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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Will Beback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Jayen466 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [1]
• Sandstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [2]
• Pergamino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [3]

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

Statement by Will Beback[edit]

WP:RFAR:Prem Rawat 2 closed in April. One of the remedies reads:

Revert limitations

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

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

• My first edit: [4] This edit added a section of material.
• A series of edits by Pergamino: [5][6][7][8] These edits altered the text I'd posted, and moved it, but did not revert my addition of the basic text.
• My second edit: [9] This edit undid Pergamino's edits (on account of his failure to discuss them).

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

Reply to LessHeard vanU

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

Reply to AGK

It wrong to say that I reverted instead of discussing. On the contrary, I reverted the changes because the editor who made them didn't explain them or even leave accurate edit summaries. The talk page shows ample discussion on my part. Commenting without ascertainng the facts first isn't helpful.   Will Beback  talk  19:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate AGK's clarification and accept his apology.   Will Beback  talk  21:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Roger Davies

Roger writes: "It seems clear enough to me that reverting any change is prohibited."

The remedy says: "No user may revert any given changes to a subject article more than once within a seven day period,..."

So regarding the first clause, there seems to be a disagreement over whether it's "1RR" or "0RR". However this clarification principally concerns the second clause, which is more difficult to interpret. It seems to say that you may not restore your edit if someone reverts it. It does not seem to say that if someone changes your work you may not revert it. That's the crux of this clarification request.   Will Beback  talk  19:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Newyorkbrad

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

Reply to Sandstein/FloNight

This is intended as a clarification of the remedy, but that necessarily involves discussing whether the remedy was interpreted correctly by Sandstein. Sandstein eventually said that the blocks were to enforce the second clause of the remedy: "...if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period." (emphasis added) It's my contention that the changes I made were not reverted. I request that Sandstein or FloNight please provide the diffs showing the supposed revert. If there was no revert then either Sandstein misinterpreted the remedy, or the remedy does not mean what it says and so it should be reworded to reflect the actual intent of the committee.   Will Beback  talk  21:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Pergamino himself claims that he did not revert my changes. Rather, he says below that he "made a few copy edits, added some new text, and changed the sub-sections a bit".   Will Beback  talk  00:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note

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

Comment by LessHeard vanU[edit]

If content is added by party A which is then "altered" in part or whole by party B and party A then removes those alterations so that the content is the same as when party A added it, what other term than "reverting" applies to the actions of party A? Is Will Beback arguing that the wording only applies to the reverting of a (whole) revert? This would make the remedy comparable with WP:WHEEL - where it is only the reverting by an admin of another sysops revision of the original admin action that triggers that situation. My reading, as provided at AE, is that any edit that substantially undoes another contributors edits to a section of content to return it to the previous or original edit is a revert and not allowable until 8 days has elapsed since the first edit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Will Beback; I refer to the latter section - my concern is to the interpretation of "revert"; you appear to argue that only a wholesale revert of the original edit (in this case the introduction of content) would thus mean you should not return the content (the revert noted in the remedy) within the 7 days, whereas my reading is that returning the content to what you originally edited, even though it had been only altered rather than removed, within 7 days violated the remedy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Roger Davies; "Clarification" is why we are here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Newyorkbrad; Further to the above response to Roger Davies, it is because there may be good faith interpretation of remedy or decision that differs from which is intended (or understood to be that intended) that there needs to be careful application of language. This is a Wiki after all, and while the best is always the intention it may be found that better is yet to come. Against the necessary restrictions provided to diminish disruption there are the allowances that provide editors with the freedom to try to improve content within their understanding of policy. Careful wording provides the line where both needs are met. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sandstein[edit]

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

Comment by uninvolved Milomedes[edit]

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

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

• Will Beback (20:05) states, "I don't believe that there was ever a revert of my original edit..." ([10])

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

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

A dictionary definition of "revert" requires a return to a former condition:

• Random House/Dictionary.com "revert": "1. to return to a former habit, practice, belief, condition, etc..."

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

Wikipedia Help makes a distinction between "revert" and "reword", as well as between "revert" and "modifying":

• Help:Reverting#When to revert reads: "...if you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, then try to improve it, if possible - reword rather than revert. Similarly, if only part of an edit is problematic then consider modifying only that part instead of reverting the whole edit..."' [Emphasis added]

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

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

Response to Newyorkbrad

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

Statement by AGK[edit]

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

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

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

AGK 15:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Will Beback

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

Statement by Pergamino[edit]

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

Clerk notes[edit]

• Recuse, obviously. AGK 17:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

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

Case affected

Prem Rawat 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 4 - Mediation encouraged.

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Steve Crossin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (mediator)
• Involved parties

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Article talk page)

Statement by Steve Crossin[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Response to Newyorkbrad

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

Response to Jayen466

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

Response to Seddon

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

Additional statement by Steve Crossin[edit]

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

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

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

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

Statement by Jayen466[edit]

I think the wording needs to be tweaked. It says "cannot be used in other forms of dispute resolution", but then says, "may be dealt with, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee". On the face of it, that seems contradictory. Also, it should be clear that the arbitration remedies will continue to remain enforceable during mediation. JN466 12:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Seddon[edit]

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

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

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

Statement by Daniel[edit]

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

Statement by Will Beback[edit]

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

Statement by AGK[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

AGK 14:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes[edit]

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

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

Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

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

Acceptance of case by Mediation Committee[edit]

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