Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20 Prem Rawat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article ownership, tag teaming, and tendentious editing? There is no evidence of that, and in any case, mediation is not for resolving behavioral disputes (see current open ArbCom case, the proposed article probation and WP:AE will take care of that), but to assist editors in content disputes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The heading is "What's going on?" I filled in part of what I think is "going on". You're welcome to your own views too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose jossi, it depends on what you would like as "evidence", I'm fairly certain that nothing less than quotes from editors saying they are going to tag-team an article would do it for you. The fact that one editor "suggests" something, and others jump up to do it, repeatedly, probably isn't definitive enough for you. I understand that. If we could get rid of the behavioural disputes, we'd probably have a lot less content disputes as well. -- Maelefique (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Id there is such a thing as "tag teaming", then it is pervasive on both sides of the dispute. I would prefer to frame this on the basis that debates in talk pages and editing of pages by multiple editors is how this project works. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But you just said there is no evidence of tag teaming... -- Maelefique (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mediation isn't intended to settle behavioral problems. But often it's behavioral problems that make solving content disputes more difficult. Jossi structured this mediation initially to include five participants - three students of Prem Rawat, Jayen and me. I don't know why he excluded the other editors, and I won't assume there was any bad faith involved. But if the mediation had gone ahead with 3/5 of the participants sharing a POV then NPOV results would have been harder to achieve. The aim of mediation isn't to prove past problems, it's to find future solutions. I mention the article ownership simply as background for how we got to the present situation. We're not going to solve it here, but the solution needs to take that problem into account. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I simply listed active editors of Divine Light Mission, regardless of stated or unstated affiliation. Not sure about the other editors you added. And BTW, our ability to reach NPOV is unrelated to our stated or unstated POVs, unless you believe different, of course, which is your right but antithetical on how WP works. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you an active editor of "Divine Light Mission"? I listed those who were active on the talk page recently. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archived Discussion

[edit]
Extended content

Mediator notes

[edit]

I'd suggest that it be waited until the Arbitration Committee makes their final decision before starting this case. If the Arbitration Committee doesn't come to a decision that ends this dispute, I'll consider mediating this case. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 02:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand this is still under active discussion, as to who will mediate this. However, as it's possible I might be asked to mediate, I'd like to know more about this case, and where all the central discussion has been. Now, as it's been mentioned, something related to this case is currently before the Arbitration Committee, so I suppose I'll have to read through the ArbCom case. I'm rather thorough in my mediations. However, I won't open this case until the ArbCom case has been closed. Can someone please give me more details on this dispute? In a secton below this one will be fine. Cheers, Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 01:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After discussion with a few members of the Mediation Cabal, it is likely we will open the case before the Arbitration Committee makes a binding decision. I will be actively discussing our options as mediators within the next day or so, and reviewing evidence and discussion. We may also contact ArbCom. It's still undecided, but we will most likely open the case before ArbCom makes a decision. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 14:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Details

[edit]

A summary of what is in dispute is available here: Talk:Divine_Light_Mission#Pending_issues_to_be_mediated

The talk page has all the relevant discussions in separate sections. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, pull up a chair, this could take a while! Boiled down to the essence, as I see it. There are 3 pro-Rawat editors, I believe they have all publicly acknowledged that they are premies (roughly, students of Prem Rawat, disciples?). Through effective coordination of their efforts they have managed to keep almost all criticism of Prem Rawat out of all of the PR (Prem Rawat) related articles. They argue that some scholars cannot be used because they are christian, but then add quotes from other premies. They chip away at well sourced material until it's either too vague to be meaningful, and then remove it as unsourced, or they claim BLP violation, or undue weight, and remove it outright. We've even had to go outside the article to get an opinion on whether the LA times and NY times were credible sources or not (they still don't all agree that it is!). Regarding the merging of articles, we have a "Teachings of Prem Rawat" article, yet the techniques are secret, not to be shared with others, why does this need its own article? Several other articles can be merged as well, imo, however the pro-Rawat editors have a strong opposing viewpoint. These discussions/similar problems have spilled across most of the Prem Rawat related articles, largely in his own article though. That, and the talk page for the article under discussion here, are a pretty good place to start to get an idea of the issues I think. Also, you'll likely notice, the wikilawyering becomes pretty tedious after a while. -- Maelefique (talk) 02:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And how that exactly helps? Mediators are not involved in behavior issues, for that we have an arbCom case, and WP:AE if there are any restrictions imposed. This is for mediating content disputes, and helping us finding common ground on disputes that we have not been able to resolve on our own. In case you have missed it, we are making some progress in the Divine Light Mission article, which BTW, is the what this mediation is all about (together with other articles as listed in the top-left corner of this page. The attitude that is expected is one of collaboration and accepting the kind help of mediators. Throwing some more mud beyond what was thrown in the ArbCom case evidence is not helpful in this context. I would even say more: Attempts to keep bringing behavioral issues up that are being covered at the arbCom case are utterly disruptive. If any editor has a behavioral concern, it would be best to raise it with that editor, or to use WP:AN/I or WP:AE after the ArbCom case is closed. Note that, wisely, the mediators have made it clear that they will not start mediating until the case is closed. Let's focus this mediation on what it is for: to get help with the content disputes that have been listed in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It helps because it was a direct response to Steve's question/request. Very simple. Thanks for the additional policy references though, I always forget to leave a few of those for you. Also, in case you missed it, we are making some progress in the Divine Light Mission article, and that's what mediation is all about. -- Maelefique (talk) 04:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm presently going through details, as we speak. As with all my mediations, a simple requirement I have is civility. It's a ground rule I lay down before I take on any case. Other than that, I won't open the case until the ArbCom has closed the case, to prevent any conflicts in decisions. As this appears to be a highly complex dispute, I will need a day or so, perhaps more, to go through the ArbCom case and all prior discussion. Cheers, Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 04:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding the role of mediators, yes, we mediate on content, not behaviour. I still haven't decided exactly how I will mediate this case. I'm still thinking it over. Am I right to assume that you will accept me as a mediator? Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 04:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I will. It is not going to be easy as you can probably can gather, but I know you can get good help from other medCab members in case you need it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the content disputes extend to some related articles. In particular, talk:Teachings of Prem Rawat, talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat, and talk:Prem Rawat. Also, most of the talk pages have automatic archiving and some relevant threads may have been archived already. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I accept you as mediator. -- Maelefique (talk) 04:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

From: Talk:Divine_Light_Mission#MedCab_assistance

So. if that has changed, it needs to be stated clearly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 09:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi may not have understood my position. I wrote on the talk page, "I'm among those who think that a fresh approach is best" in regard to Vassyana's offer to mediate again.[2] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that Vassyana, in his trademark, even-handed way, has stated and clarified the points on both sides of the debate, and that has won him an accusation of "bowing out." I hope that accusation was made in good faith, but I am forced to wonder sometimes. Anyway, it just underlines that he is the right man for this job. Rumiton (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll keep an eye on this. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 14:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how many times I have to say it to clear up confusion. I would prefer Steve over Vassyana. -- Maelefique (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems that many others prefer Vassyana. What we need is a clear statement: do you object to Vassyana, who is the coordinator of the MedCab and a member of the Mediation Committee, or not? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many? (note to self, 3-4 now equals "many"...) Also, I do not see anyone saying they prefer Vassyana over Steve. Why do you object to Steve? (who is, I'm sure, also a member of fascinating commitees). He's already expressed an interest, and noted that Vassyana is very busy right now. -- Maelefique (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did I object to Steve? I haven't! I am waiting to hear if there is an objection to Vassyana. So far, it is not clear and this is becoming silly. Do you object to Vassyana? Does Will object to Vassyana? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did I object to Vassyana? In fact, did I not specifically say "I don't object"?! Twice?!?! Or do we count it as three times when you even quote me saying it?!! Or four times, when you reference me saying it? Yes, it certainly is getting silly, please stop. And I don't speak for Will. I prefer to have a fresh pair of eyes on this, that means I feel it would be more helpful to have Steve look at this. -- Maelefique (talk) 01:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Vassyana is the MedCab coordinator. I merely co-ordianate a wikiproject. I'm a mediator yes, but, I'm not a member of any fascinating committee. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Steve, but my only point there was that it's irrelevant what comittees Vassyana belongs to (but wouldn't that make you a member of the mediation committee?) -- Maelefique (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not on MedCom. I'm just an editor who is good with handling disputes. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're good at handling disputes then your participation would be welcome. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator choices

[edit]

Can we have an informal mediation team consisting of Steve Crossin AND Vassyana? Steve would be the front man, Vassyana can be available in the wings and help out where Steve runs into trouble. Is that a problem for anyone? I'm not saying I'll look in too, yet, btw. (I need to get some deadlines this weekend, but who knows, after that?). This sounds like a case where a team would be helpful, to unwind all the threads. --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC) (formally, all medcab mediation efforts are informal. medcom is for formal tasks, formally. Informally, sometimes things get a little mixed up). Are you formally confused yet? ;-)[reply]

I think a team is a good idea, I think if Steve and Vassyana want to do it that way, I don't see any objection on my part. -- Maelefique (talk) 11:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aye! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When Vassyana volunteered and asked if anyone objected I wrote him a note thanking him but saying that I prefer to have a different mediator this time. Vassyana replied that he understood and would help find someone else. I'm glad that Steve has volunteered and look forward to his help in mediating. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So let's be clear, please. Do you accept Kim's proposal, yes, or no. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok, Jossi. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure it is, just that I do not like ambiguity. :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline from Vassyana

[edit]

I decline to actively and directly participate in this case. Multiple editors have made clear to me, without any disrespect whatsoever, that they prefer a fresh set of eyes. As both a MedCab coordinator and a member of the formal Mediation Committee, Steve can talk to me about the case in confidance for assistance, advice or a sounding board and expect me to treat confidential details as such. I'm really and truly disappointed that this turned into such a distraction. Unless you have serious objections to Steve, in whom I place trust and respect for the record, can the above conversation please be archived and the case move forward into addressing the substantive content disagreements? Vassyana (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. Let's archive and move forward. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE

[edit]

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Momento_edit-warring_over_criticism_section_at_Prem_Rawat. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, already saw this. Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 04:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RSN: Collier

[edit]

Here is a draft for the RSN:

  • Sophia Collier joined the Divine Light Mission (DLM) of Guru Maharaj Ji (Prem Rawat) in 1971 at age 16 and left the movement four years later. Immediately after leaving she wrote her memoirs which recount in great detail her experiences with the movement, its members and officials, and even its leader. The book, "Soul Rush (book)", was published by a mainstream publisher and received some critical praise. Editors of articles related to Prem Rawat and the DLM would like to use the book as a source for various assertions concerning the woman's emotional perceptions of the movement and its methods, objective facts concerning the management of the movement, and the words and deeds of other people, both named and unnamed, some of which include material that could be regarded as derogatory or exceptional. The question is under what circumstances and for what material can this book be considered a reliable source?

Is that inclusive and neutral? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is, thanks, but not sure we will get what we need from this. After all, as I have argued extensively, we cannot and should not make blanket assessments of sources. But see my proposal [3] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The mediator thinks it would be helpful. If no one has any suggestions for improvements I'll post it. As you can see, the request is not for a blanket approval or disapproval, but for input about how and when the source is usable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can avoid mentioning that she admits she was highly experimental with LSD at the time she was in the ashram. One would think that might alter her memories or feelings on the matter. -- Maelefique (talk) 05:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Status

[edit]

What's the status of this page? We had started discussing Collier, and that branched out into a discussion of Randi. Are those on hold now? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, seems that we're making some progress with the Prem Rawat related stuff, and with the proposals page. I think we will just run with that idea for the time being. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 07:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20_Prem_Rawat&oldid=1080210461"