perhaps I am missing something. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Unsure needed. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

9) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Locus of dispute[edit]

1) The locus of dispute is the article Prem Rawat, and to a lesser extent, other related articles about the Prem Rawat movement.

The Prem Rawat article has been the subject of editorial disputes for most of its existence, the most significant of which have been:

  • The editing of the article by editors said to be, or acknowledged to be, either supporters or detractors of the Prem Rawat movement; and
  • The inclusion or exclusion of a "criticism" section (or alternatively, a broader "reception" section) about the Prem Rawat movement, whether in the Prem Rawat article itself or in a child article.
Support:
  1. See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence/History. --bainer (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree with the opposes that this is a content finding. The fact that there is a dispute as to a given portion of an article is not a decision by the committee as to what the content of the article should be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. We don't rule on content, but I see nothing of the sort here; there's no reason not to note the nature of the dispute. Kirill 04:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC) First choice. James F. (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Paul August ☎ 16:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC) First choice. This is not a ruling on content.[reply]
  6. Per Kirill Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC) Second bullet is fundamentally a content finding. We issue such findings at our peril.[reply]
  2. Agree with UC - this is a content finding. The locus of this dispute is quite clear from the title of the case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per UC. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Locus of dispute[edit]

1.1) The locus of dispute is the article Prem Rawat, and to a lesser extent, certain other related articles concerning the Prem Rawat movement.

Support:
  1. Second choice. James F. (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Proposed as alternative to 1, which I prefer, but it's not going to pass and we ought to adopt something. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice. --bainer (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice. Kirill 02:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 16:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Second choice.[reply]
  7. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Small pond[edit]

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

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Accurate and relevant, although I'm not sure we need the list of names—and I'm curious whether the pattern of editing is really atypical for an article about a topic at this level of notability. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Paul August ☎ 16:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC) This finding supports remedy "Editors encouraged".[reply]
  3. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Unless there's a need for this. James F. (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Not sure how this is useful. Kirill 04:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't know where this is going. It is essentially true but Prem Rawat does not have the characteristics of a 'walled garden' article. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Not sure needed. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Existing restrictions[edit]

3) Following an administrators' noticeboard discussion, a one-revert rule editing restriction was applied to a number of Prem Rawat related articles for a period of three months beginning 4 March 2008.

In addition, a number of editors, including Jossi, have voluntarily taken on editing restrictions with respect to various articles related to the Prem Rawat movement (details).

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill 04:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Paul August ☎ 16:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Incivility and personal attacks[edit]

4) There has been some history of incivility and personal attacks surrounding articles related to the Prem Rawat movement, which has at times provided for a difficult editing environment.

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC) I note that the addition of examples would improve the utility of this finding.[reply]
  3. I might try and dig out some examples to add to this, but it's clearly true. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill 04:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Paul August ☎ 16:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Jossi[edit]

5) Jossi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has, on a number of occasions, indicated that he has a conflict of interest with respect to articles about the Prem Rawat movement (for example here and here), and this is not in dispute. Jossi has made a substantial number of edits to articles relating to the Prem Rawat movement (though only seven out of the last one thousand edits to Prem Rawat).

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

Further to this observation, a conflict of interest noticeboard discussion in February 2008 did not indicate that Jossi had made problematic edits to the Prem Rawat article. As Thatcher observed in closing the discussion:

"After 88 KB of hand-wringing, we finally have a presentation of diffs that show Jossi edits the article, but no evidence of disruption, edit-warring, or misuse of administrative tools."

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a conflict of interest to edit articles that pertain to one's beliefs, religious or otherwise. To the extent that Jossi's relationship with Prem Rawat is closer or stronger than that, COI issues become more involved, but any COI issues here are ameliorated by Jossi's voluntary disengagement from the article page as described below. Compare the pending International Churches of Christ case for another, somewhat similar situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill 04:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Paul August ☎ 16:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Accurately states the situation when case opened. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Jossi has a self-imposed restriction[edit]

6) Jossi disclosed his potential conflict of interest on 1 September 2004 voluntarily, and has been aware of the need to behave in a circumspect manner on pages relating to Prem Rawat. On 10 February 2008 he declared his intention to only edit talk pages for Prem Rawat related articles, a self-imposed restriction to which he has held. This restriction is not required on a reasonable interpretation of policy on conflicts of interests.

Support:
  1. Proposed. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Although the last sentence could probably be a tad more nuanced. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Not really helpful as written; that something isn't "required" doesn't necessarily mean it's not a good idea regardless. Kirill 04:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. In favour of 6.1 (tweaked wording) James F. (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Paul August ☎ 16:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC) In favor of 6.1.[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Jossi has a self-imposed restriction[edit]

6.1) Jossi disclosed his potential conflict of interest on 1 September 2004 voluntarily, and has been aware of the need to behave in a circumspect manner on pages relating to Prem Rawat. On 10 February 2008, he declared his intention to edit only talk pages for Prem Rawat related articles, a self-imposed restriction to which he has held. The Committee commends Jossi's voluntary restraint, and notes that it is not strictly required by the policy on conflicts of interests.

Support:
  1. Hope this is better. James F. (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. OK. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ok. Kirill 02:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Equal preference with 6. Changed "only edit" to "edit only" for clarity. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC) I tweaked the wording slightly only because I am concerned that two years from now someone might have misconstrued the original finding as changing the voluntary restrictions to involuntary ones.[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 16:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Accurate statement of situation when the case opened. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. This seems to overlap with #3 (existing restrictions) and #5 (Jossi) above, though this provides more detail on both of those points. Should these details be merged into those other findings? --bainer (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

7) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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.

Article probation[edit]

1) Prem Rawat and related articles, including their talk pages, are subject to article probation. Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks and incivilty.

This remedy supersedes the existing community based one-revert rule restriction.

Support:
  1. Adapted from the provision in Election. --bainer (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Altered to supersede the extant 1RR restriction, due to views by disputants that WP:AE will be better for enforcement purposes than WP:ANI. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat/Proposed_decision#1RR. --bainer (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If we wanted to, we could incorporate the 1RR restriction into our decision (thereby moving the enforcement venue to WP:AE) rather than supersede it—but the new restriction probably makes 1RR superfluous, or an administrator may impose it on a particular user as needed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill 04:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Paul August ☎ 03:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC) At the rate we're going, we might as well put the whole encyclopedia on article probation.[reply]
Abstain:

Jossi advised[edit]

2) Given the general difficulty of managing a conflict of interest, compounded in this case by the independent controversy over the relevant articles, Jossi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is strongly advised to maintain his commitment not to edit any articles related to the Prem Rawat movement, but is encouraged to otherwise contribute to the editorial process, for example by contributing to talk page discussions.

Support:
  1. The existing voluntary restriction makes it unnecessary to consider whether there should be any formal restrictions at this time. --bainer (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This shouldn't be taken to imply that Jossi is unable to act appropriately without explicit advice from us, of course. Kirill 04:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC) I'm not comfortable singling Jossi out by name and am concerned that an open-ended decision like this with no time limit could be construed later as being binding.[reply]
  2. I disagree with this. Jossi's self-imposed restriction is not a requirement under policy and his edits have been responsible, and I read this as hinting that he is causing problems. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. We might laud him for his restraint, perhaps, but in this case, he doesn't need our advice. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 03:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Prefer new proposal 2.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors reminded[edit]

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

Support:
Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Kirill 04:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Wording changed slightly.[reply]
  5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Though I don't much like these "reminders". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Paul August ☎ 03:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Editors encouraged[edit]

3) In light of the relatively narrow participation in these articles to date, all editors are encouraged to turn to others for help, and seek the input of neutral, uninvolved editors, in resolving disputes.

Support:
  1. It is my view that many of the problems alleged with this article have been due to the small number of editors participating in editing. These editors have made good use of intra-party methods of dispute resolution, but should be encouraged to make further use of third-party methods like third opinion and article requests for comment. --bainer (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 04:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Paul August ☎ 04:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC) I am going to continue my principled opposition to empty remedies.[reply]
  2. With UC on this one. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yeah, me too. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Template[edit]

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Logging of sanctions[edit]

1) All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill 04:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Paul August ☎ 04:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

  • The key issue that comes up with Jossi is the extent to which, absent any evidence of disruption or POV-pushing, an editor known to believe very strongly in a cause has an inevitable and disabling conflict of interest when writing about their cause or matters closely related to it. In my view the fact that this particular cause is a religious movement is something of a red herring. Let us suppose we had an editor who had attended every West Ham game since the age of eight, was covered in Hammers tattoos, was a past president of West Ham United Supporters Club, and had called his sons after Bobby Moore and Geoff Hurst. To what extent would such an editor have a conflict of interest in editing articles related to West Ham United? I would answer that question as saying that the limit of the conflict of interest would be in relation to the history of the Supporters Club during his own tenure.
Supporters of football clubs are, in my experience, the first to be critical of their own club's performance if they feel it has let the fans down. Likewise during the ongoing Roman Catholic sex abuse cases, those who did the most valuable work were members of the Church who were disgusted about what was revealed about some Priests.
I do not believe that the relative novelty of the Prem Rawat movement means it should be treated as fundamentally more controversial than longer-established religious movements. No sane administrator would advise a Roman Catholic editor not to edit the biography of the Pope, nor advise against any Christian editing the article on Jesus Christ. Unless religious editors clearly edit aimed at winning converts for their religious branch, and cause problems by pushing a religious point of view, I interpret WP:COI as having a strictly limited application in this field. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The football analogy isn't bad. We ran into this issue from another angle in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS. To get a clearer picture of such issues, one must strip away the actual content; then the question is reduced to "POV pushing or not". We didn't get to consider anything about Prem Rawat or L Ron Hubbard. Also, our COI policy is not an electric fence. Rather, it's an adjunct to our NPOV policy, intended to make NPOV easier to achieve. If a person with an obvious conflict of interest is capable of editing in a neutral manner, that person should be encouraged to do so. It might make our job a little harder, since we'll have to look a little harder at those edits, but they'll likely be of superior quality. I also know it's a big "if". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

  • Due to Newyorkbrad's resignation, no version of finding #1 (Locus), #6 (Jossi) or remedy #1 (Article probation) passes. Thatcher 15:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Subsequent voting makes all three now pass. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote[edit]

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

Support
  1. Close. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close. Everything that is needed is there. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Time to close. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Close per discussion on list. James F. (talk) 09:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The Committee finished reviewing issues related to the case. No other action is going to be taken at this time. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Oppose closure temporarily. We need more votes on proposed finding 1.1 and proposed remedy 2.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per discussion on the ArbCom mailing list. There is an outstanding issue that has not been addressed and needs to be before this case closed. Ignoring this issue is not in the best interest of any of the involved parties or the Community. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Can close now. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Paul August ☎ 17:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat/Proposed_decision&oldid=1136070118"