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 14 active Arbitrators (excluding 1 who is inactive and 1 who is recused), so 8 votes are a majority.

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the Clerks' noticeboard. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.

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, or political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Support:

Standard. --bainer (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 15:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[pf] 00:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Rlevse • Talk • 02:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 08:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 06:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed an "and" to "or". Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 05:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Neutral point of view[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. Wikipedia is a mirror for human knowledge: it seeks to reflect, and not distort, the current state of thought on a subject.

Support:

Standard. --bainer (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 15:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[pf] 00:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Rlevse • Talk • 02:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 08:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 06:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 05:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Neutral point of view and sourcing[edit]

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

Support:

From cold fusion, etc. There were some queries about this on the workshop page; what it's saying is that the correct approach is to try to follow faithfully all the contours of debate, and not to set up a string of opposing extremes. --bainer (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did not participate in that case, but I think this finding is spot-on. Cool Hand Luke 15:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 15:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[pf] 00:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Rlevse • Talk • 02:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With the caveat that drafts summarising the various extremes and other positions can help. Carcharoth (talk) 08:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 06:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 05:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Accuracy of sourcing[edit]

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

Support:

From PHG. See also the workshop where Carcharoth makes some good comments; I haven't altered this from there however. --bainer (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 15:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[pf] 00:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Rlevse • Talk • 02:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To rephrase what I said on the workshop, material in an article cited to a source must not only accurately reflect the source, but must (as far as possible) 'work' with the other sources used within the article. Readers can usually tell when sections of an article jar with each other and are in opposition, and that is one of the signs of a bad article, unless the context is there, using independent and objective sources to explain the tensions. Carcharoth (talk) 08:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 06:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 05:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Biographies of living persons[edit]

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

Support:

Standard. --bainer (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 15:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[pf] 00:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Rlevse • Talk • 02:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noting commentary on workshop. Carcharoth (talk) 08:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 06:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 05:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Objective of the biographies of living persons policy[edit]

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

Support:

This one is not standard, and may be controversial, but I think it is important to note. Unlike verifiability or original research, which may be assessed on a very fine level, whether an article achieves a neutral point of view cannot be answered in the same way, it has to involve a consideration of surrounding parts of the article and of the article as a whole. Tznkai observes on the workshop that this may be too wordy and proposed an alternative wording, the other arbitrators may well want to consider that. Me, I don't think it's wrong to have a little complexity when thinking about such issues. --bainer (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 13:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I feel this has too much potential to be misapplied, though the intent of this finding is good. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite comfortable with the wording. The first sentence is too long and difficult to parse. Could support a new draft based on something similar to the workshop suggestions. Carcharoth (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Rlevse and Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 05:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Yeah, hagiography is not NPOV, but I don't think this is an issue of rigor or granularity. I think the BLP and NPOV findings do the work required here. Cool Hand Luke 15:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not convinced a separate principle is warranted here. Kirill ^[pf] 00:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 06:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is ample room for discussion here. On the one hand, in BLP enforcement as everywhere else, proportionality and good judgment are essential. I remember one editor (whether an overzealous BLP proponent or a troublemaker was never really established) who decided to excise all unsourced material from BLP's starting with the A's, and therefore struck out unfootnoted sentences such as "Hank Aaron is a member of the Baseball Hall of Fame." That was merely absurd. On the other hand, it is no excuse for having an unsourced negative or privacy-invading statement about an individual in an article that there is positive material about the same individual elsewhere in the article. Put differently, BLP does not mean we never say anything negative about anyone alive; it does mean that we only do so when there is an encyclopedic reason to say it, and when we are sure there are sources that it is true. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Identify sources[edit]

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

Support:

Slightly modified from the workshop version. --bainer (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 15:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[pf] 00:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Rlevse • Talk • 02:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Might be eating too far into editorial discretion, particularly as there will be times when doing things this way is unbearably cumbersome, but will support as a general principle. Carcharoth (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 06:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is certainly so within reason. But again, only within reason, and perhaps this should be more explicit. Requiring a source for every assertion in every article, interpreted as meaning a footnote for every sentence or two, can seriously impair readability. "George Washington was the President of the United States from 1789 to 1797" does not require a footnoted source. And neither does "George W. Bush was the President of the United States from 2001 to 2009", even though Mr. Bush is a living person. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Newyorkbrad, and also our existing policies on what requires reliable third-party sources. Commonly known facts (e.g., the Eiffel Tower is in Paris, Kalamazoo is a city in the United States, Brazil is in South America) do not need footnoted sources. Risker (talk) 05:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Sources in languages other than English[edit]

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

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

Support:

A less significant point perhaps, but one that needs to be made as the arguments about which sources may be used regularly recur. --bainer (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could have helped in the PHG case too. Good point. Cool Hand Luke 15:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 15:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
vital for a truly global encyclopedia. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[pf] 00:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Rlevse • Talk • 02:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reiterating what should already be known and is common sense. FloNight's BLP point on the Workshop is important as well, as is Rumiton's point about untranslatable terms and care with quotations. Carcharoth (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 06:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Carcharoth. Risker (talk) 05:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

External links[edit]

9) External links are links in an article to resources outside of Wikipedia, other than those resources which are being directly used as sources for the article. Typically, resources that provide neutral and accurate material, but whose contents are - for reason of detail, copyright limitations, or otherwise - beyond the scope of inclusion in Wikipedia, should be linked to. Resources whose contents are ultimately germane for inclusion in Wikipedia ought not be linked, but rather their contents should be incorporated into the article.

Resources which are not sufficiently neutral or accurate to stand alone, but which nevertheless provide useful material, should similarly be incorporated into the article, where context and complementary material may be provided to address the problem of neutrality or accuracy. If this is not possible or not appropriate in the circumstances, then the resource should not be linked to.

Support:

See also the discussion on the workshop about this. --bainer (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of WP:EL. Cool Hand Luke 15:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 15:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[pf] 00:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Rlevse • Talk • 02:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 06:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but noting that editors usually add many external links on underdeveloped articles that will eventually be merged into content and/or be filtered as the article develops. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I see the last sentence of the first paragraph as problematic. If I know that an important source exists that would provide useful additional information for the article, but I am unable to work the material into the article itself (whether for reasons of time or interest, or because I lack needed subject-matter expertise, or I cannot personally access the source at that moment), it would be better for me to at least add an external link to the source so that others can access it and consider adding it, rather than leaving it out altogether. (Of course, a comment on the talkpage explaining the potential usefulness of the source could also be added.) I also am not sure why there is a prohibition against adding partisan sources as external links, so long as their nature or bias is clear. If I am writing the history of the Democratic or Republican Party, for example the party's own account of its history would be a valid external link, even if more neutral historical resources have been drawn upon in drafting and sourcing the article. I also agree with the concerns of the abstainers, which are related to these points. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Newyorkbrad. As well, although adding content and linking to an external source as a reference is preferable to simply adding an external link, any random search of articles will show that a significant portion have external links instead of fully incorporating useful information from that source. Risker (talk) 05:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Newyorkbrad and Risker. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Not sure about this. I think a distinction (or extension) might need to be made here between (or to cover) external links and further reading, which seems to be an accepted part of WP:LAYOUT. See here. It might also be simpler to frown on editorializing in the external links. Keep them strictly limited to the subject of the article and nothing else. The use of official websites is something else again. I don't think use of official websites in external links should be restricted. Is this principle saying that an official Prem Rawat website cannot be sufficiently neutral to be used in the external links? I fear this prinicple could be interpreted this way. Carcharoth (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think that an official web site could reasonable be excluded based on Wikipedia usual practices. ArbCom does not write policy, and that interpretation would be too large a change in our usual practices to be see as a mere interpretation of policy. So I think we are safe to assume that the Community still understands that official web sites are allowed. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links and biographies of living persons[edit]

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

Support:

An important practical point in the context of the many edit wars covered below. Complements the preceding proposal. --bainer (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, EL policy is especially important in BLPs. Cool Hand Luke 15:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 15:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[pf] 00:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Rlevse • Talk • 02:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 06:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree that extreme care should be used in linking partisan or negative sources to BLP articles. That said, this proposal might use some light copyediting (in particular, the use of the words "motivated by" is a bit awkward), and I may suggest some tweaks in the next day or two. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Makes sense for sites that attack a living person, but what about official or hagiographic sites? Still not sure about this one or the preceding principle. I think both have the potential to be misinterpreted. Carcharoth (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not comfortable with the words "motivated by", although I agree with the gist of the proposal. Risker (talk) 05:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

11) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Neutral:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Locus of dispute[edit]

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

Support:

There was some discussion on the workshop about also mentioning that the inclusion or exclusion of pro- material and not just anti- material is also a locus of dispute, but my impression is that the criticism is the more persistent issue, and the one being more actively fought over. --bainer (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough for our purposes. Kirill ^[pf] 00:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 13:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Rlevse • Talk • 02:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Kirill. If the dispute moves to pro-Rawat materials and links, we can clarify. Carcharoth (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 06:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 05:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Prior remedies[edit]

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

Support:

Background. --bainer (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[pf] 00:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 13:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Rlevse • Talk • 02:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 06:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added a word and a comma. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 05:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Enforcement of prior remedies[edit]

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

Support:

bainer (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[pf] 00:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 13:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Rlevse • Talk • 02:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clear and simple background to the history of dispute resolution here. Carcharoth (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 06:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 05:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Prior mediation[edit]

4) This dispute was subject to informal mediation, conducted by Steve Crossin (talk · contribs), from April to August 2008. The mediation ended, however, after a request for a switch to formal mediation was made, but unanimous agreement among the parties on proceeding to formal mediation could not be secured. Unfortunately the coincidental retirement of the original mediator precluded a return to informal mediation at that time.

Support:

Mentioning this as the mediation seemed to be quite successful, and mediation may be an option for the future here. --bainer (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Background, really. Kirill ^[pf] 00:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Casliber (talk ·~~ contribs) 10:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC) (moved to oppose)[reply]
Second choice. Wizardman 13:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Roger Davies ^talk 06:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Steve Crossin has said on the workshop he would prefer not to be named explicitly in this finding, and I see no reason not to accommodate that request. Carcharoth (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Carcharoth; also prefer the wording of 4.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Carcharoth and Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 05:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Prior mediation[edit]

4.1) This dispute was the subject of an informal mediation from April to August 2008. The mediation, which was somewhat successful, ended after a request for a changeover to formal mediation was made, but unanimous agreement among the parties on proceeding to formal mediation could not be secured.

Support:

First choice. That last sentence to me doesn't fit in, and adding that it was "somewhat successful" will show that mediation is not out of reach for this scope (which may delay or prevent a Prem Rawat 3). Wizardman 04:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per my oppose to FoF 4, supporting this improved wording. Carcharoth (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Kirill ^[pf] 03:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wizardman and Carcharoth; I made a couple of minor copyedits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 03:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 05:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Roger Davies ^talk 02:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fine with this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Roger Davies ^talk 06:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This omits that the informal mediation was prevented from resuming by the mediator's absence. A minor point, but it defrays the perception that all mediation was stalled by obstructionism in the formal mediation request. --bainer (talk) 13:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Users come and go all the time for various reasons. Generally, we don't expect for discussions, including mediation, to halt if one user leaves. A feature of the wiki model is that someone else will pick up the tasks if one user leaves. The mediator notes that he didn't think that his style or approach to mediation was novel or exceptional in this instance. I think that you are making assumptions about what would have happened that may or may not be true. For that reason, I don't see the need for us to dwell on this aspect of the situation. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support:

This is, unfortunately, just a taste, although it does cover some of the worse ones. Smaller scale edit warring occurs quite regularly. --bainer (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[pf] 00:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 13:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring is the appropriate term for repeated reverts of the same or similar article content that causes the article to have several alternative version of the article with significantly different content. Reverts have caused the article to be unstable and read from differing pov depending on which user edited last. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring is a massive understatement in this instance. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 06:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Self-evident from the links and looking through the histories at the times of those edits. Would have liked some analysis of what was the response to (e.g. protections and blocks) or outcome of the edit wars, but that could take a while. Carcharoth (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In a perfect world the decision would contain more recent instances than three months ago, but then again in a perfect world this situation would not have required a second arbitration case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 05:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Momento[edit]

6) Momento (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has:

treated Wikipedia as a battleground: [1], [2]
absent adequate justification based on policy or consensus, repeatedly removed sourced material: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]

Support:

bainer (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[pf] 00:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 13:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would not have cited all of these diffs as unjustified, but there are more than enough to demonstrate a problem. Cool Hand Luke 15:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the edits are looked at as a whole then the problem is more obvious than focusing on a a single edits. I understand that looking at an user from this broad perspective is different when done after the fact, and by people uninvolved with the immediate instance. But I don't think that we have mistake the context of situations in a manner that would absolve the involved editors. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Rlevse • Talk • 02:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 06:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noting the discussion on the workshop page, will be supporting this finding but proposing alternative remedy. Carcharoth (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While the diffs listed above in the FoF dont adequately support the assertion, the evidence on the Evidence page does. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Per Newyorkbrad. The "battleground" FoF makes me abstain; two sporadic and old diffs cannot be a proof of using Wikipedia as a battleground. Based on the second set of diffs above, I can see that Momento —in a couple of those instances— gave "adequate justification based on policy". -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find the diffs provided to be persuasive enough for this finding. Risker (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comments below (originally as an abstention), I think we can be more accurate here in describing the problems with this user's editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

I've not investigated this adequately yet. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced as to the "battleground" finding. The first of the two diffs is almost two years old, and the second is insufficient. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Change to oppose per comment above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rumiton[edit]

7) Rumiton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has:

removed sourced material, stating that the source is wrong: [15],
altered a direct quotation from a source: [16], [17]
treated Wikipedia as a battleground: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]

Support:

bainer (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although the altered quotation may simply have been carelessness. Kirill ^[pf] 00:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 13:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the edits are looked at as a whole then the problem is more obvious than focusing on a a single edits. I understand that looking at an user from this broad perspective is different when done after the fact, and by people uninvolved with the immediate instance. But I don't think that we have mistaken the context of situations in a manner that would absolve the involved editors. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
per FloNight and Kirill. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Rlevse • Talk • 02:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 06:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Language used in edit summaries about sources is not acceptable. Noting the discussion on the workshop page, will be supporting this finding but (despite the edit summary language) proposing an alternative remedy. Carcharoth (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been able to put my hands on a copy of the 1974 article to confirm the quote, however it appears that the parties agreed on what the article said, yet Rumiton deliberately altered the "teddy bear" quote twice before this discussion. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the source removal is accompanied by several talk posts[23], archived at Talk:Divine_Light_Mission/Archive_4#Deleted_opinion_by_Khushwant_Singh. The evidence section for this is here, where there are also more recent remarks about sources that include BLP problems.[24][25] --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I do not find sufficient evidence for these findings at this time. As to point (1), I cannot condemn an editor for a single, year-old instance of "remov[ing] sourced material, stating that the source is wrong". After all, sometimes a source is wrong, and there is no evidence here that the source was in fact right. As to point (2), I find it highly likely that Rumiton believed in good faith that the source, a Texas publication commenting on ~~events in~~ people from England, had made a transcription error ("teddy bear" instead of "teddy boy"), and there is contemporaneous talkpage discussion. As to point (3), Rumiton's candid evaluation of the anti-Rawat sources sometimes crossed the line from NPOV discussion into BLP violations as to the authors of the cited works (who themselves are living persons), including in the edit summaries as Carcharoth observes, but at the same time, we do expect users to evaluate sources and candidly discuss their value, and I find insufficient evidence here for a "battleground" finding. Also, all of the diffs cited are, at a minimum, more than six months old. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Newyorkbrad. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

I've not investigated this adequately yet. I am concerned that similar conduct by Francis Schonken has been pointed out on the PD talk page. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi[edit]

8) The Arbitration Committee notes that Jossi (talk · contribs), a party to the prior Prem Rawat case, has retired.

Support:

FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added "a party to the prior Prem Rawat case". FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 20:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bit bald. We should note, for those not aware, that Jossi was a party to the prior Prem Rawat case, and that Jossi was (until a self-enforced restriction) an editor of these articles. Carcharoth (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But agree with Carc, this could be fleshed out more. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 00:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Carcharoth and Rlevse, but sufficient. Risker (talk) 05:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 02:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template[edit]

8) {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.

Momento topic banned[edit]

1) Momento (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from editing Prem Rawat or any related article (including talk pages) for one year.

Support:

bainer (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[pf] 00:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 16:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Equal first choice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 23:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Rlevse • Talk • 02:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Cool Hand Luke 14:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 06:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the editor productively edits other articles, they can appeal this remedy. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Would prefer to keep this editor engaged on the talk pages. Will propose alternate remedy that allows talk page editing. Carcharoth (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Despite my reservation about the specific finding above, I readily find a pattern of POV editing warranting a topic ban (whether it should include talkpages is a closer call). However, I would stop short of one year. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think one year is excessive, but I would prefer to allow use of the talk page, which should clear up any undeclared COI issues. As NYB says, discretionary sanctions can be imposed if user is disruptive. Cool Hand Luke 03:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Newyorkbrad and my observations concerning FoFs related to this user. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Cool Hand Luke and Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Momento topic banned[edit]

1a) Momento (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from editing Prem Rawat or any related article for one year. Momento is free to edit the talk pages of such articles.

Support:

Would prefer to keep this editor engaged on the talk pages. Carcharoth (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support with equal preference for now. Cool Hand Luke 23:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as preferable to 1. Significantly, if this is adopted, the privilege of editing the talkpages would still constitute editing within the Prem Rawat topic area, and thus could be withdrawn under the discretionary sanctions if it is misused. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Equal first choice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is enough of a pattern revealed through the course of this case to believe that article editing should be constrained. Also per Newyorkbrad, this privilege can easily be withdrawn through discretionary sanctions. Risker (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[pf] 03:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 18:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no great advantage in giving troublesome editors a platform on associated talk pages. Topic banning is a useful way of disengaging and perhaps developing other, less contentious, interests. Roger Davies ^talk 02:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Rumiton topic banned[edit]

2) Rumiton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from editing Prem Rawat or any related article (including talk pages) for one year.

Support:

Kirill ^[pf] 00:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 16:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 23:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Rlevse • Talk • 02:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Disruption problems otherwise. Cool Hand Luke 14:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 06:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the editor productively edits other articles, they can appeal this remedy. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Equal first choice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Missed voting on this when I first posted it. --bainer (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Despite reservations over the edit summary language used to refer to sources. Would prefer to keep this editor engaged on the talk pages. Will propose alternate remedy to allow talk page editing. Carcharoth (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to my comments on 1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same as 1. Cool Hand Luke 03:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Newyorkbrad and my observations concerning FoFs related to this user. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same concerns as for 1. Risker (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Should all such topic bans include the talk page? I'm not so sure. Cool Hand Luke 15:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the goal is to have new unbiased editors began editing the articles, then I think restricting the participation of some editors is helpful because they make productive consensus talk page discussions difficult. I'm still deciding which if any editors need topic bans, but I might support including a talk page ban. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, yes it should — Rlevse • Talk • 02:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rumiton topic banned[edit]

2a) Rumiton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from editing Prem Rawat or any related article for one year. Rumiton is free to edit the talk pages of such articles, but is cautioned to use appropriate language when discussing sources.

Support:

Despite reservations about edit summary language (reflected in the caution), would prefer to keep this editor engaged on the talk pages. Carcharoth (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support with equal preference for now. Cool Hand Luke 23:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Substantially per my parallel comments on another editor on 1a. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Equal first choice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per my notes on 1a. Risker (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[pf] 03:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 18:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Complete disengagement preferred, per my comments in (1a). Roger Davies ^talk 02:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Revert limitations[edit]

3) Francis Schonken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Nik Wright2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Pongostick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Will Beback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are subject to an editing restriction with respect to the Prem Rawat article and any related articles for a period of one year. They may not revert any given changes to such articles more than once within a seven day period. Furthermore, if they themselves make any changes to an article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period.

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

Support:

First choice. Somewhat complicated, but preferable in my view to an article based revert limitation. Hopefully this should be easier to enforce, by being more direct, while still allowing admins some flexibility. I am, however, offering an article-based limitation as an alternative. --bainer (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice; asymmetric limitations have an unfortunate tendency to result in gaming. Kirill ^[pf] 00:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Cool Hand Luke 15:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice Wizardman 16:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Roger Davies ^talk 06:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Supporting this to make clear that edits by the above named editors have been part of the problem. Carcharoth (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I don't think this remedy will create stable NPOV articles, a broader restriction is needed. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Missing the standard BLP/vandalism exception. Risker (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

I am extremely reluctant to issue a remedy against specific named editors without any findings of fact involving those editors. The unfortunate effect of doing so is to make the decision, even if soundly grounded in a thorough review of the evidence, appear unreasoned or arbitrary. (This is not meant as a criticism of the draftsman; I have done my share of these, and know how complex and thankless a task it is.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Withdrawn; I missed that they are mentioned in the "edit warring" finding. Sorry, and I'll return to this later. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revert limitations[edit]

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.

Support:

Second choice. This is an alternative which is article-based, rather than being user-based. --bainer (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Kirill ^[pf] 00:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice; better deal with new parties, including possible sock games. Cool Hand Luke 15:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We know for certain that some users come to the articles with a pre-determined point of view. And being a controversial topic and a long term editing dispute, any user attempting to contribute to the topic falls under suspicion of being a sock, or being part of a editing clique, or engaging in other types of abusive editing. I see this broad remedy necessary to have a stable NPOV version of an article. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Wizardman 16:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice, paired with 3.2. Roger Davies ^talk 06:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. To head off future problems over the next year. Carcharoth (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than start a new remedy, I added ", except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations" to the second sentence. Feel free to revert if any arbitrator would prefer to tackle this a different way. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Too sweeping, and omits the usual (and required) exceptions for vandalism reversion and BLP issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Missing the standard exceptions for vandalism and BLP reversions. The first editor to violate this clause will likely be a Huggle- or Twinkle-equipped recent changes patroller.~~ It is also my observation that such sweeping revert restrictions actively dissuade uninvolved but skillful editors from working on articles. One of the articles covered by this proposed remedy, Millennium '73, is currently a featured article candidate and the edits that occur in the normal course of improving an article during its FA candidacy could also easily violate this clause. Risker (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Changing to abstain, but will refer to these comments below. Risker (talk) 02:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Should there be exceptions for the FAC process? Editing should be as open as possible during a FAC nomination, in order to allow the "stability" criteria to be properly assessed, and, of course, for improvements to be made. My views, which should be known to some by now, is that bringing an article to featured article standards (if done correctly), is one way to reduce at least some of the disruption around an article, and we shouldn't do anything to impede that process. Carcharoth (talk) 08:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More or just as likely that problematic reverting could happen during a FAC that stops uninvolved editors from improving the article. I don't want to give license to over involved users to repeatedly revert to their preferred wording when uninvolved editors are trying to trim out the excess wording. Working on these articles are going to be a headache for any user because they are controversial. People doing the FAC related work will need to take that into consideration when they work on the articles. FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I am saying here is that this type of general revert sanction hampers all editors, including those who are completely neutral, from improving articles that, in many cases, are already problematic and often need significant cleanup to repair the damage done following a long period of partisan editing. In particular, it dissuades non-involved editors who don't want to run the risk of sanction from improving content. Risker (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Abstaining now that the BLP/vandalism exceptions have been added. The remainder of my comments from the stricken oppose vote above still apply. Risker (talk) 02:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users admonished[edit]

3.2) Francis Schonken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Nik Wright2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Pongostick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Will Beback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are admonished for their conduct in articles related to Prem Rawat.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because we're supporting the general restriction over the user-based does not let them off the hook. Wizardman 14:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The repeated reverting of the article content is not a viable method to achieve a stable NPOV article. Editing controversial articles is tough. When the agreed upon talk page consensus is changed it is frustrating, for sure. But repeatedly reverting the articles is not the solution, so I'm supporting this remedy, although a lesser sanction such as a instruction to use other methods to resolve disputes with a caution would work for me too. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice, paired with 3.1. Roger Davies ^talk 06:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wizardman. Carcharoth (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Randy. Cool Hand Luke 23:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
per FloNight. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[pf] 01:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Not really appropriate without some form of findings. The findings can be broad or generic in nature if one wishes, but as I noted above, a remedy against a specific named editor without any explanation in the findings comes off as unreasoned. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Withdrawn; I see they are mentioned in the "edit warring" finding, which I somehow managed to miss last night. I'll return to this later. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

I find myself between the position of Newyorkbrad and that of Rlevse. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation encouraged[edit]

4) The parties and other interested editors are encouraged to resume or restart mediation in relation to Prem Rawat and related articles.

Support:

Suggested on the workshop; to complement the finding as to the prior mediation. --bainer (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Kirill ^[pf] 00:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 16:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Rlevse • Talk • 02:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 06:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Would also encourage the editors who are satisfied with the results of this arbitration case to not avoid mediation. There will be other issues in the future and other disputes that will need mediation, especially if no new editors arrive to this topic. Carcharoth (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Remedies preserved[edit]

5) The remedies applied in this case are in addition to the existing remedies applied in the Prem Rawat case, which are not affected by this decision.

Support:

To clear up an ambiguity MBisanz observed at the workshop. --bainer (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although this should be implicit. Kirill ^[pf] 00:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 16:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Rlevse • Talk • 02:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 06:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Jossi required to resolve disputes before returning to this area[edit]

6) Should Jossi return to Wikipedia to edit articles related to Prem Rawat, he is required to contact the Arbitration Committee so any outstanding editing disputes can be resolved. Per usual practices, this remedy applies to the person, not a named user account.

Support:

FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 20:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should apply retrospectively from the point of retirement. Carcharoth (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Carc. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 00:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Proposed copyedit (but not worth making an alternate proposal): "Should Jossi return to Wikipedia, whether under that account or any other account or IP, he shall not edit Prem Rawat or related articles or pages until he contacts the Arbitration Committee and any pending issues are resolved." Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[pf] 01:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 02:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer Newyorkbrad's wording, but believe this remedy is clear enough that Jossi (under any username) should be aware that he must contact the Arbitration Committee before returning to these articles. Risker (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

If a party to a case retires before the case concludes, or while the request for that case is pending, then the usual practice will be that either parts of the case relating to them will be decided in their absence, or a decision on those parts will be deferred until they return (if at all). That's not the usual practice when a user retires before a case is even in the contemplation of the parties, nor when there is not sufficient evidence to warrant proceeding in absentia. I've seen no compelling reason to depart from the usual practice in this case. --bainer (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Very unclear as a remedy. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

7) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement by block[edit]

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

Support:

Standard. --bainer (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[pf] 00:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 16:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But noting that in egregious cases any user can be blocked a year. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have noted Flo's concerns, but think this is adequate. We can swiftly clarify later if needed. Would prefer to see how things work out first, before opening up the field to blocks of a year in length. Carcharoth (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though willing to consider FloNight's alternative, if proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also willing to support FloNight's alternative. Roger Davies ^talk 02:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice, prefer 1a. Risker (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Again, 5 blocks is way too much! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

I think the the usual time extended to a year in the past? We did this so that admins would not be restricted to giving shorter blocks than they usually would give but at the same time not going past our usual one year limit for our sanctions. IRRC, we started using a month for a few select case where we didn't think the conduct would warrant an one year block and didn't want admins to mistakenly think that they should accelerate the blocks. If we are giving one year restrictions this is not as big a problem as with indefinite editing restrictions (that we've also used) where blocks would accumulate over several years for minor problems yet could trigger a year block. In this case, I'm not sure I want to limit the admins to one month blocks if there are repeated violations. I'll think about and might add a longer block length as an alternative. FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Move to oppose since I prefer 1a. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement by block[edit]

1a) Should any user violate a topic ban or an editing restriction imposed in or under this case, that user may be briefly blocked, up to one week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

First choice. This was the standard in the past. We began tweaking it in some cases where we did not want the enforcement to be too heavy handed. I prefer this wording because I think it more closely matches the blocks that would be routinely be given per usual admin discretion for serious editing problems without a case. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice per FloNight, though I certainly hope the option of a one-year block will not actually have to be used. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Risker (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support in addition to other remedies that pass. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Wizardman 22:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Equal preference with #1. --bainer (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support both equally, with the proviso that the editor blocked is warned on their talk page when they are approaching the one-year block mark and that the warning is logged at the case page, and that this escalating series of blocks is used for serious editing problems. Applies more to those admonished in this case and subject to the revert limitation, than those subject to the topic ban. IMO, those breaching the topic bans should be subject to stricter enforcement (and resetting of the topic ban) than anyone who breaches the revert limitations. Though serial breaching of the revert limitations should lead to escalating blocks if nothing else works. Hopefully admins enforcing this case will understand what we are saying here. Carcharoth (talk) 08:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Enforcement by extension of bans or restrictions[edit]

2) Should any user violate a topic ban or an editing restriction imposed in or under this case, their ban or restriction may be reset, instead of or in addition to enforcement by block. All resettings are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

Proposed. --bainer (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[pf] 00:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 16:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, resetting is needed since if we are just going to give maximum one month blocks. FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Rlevse • Talk • 02:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And any such resettings might trigger a clarification for a more hardline (1-year-long blocks) version of enforcement provision 1. Carcharoth (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Emphasis on may; resetting might not be warranted for a minor or isolated violation of a revert limitation, for example. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 02:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 22:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template[edit]

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

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.

As of 21:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC):

Passing at this time:

Proposed principles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10
Proposed findings of fact: 1, 2, 3, 4.1, 5, 6, 7, 8
Proposed remedies: 1, 2, 3.1, 3.2, 4, 5, 6
Proposed enforcement: 1a, 2

Not passing at this time:

Proposed principles: 6
Proposed findings of fact: 4.0
Proposed remedies: 1a, 2a, 3.0
Proposed enforcement: 1

So far this is what I have. MBisanz ^talk 09:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've included the to be written Jossi findings as not passing since they are not yet written, but are in the numbering schema. Also, 3 and 3.1 are both passing, but 3.1 has more first place votes, so that will be the version implemented unless I hear otherwise. MBisanz ^talk 17:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also 4 and 4.1 are both passing, they are not mutually exclusive, however it appears 4.1 has more first support. MBisanz ^talk 05:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've update MBisanz's list above to reflect results as of now. FoF 4.0 does NOT pass due to all the second choices., likewise Remedy 3.0 does not pass. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to close the case around 1500 UTS on the 19th unless any of the close votes change. MBisanz ^talk 06:50, 19 April 2009 (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.

The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast,
depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support

. I am done here. Others will follow when ready. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am done. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Time to close. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close. Wizardman 01:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close. Kirill ^[pf] 06:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

~~Oppose~~, as more discussion is needed for remedy 3.1 John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You just fixed it. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I merely added an assumption that most arbitrators took for granted. Risker has wider ranging concerns that should be considered before we close this. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - a bit more discussion is needed. Not much, but some loose ends still there. Carcharoth (talk) 09:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Abstain. I have expressed above my concern that the findings of fact as to Momento and Rumiton are flawed. The two arbitrators who voted on the case after I did have also opposed both findings "per Newyorkbrad," so my concerns are evidently not frivolous, but the other arbitrators who had already voted have understandably not revisited this issue. Ordinarily, I would oppose closure in this circumstance until my colleagues had a chance to review these findings and either confirm their continued assent or consider alternatives. However, despite my disagreement with the specifics of the findings, I agree with the majority that topic-related sanctions are warranted for these two editors based on the overall record. I am not certain whether it is worth keeping the case open simply to change the wording of the findings, and therefore raise the question for discussion here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]