Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2/Workshop

This comment really should go under proposed decisions, but I can't justify setting up all those headings for this minor comment. In my humble opinion, part of the reason ArbCom sanctions weren't applied was because the bar was set at the level of disruptive conduct. If the bar was set lower, at the level of ensuring the smooth running of the project, it would facilitate the application of sanctions by uninvolved admins. PhilKnight (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Related findings from Sai Baba case, for reference

Sai Baba is a much more controversial figure than Rawat, but there are some parallels between the disputes that plagued the Sai Baba article in 2006 and 2007 (and currently plague it again) and the disputes in the Rawat article, notably the prominent role an ex-followers' site has played in disputes between editors.

For reference, here are excerpts from the committee's decision in the 2006 and 2007 Sai Baba cases:

NPOV and sources (2007)

2) Wikipedia's NPOV policy provides that articles should utilize the best and most reputable source[s]. NPOV cannot be synthesized by merely presenting a plurality of opposing viewpoints, each derived from a polarized source. Instead, NPOV requires that high-quality, neutral sources be used for the bulk of the article, with more polarized sources utilized only when necessary to illustrate the range of opinion. Wikipedia:Reliable sources provides that scholarly sources are to be preferred, and offers advice on evaluation of non-scholarly sources. Wikipedia holds that particular attention to sourcing is vital for controversial subjects, and that exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

Wikipedia's prohibition on original research provides that editors may not synthesize viewpoints or draw conclusions of their own from primary sources or other raw data. Instead, Wikipedia articles document what reliable sources state about their subjects.

Activist editing (2007)

3) Wikipedia is not a soapbox for propaganda or activist editing.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox (2006)

4) Wikipedia is not an appropriate vehicle for propaganda or advocacy of any kind, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

Reliable sources (2006)

12) Editors are responsible for evaluating sources and deciding which are the most reliable and authoritative. "Ask yourself: Do the sources have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?", Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Evaluating_sources, "Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?", Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Issues_to_look_out_for. "Partisan political and religious (or anti-religious) sources should be treated with caution", Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Partisan_websites. "Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in. All reports must be evaluated according to the processes and people that created them.", Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Evaluating_reliability. "Caution should be used when using company or organization websites as sources", Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Company_and_organization_websites.

While some of the policy and guideline sections linked to above no longer exist, and the present arbitration committee may assess this case differently, at least some of the above is likely to be applicable to this present case as well. Jayen466 12:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

1) Editors at Wikipedia are expected to work towards NPOV in their editing activities. It is not possible to simultaneously pursue NPOV and an activist agenda. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest codifies the principle that editors may not edit articles about themselves or organizations they represent due to this inherent conflict. However, the conflict of interest policy is of deliberately limited compass and does not prohibit editors from working on articles about entities to which they have only an indirect relationship.

This is also relevant to this matter. Will Beback talk 02:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Jayen466 12:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia lists 12 broad types of activism. There are certainly more. Anybody who does anything at any time for a better world might be called an activist. Any serious attempt to implement this advice would become very contentious, very quickly. Rumiton (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This RfAR just concerns how current policies apply to this dispute. If we want to change the policy then that's a different matter. Will Beback talk 22:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested findings

Instead of listing my opinion on the Workshop page, I'll just express it here in narrative form...In my statement during the RfAR for this case, I advocated topic banning Momento, Rumiton, and Francis Schonken. So far, however, the only real evidence of problematic behavior has been directed at Momento and Willbeback. The evidence against Momento appears fairly strong. So, I take back my original statement. If any topic bans are deserved in this situation, only one editor appears to clearly deserve one. If the Committee agrees, I recommend not allowing talk page participation either, because allowing a topic-banned editor to participate in discussions working for consensus seems to be counterproductive. Also, if the evidence that Jossi was abusing the community's trust is as strong as Willbeback says that it is, I hope that the Committee will publicly announce a finding in that regard for future reference, if needed. Cla68 (talk) 07:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser request

1) I was blocked as a sock puppet of VictorO. I wasn't/aren't and would like this confirmed. Since I am not familiar with the process I would ask MBisanz to facilitate.

2) Msalt has suggested I might be a sock puppet of Janice Rowe. I am not. Since I am not familiar with the process I would ask MBisanz to facilitate.

3) Pongostick (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) appeared in the middle of an edit war, engaged in edit warring and hasn't edited since. Request checkuser to see if it was an alternate account of any involved editors.

Clerk note: This is probably better handled at WP:SPI as it involves checkuser discretion and won't require a full vote of the committee to implement. Will, do you object to me moving it there? MBisanz ^talk 06:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Sorry for putting it on the wrong page. Will Beback talk 06:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pongostick MBisanz ^talk 07:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Momento, per WP:Checkuser, checkuser cannot prove innocence, so the VictorO and Janice Rowe allegations cannot be falsified. MBisanz ^talk 09:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this account related? Cla68 (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cla, probably best to email arbcom, I don't think many of the current arbs were on the list at the time, so one of them would need to search archives to find out who the main account was. MBisanz ^talk 00:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice for using the workshop

Next we will be moving to the workshop page. This is an opportunity for editors to suggest to the arbitrators ideas for the final decision of the case. Don't feel bad if the arbitrators do not use your exact idea, they rarely copy a finding from the Workshop directly to the Proposed decision.

There are four primary parts of the workshop; Principles, Findings of fact, Remedies, and Enforcement.

Principles

Principles are broad findings about the general way in which Wikipedia operates. They are not based on the specific facts of the case, but rather are the principles with which the arbitrators will use in interpreting the facts of the case. There are several places you can look to help in framing your workshop principles, below are some of the most common places.

Findings of fact

Findings of fact are conclusions of things that have occurred based on what has been presented on the /Evidence page. Each finding should be based on evidence. You do not need to link to a particular section of evidence in the finding, but findings not supported by evidence generally are not taken with much weight by the arbitrators. Remember that these are facts about the case at hand, so if a finding has no evidence to support it, then it probably is not appropriate to the case. Also, remember that the Committee is unlikely to find one side right and the other side wrong. Findings should be framed in an detached and neutral manner. Findings that are evenly balanced tend to me looked on more favorably than findings that place all the blame on a particular party.

Remedies

Remedies are the synthesis of the principles and the findings of fact. Situations are brought to the Committee because the community cannot resolve them. Remedies are the means by which the Committee resolves the situation. Remedies can include warnings, restrictions, sanctions, mentorships, or bannings. They can be applied to a single individual, a specific list of parties, a group of individuals, an article, or a group of articles. They can be temporary or permanent. Also, they may be worded to be enforced at the conclusion of the case by the committee or later by administrators monitoring enforcement requests.

Enforcement

Generally the enforcement section contains very little information. Most remedies are clear and do not require additional details. However, there are occasions when detailed enforcement is beneficial. For instance, the Committee may decide that a particular administrator may not enforce a particular remedy or that enforcement of the case must be noted in a particular location.

Workshop decorum

In the course of the workshop the arbitrators will comment on proposals. It is important to remember they are commenting as individuals and that the Committee has not decided anything yet. However, if it is clear that a particular line of proposals will not be considered by the Committee, it is generally considered bad form to continue to suggest proposals in the same line of thinking. Also, civility and no personal attacks still apply on the workshop pages and will be enforced by the clerks as appropriate. Administrators, clerks, or arbitrators should not attempt to enforce policies for matters that occur on cases they are involved in as a party, rather they should bring it to the attention of an uninvolved clerk or arbitrator. The arbitrators are not concerned with what the parties think of each other, so lengthy comments between the parties are likely to be ignored or removed. Remember, comment on the proposals, not the proposer.

As always, if you have any questions, feel free to ask a clerk for assistance. MBisanz ^talk 22:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals: sources

One of the topics of some workshop proposal is the use of scholars as the best sources. Looking through the evidence, I see an issue where some editors have argued against using, or even removed outright, material sourced to scholars. There have been long-running campaigns against the use of both individidual scholars and entire classes. Christian scholars, foreign language scholars, and sociologists are among specific categories, not to mention "mediocre scholars" or those that are "contradicted or rendered absurd by other scholars' material". Combined with the promotion of Cagan as a source, it appears that the issue of sources is a major part of this dispute and the current workshop proposals don't address it adequately. Editors have made at least six trips to RSN in the past year, among other DR on sources, and yet the input received there seems to have been largely rejected over and over by involved editors. What proposals can we make to help resolve this longterm dispute? Will Beback talk 22:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think "NPOV requires that high-quality, neutral sources be used for the bulk of the article, with more polarized sources utilized only when necessary to illustrate the range of opinion." is good advice. We should avoid strong opinions for and against, except to illustrate the range of opinion, and otherwise let the facts speak for themselves. Jayen466 01:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for that suggestion, but I don't see where "NPOV requires that high-quality, neutral sources be used for the bulk of the article". Did you write that formulation yourself? One problem we've had with this article is that dozens of facts have been excluded, even those based on highly reliable sources. Some editors treat all journalists as "polarized sources", not to mention all Christian scholars, etc. Yet a partisan biography that doesn't qualify as a reliable source is promoted in their place. I don't see how that text would address that problem. We can't just say "only use the most reliable sources", then define "reliable sources" in an uneven or ideosyncratic way. I think we need to keep thinking about this, or just let the ArbCom make a determination. Will Beback talk 05:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that this wording proposes a false dichotomy between "polarized" or "strongly worded" sources, on the one hand, and "high-quality" ones on the other. The implication is a preference for pablum, or the exact kind of weasel words we dislike in articles themselves. The better wording is that we want the aggregate effect of the article to be an NPOV range of the different opinions, based on reliable sources. The Osho article that Jayen466 has worked on is a good role model, handling lots of much more contentious issues in a solid, NPOV manner.

Where the same point is documented by multiple sources, of course we prefer the highest quality. But the history of edits on this page contains many examples of valid, factual material documented by reliable sources (either scholarly or journalistic) being deleted by pro-Rawat editors on the basis of labored interpretations of policies including BLP, REDFLAG, and even obscure legalisms such as "SUSPECTED SOCKPUPPETS OF ZOE CROYDON", which have no apparent relation to the article. Msalt (talk) 06:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think "NPOV requires that high-quality, neutral sources be used for the bulk of the article, with more polarized sources utilized only when necessary to illustrate the range of opinion" is excellent advice, whoever wrote it. We have seen attempts going back several years to insert material written by, for example, Dutch Protestant churchmen. This church had seen a fall from power of unprecedented proportions in one lifetime...from mandatory membership for all Dutch government positions to having to coexist with a a plurality of other Christian denominations, not to mention, in the early 70's, eastern religions such as ISKCON and the Divine Light Mission. They saw themselves as under attack by the ungodly, and were not in a mood for quality research. They were as polarised as sources can get, and should be mentioned, if at all, only under the above caveat. There are many other secular sources whose views were similarly biased to the point of adding nothing of value to the article. Rumiton (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is key to the problems of the editing the article. Here we have an editor making statements about an entire class of sources, with no apparent evidence to support the assertions. Journalists that are good enough for other articles on Wikipedia are rejected as being biased against all new religious movements. Sources that report the same information are accused of copying each other.[1] We're told to rely predominantly on scholars, but a large proportion of scholars are then put off-limits, in this case because of the history of the Dutch Church and not due to any actual evidence about the scholars themselves. Yet a scholar who was one of the subject's first followers and who helped promote his mission is used over and over again. A partisan biography by a celebrity ghostwriter is regarded as more reliable than journalists and scholars combined. This appears to me to be a grossly inconsistent way of deciding which sources to use. Will Beback talk 18:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could go by publisher. Strictly Christian apologetic texts, usually published by Christian publishing houses specializing in this kind of material, should be treated with caution. The same of course with Rawatian apologetic texts published by publishing houses linked to Rawat. But if it's a reputable academic publisher, it's fine, whether the author is Christian or premie. Jayen466 23:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are several problems with that approach. First, "treated with caution" isn't a sufficiently clear direction. We don't say that questionable sources concerning BLPs should be used with caution - we say they shouldn't be used at all. A publishing house that has published only one book with proven problems is not a reliable source. Publishing houses associated with Christian perspectives that have published many books are considered reliable sources, even for a BLP. Scholars, working within their field of expertise and published in a peer reviewed publication, are highly reliable reliable. Ron Geaves is s special case. His field of expertise, if I understand correctly, is Islam in the UK. He is a problematic source for the Prem Rawat topic becuase he was one of the subject's earliest followers, who helped propagate Rawat's message. He is better as a source for the view of followers than as an unbiased, neutral scholar.

One of the stranger disputes we've had on this topic is over the purchase price of the subject's home. For some reason Momento has shown considerable interest in this topic. He has promoted a scholar of new religious movements as a better source for this than the Los Angeles Times, which covers real estate transactions routinely and in depth. While religious scholars are undoubtedly better sources for theology than newspapers are, newspapers are probably better sources within their fields of expertise - reporting names, dates, events, etc. Will Beback talk 00:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will, the formulation came from this principle. Jayen466 23:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ArbCom doesn't set precedent or policy. Is there a comparable principle in the actual policies or guidelines of Wikipedia? Will Beback talk 00:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental Reversion?

I'm no Wikipedia expert, but it looks to me like Nik Wright2 put in a bunch of proposals, and Rumiton removed them all, perhaps accidentally due to an edit conflict? I'm referring to this diff. [2] What am I missing here? Msalt (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It happens sometimes. I tried to add back Nik's proposals, but he should check to make sure everything is there. Will Beback talk 17:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. BTW, I notified both on their User Talk pages. Msalt (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that happen before on these pages, it is when someone opens a window and starts editing, then someone else opens the same section to start editing and save it, then the first person saves their section, and it over-writes the first person's edits. Yes, Will was right to add back Nik's stuff, all WP:AGF. MBisanz ^talk 22:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frances added back one comment that Nik had added to another part of the Workshop page, as well. I think that's all of it. Msalt (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for helping to restore/point out the problem. Must admit I was quite stumped by that occurence.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. I never saw Nik's proposals, as they were overwritten by my own edit. Thank you for pointing it out. Rumiton (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

picky point for NikWright2 on latest edits

The 2 links in your latest edit to your Jayen466 clarification don't work for me. I think you may have an extra pipe character ("|") at the end of each link. Msalt (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up. Thanks for pointing that out.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking in

Any outstanding issues that the parties need help with? I'm hoping the arbs get around to noticing this case sooner rather than later, but if there is anything I can help me with, let me know. MBisanz ^talk 07:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Bain must withdraw

It is unacceptable that a person charged with making a decision on this case should provide so much evidence that is riddled with errors and deliberate distortions. In the section "Edit warring" Bainer omitted info or edits that altered the facts to portray me as making bad edits.[3]

Inclusion or exclusion of various external links (Feb 2008) & an external link (Jan 09) & concerning external links (Jan 09): In each of these sequences Bainer omitted the crucial info that editors had agreed to limit links to one, therefore every edit made to remove the links was to uphold consensus.[4] Francis Schonken broke consensus and added the links as per [5]. This consensus was restablished before 99.245.228.162 broke it, and again before 66.253.10.227 broke it.

Inclusion or exclusion of the word "Balyogeshwar" in the article's lede (Feb 2008): Bainer starts the edit sequence with Francis Schonken's second edit which has the edit sumary "rv some edits by SPA", thereby making my subsequent edits "reverts to some edits by SPA".[6]. In fact, FrancisSchonken's first edit in this sequence was his insertion of "Balyogeshwar" without discussion or source and continues to insert it despite objections on the talk page.[7][8] Therefore my subsequent edits are in complete accord with BLP policy which says "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion".

In a passage concerning Rawat's father's death (May 2008): Bainer omits and misdescribes edits to make it appear I made three edits and FrancisSchonken made two. In fact my first edit was to insert properly sourced material already existing in another article.[9] Which FrancisSchonken removed three times.Frfancis Schonken, Francis Schonken, Francis Schonken

Concerning the lede and a section entitled "lifestyle" (Oct 08): Bainer omits the first edit in the sequence which is WillBeback's first insertion of the "Lifestyle" section without discussion.[10][11] Which he then re-inserted a further two times.Will Beback, Will Beback

Concerning the lede (Jan 09): Bainer describes "pro" edits as "new additions" or "partial reverts" but doesn't describe "anti" edits in the same way. Therefore giving the impression that "pro' editors are adding material rather than removing Cla68's unsourced addition of "Lord of the Universe" in accordance with BLP.

Bainer then gives his evidence against me.[12] He claims one edit to add context from May 2007 and one edit from Nov 2009 to remove material from the lead constitutes "treating Wikipedia as a battle ground". Compare this to Nik Wright2 [13] Or Francis Schonken![14] Now that's using Wikipedia as a battle ground.

He then sets out 12 edits he claims show I "repeatedly removed sourced material without adequate justification based on policy or consensus". Not only is every single edit justified but more importantly Bainer fabricated an edit to try and prove his case. He claims this edit proves his point [15] and with a misleading edit summary. The edit summary belongs to this edit [16], not the six edits that Bainer amalgamated.

As demonstrated above, Bainer omitted info or edits on five separate occasions in his "Edit warring" section, all of which altered the facts to portray me as making bad edits. His evidence to support his claim I "treated Wikipedia as a battle ground" is non existent and only proves he has read none of the evidence against Francis Schonken, WillBeback and NikWright2. His twelve edits to prove I "removed material without adequate justification" proves the opposite. And not only that, Bainer fabricated an edit to try and prove his case. As the James Bond saying goes "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action." Stephen Bain is irredeemably biased and cannot be allowed to continue in this case.Momento (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed your comments and will take them into consideration when I vote on the case proposals. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

“knot of websites maintained by embittered former members of his religion”

Msalt used this to collectively describe the websites created by former followers of Prem Rawat. As there is some discussion about the legitimacy of linking to these sites from the WP articles I’ve taken the liberty of providing links to five sites so that Arbitrators, parties and others can make their own judgements. Firstly it’s worth considering what the relevance of the term religion is in this case. Although Prem Rawat, had an unequivocally religious starting point, inheriting his father’s following and preaching/teaching approach Hans Ji Maharaj [17], Prem Rawat has constantly stated he does not head a religion, further the organisations that support Rawat claim they have no membership, it is therefore a matter of debate what it is that Rawat ‘leads’ and what is the status of those who follow him. Even more problematic then is a collective description of those who no longer follow/support/believe in Prem Rawat. The blanket description of ‘embittered’ is problematic, certainly there is content on the Ex premie website that could be classed as ‘embittered’ but that is a website of over a thousand pages and it would be surprising if pages where individuals address alleged ‘corporate’ dishonesty, tolerance of child abuse by Rawat's 'managers' and missuse of charitable funds, did not include a degree of embitteredness; that however hardly describes the character of the whole site. There are a number of web sites which include criticism of Prem Rawat, not all of which have been created by former followers, there is also at least one site (Prem Rawat Maharaji Info) which states that it is the creation of former followers and which is notably moderate in its tone.

Ex premie.org has been in existence in one form or another for over 10 years, it includes archives of forum discussion going back to 1997 although the site does not host an active forum. Also available are personal statements about involvement in the ‘Rawat movement’, an extensive archive of papers from the various businesses and organisations that have been part of the Rawat movement, going back over 30 years, a (partisan) history of the movement and details, including academic comment, of the religious/philosophical background of the Divine Light Mission and the Knowledge meditation.

Prem-Rawat-Maharaji.Info [18] This claims to be the “Prem Rawat aka Maharaji Information Resource”. In WP terms the content is largely OR and SELFPUB, however it is written in relatively neutral language.

Prem Rawat Critique [19] claims to provide an incisive critique of the current promotional activities pursued by Prem Rawat and his various organisations, such as The Prem Rawat Foundation and Elan Vital (EVI). Not in anyway neutral and in WP terms it is both OR and SELPUB, it includes a criticism of Wikipedia [20].

Guru Maharaji Info [21] States that “this website's purpose is to educate the public about Prem Rawat (Maharaji) in a fashion that may not be flattering to Prem Rawat”. Primarily archive audio, videos and magazine scans.

Prem Rawat Bio [22] Chronologically presented multiple paged website. In WP terms strongly OR and SELPUB, though with many archive documents.

Although these sites inter link they have notably differing characteristics and hardly comprise a ‘knot’. Whether any of them could be used as a ‘source’ for a Wikipedia article is a matter of judgement however the existence of the archive resources, commentary and criticism would seem to warrant some acknowledgment of their existence in the Rawat articles. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judgement

Hard to believe but two people believe that moving text from one part of the article to another and removing one sentence of criticism without context is "treating Wikipedia as a battleground" and requires a one year ban.[23][24]Momento (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the edit summary is appropriate? To me it shows that you have a hardened view about the article content that is causing you to engage in editwarring if you think the content is wrong. Can you see what I mean about reading the changes together with the edit summary gives the impression that you have a strong pov? FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all thank you for giving me the opportunity to state my case. With the benefit of hindsight I shouldn't have used the word bigot but this is two years old!. And look at how completely contradicted Van der Lans is.[25] He shouldn't have been quoted in the first place. So I brought material from elsewhere in the article to balance it. And yes I do have a strong Rawat POV but the article is also being edited by people with a strong anti-Rawat POV. As they say "it takes two to tango" and the idea that only pro Rawat editors are punished for being one side of edit warring is completely unfair. Have you looked at this, Francis doesn't even get 24 hour ban.[26]Momento (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a shameful day for Wikipedia. So many votes to ban Rumiton for a year. Nothing for FrancisSchonkenMomento (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At last someone has mentioned the invisible man. Someone had the temerity to propose that Francis Schonken should be "admonished". And WillBeBack and NikWright2 also. I wonder what they did wrong?Momento (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed Evidence and Workshop pages

I've reviewed the evidence and workshop pages. I took special notice of the comments and replies made by users where Fof and sanctions are proposed about them. My goal for this case to have stable NPOV articles on this topic. If I don't think that an user will assist in devoloping high quality content on this controversial topic then I will support sanctions for them. I'm going to use a broad approach because this dispute has been long lasting and has involved numerous people that come to Wikipedia with a pre-existing point of view. Additionally, suspicions of sockpuppetry and other abusive editing practices make it difficult for any user to successfully edit the article, so sanctions need to be article based as well. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This dispute has been long lasting and has involved numerous people"? How come you've only supported sanctions for the two pro Rawat editors? You'll get stability all right but it won't be NPOV it will be what FS, WB, NW and Ms can do when there is no one to stop them.Momento (talk) 07:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the future

And now proof for my comment above.A new editor adds an absurd unsourced paragraph to the Prem Rawat article.[27] WillBeback notes that it isn't sourced but does nothing.[28] The unsourced paragraph remains for 17 hours until I see it and remove it.[29] Can you think of any reason why WillBeback didn't remove this "unsourced contentious material about living persons immediately and without waiting for discussion" as BLP policy requires? I'd love to hear it.Momento (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor can do anything, but no one is ever "obligated" to do anything. That has nothing to do with anything. rootology (C)(T) 20:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see: I've engaged the new editor in a discussion about the edit, while Momento has reverted the edit with no discussion. Although I suggested that the new material should be moved back to the talk page for further discussion, it is not unsourced nor is it an explicit BLP violation. The sources are discussed on the talk page, and no contentious matters are involved. An ArbCom member has proposed admonishing me for reverting edits, and here Momento asks why I didn't revert an edit. If Momento asks the ArbCom to drop the proposed admonishment then I'd be readier to deal with a situation like this. In the past I repeatedly reverted additions of inappropirate external links, but now I'm blamed for doing that. Momento can't have it both ways. Will Beback talk 06:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Official policies	Community guidelines	Pillars of the project	Foundation policies
Wikimedia policies	Statement of principles	Technical definitions and specifications	Prior cases
Past debates and discussions	Community, Meta, and User essays	Informational pages	Old RfCs
Polls and other pages	Meatball wiki	Old principles	Common sense