Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 4

This Request for Mediation has been closed. This case was closed at 08:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC). The reason given for closure was: Successful. Parties: If you wish to resume this mediation, please file a new request.

Ground Rules

Groundrules Please keep all comments focused on the mediation. Proper editing decorum must be maintained, and as such, incivility and personal attacks must not occur. Sections of content that are under discussion in this mediation should not be edited during the mediation. This has worked previously, and I feel that it would work this time too. If, as part of the mediation, there are proposals to change this content while the case is running, I will make them if I feel there is consensus to do so. When discussion is addressing one proposal or issue, discussion should not veer of to an unrelated issue, unless I recommend we discuss an alternate issue. Last time this case was mediated, things got sidetracked, mainly because discussion went off topic. For that reason, I reserve the right to remove or refactor off-topic discussions. Realise that while this is a contentious issue, and that you may have strong feelings in the matter, that your personal view must not undermine the interests of Wikipedia. Try to keep an open mind in the case, and realise that sometimes, you need to give a little to get a little. I ask that everyone involved agree to abide by the outcome of this case.

Agenda

Mediation Agenda [1%] Garner party agreement to ground rules. [5%] Discuss and document current issues that need to be addressed, discussed, and resolved, over the course of the mediation. Address the fact that not all issues will be resolved, and discuss possible long term solutions. [10%] Re-establish the party stances in the dispute, obtaining opening statements to ascertain what each party wishes to get out of the mediation, and the issues they feel need addressing. [15%] Initiate discussion on the first issue, discussing issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Implement solution when one is achieved. [25%] Initiate discussion on the second issue, discussing issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Implement solution when one is achieved. [35%] Initiate discussion on the third issue, discussing issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Implement solution when one is achieved. [45%] Initiate discussion on the fourth issue, discussing issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Implement solution when one is achieved. [55%] Assess the status of the mediation, as to how the solutions that have been implemented have helped with the status of the article, discuss views with parties as to how the mediation, and status of the articles is progressing. [60%] Re-visit previous issues, discussing alternative solutions, if required. [80%] Discuss the articles with parties, offering advice as to how to better manage disputes in future, for example, the "no controversial edits without consensus" idea. [90%] Discuss long term options to help keep the article stable, including long-term mediation on the talk page, as required. [100%] Close mediation.

Archives
Archives Archive 1 - Participation of topic-banned editors

Mediator Notes

• I'm taking a wikibreak for a couple of days, as work will be full on until Friday. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 07:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Do we carry on with Sunray in your absence, or do we have to wait until you return before moving ahead any further here? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 08:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I doubt much will happen in three days (I hope it does). Sunray is a highly skilled mediator, a pleasure to mediate with, and is very wise. He will continue in my temporary absence, as I have done when he has been absent. We're a team, and I trust his actions implicitly, as I am sure he would for myself. I will comment from time to Rome if possible, but tomorrow and Thursday I have full days at uni, then late shifts at work, so my time will be severely restricted. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 08:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Opening statements by participants

OK, I think we should get started now. The mediation agend will largely be the same as it was going to be at MedCab. I' going to ask you all for opening statements. Be open and honest. The reason I asked this mediation to be priveliged was to allow for unhindered discussion. Realize that the mediation committee will ensure that what goes on within this mediation cannot be used against you in the future. With this in mind, I would ask you all to write a statement outlining the following points:

• What are your interests in regards to the Prem Rawat articles?
• Do you have any conflicts of interest with regards to Prem Rawat articles?
• How would you suggest dealing with conflicts of interest?
• What is your view of the dispute at present, and what issues need to be 4.*addressed in this mediation, that would help resolve this dispute amicably? Give a list of issues, if possible.

Please be open and honest. Doing so will help us create a good enviroment to mediate this case. Once everyone has given an opening statement, I will compile a list of issues to address in the mediation, and we will proceed from there. There will be no need to reply to each others opening statements. Post your individual statements below, in seperate subsections. Best, Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Will Beback

1. Other than seeing the name in a short newspaper article a long time ago, I had no exposure or involvement with the subject oprior to editing here. I first got involved in this topic back in 2005 (as User:User2004/Willmcw) due to my editing of "List of groups referred to as cults", in which the Prem Rawat editors Jossi and Zappaz were heavily involved. When I looked in at this article I becamed concerned about the ownership by two obvious followers (though Zappaz insisted he had no connection to the movement) and tried to provide balance. After a year or so I gave up, partly due to the pushy behavior and tag teaming of Jossi, Zappaz, and user:64.81.88.140. (In January 2009 I found compelling evidence that all three were the same editor.) I got back into it in 2008 in response to Cade Metz's report. In the intervening year, the "pro-" Rawat editors appeared to have assumed almost complete control over the article. I have two interests in the topic: a general interest in making sure the articles are NPOV, and an invested interest due to the amount of research I've collected on the topic over the last year.
2. I have never belonged to any group that supports or opposes Prem Rawat. Other than on Wikipedia, I have never posted to any public or private forum about the topic.
3. Conflicts of interest have been a long-term problem with this article. The main issue has been with Jossi/Zappaz/64.81.88.140/Pergamino/et al. Jossi vaguely declared a conflict of interest and made commitments to not edit the article but he ignored or circumvented those promises, and he used sock puppets abusively. After the second RfAR began, in 2009, I became aware that an active editor had a probable COI, and had even promoted the use of a book he'd co-written as a source, all without any disclosure on his part. There is also some evidence that an active user has an undisclosed COI, and there is the matter of another's insistence that he has no conflict of interest between this project and his spiritual leader of the last 35 years, in whose movement he's served as a senior official. It's worth remembering that Jossi was substantially involved in shaping the COI guideline. Despite that fact, it is still a guideline approved by the community and it should be followed by everyone involved in this topic. At a minimum it calls for disclosure, and in some cases it suggests not editing the articles directly at all. Everyone who has a significant interest in this topic should be forthcoming about their bias or history, at a minimum.
4. The overall dispute is that there are conflicting and largely incompatible views of the subject, and that there are active editors who support each view. NPOV requires that we include all significant viewpoints, without seeming to adopt any of them, and giving each their appropriate weight. "Undue weight" has been a major bone of contention, and may be a topic of mediation in and of itself. I added several items to the list on the main page (and assembled the rest from the article talk page). Obvious issues include: whether to include the word "cult" in the intro of the biography, the status of some disputed sources, how to deal equitably with organizational issues (particularly how to treat the DLM after its split, and the DLM/EV switch). A small issue that might be best discussed in mediation is whether to call Rawat by the name he was using at the time. For example, all during the DLM's history he was best known as "Guru Maharaj Ji", and almost never referred to as "Prem Rawat". That may be an example of something that just needs a more robust way of making decisions than is common on Wikiedia.   Will Beback  talk  08:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Maelefique

1. I arrived at this article after reading the Cade Metz article in The Register. Previous to that, I had never heard of Prem Rawat. I did not immediately draw the conclusion that what Cade had written was accurate. After reading the WP article, it's history, and looking over the talk pages, I compared it to some cursory research on my own. My conclusion was that the Metz article was generally accurate. The bias seemed obvious, and the attitudes and actions of Jossi and Friends (still sounds like a TV show...) struck me as strong-arming, and with a strong desire to re-write the history of this person to make things sound all happy-happy. It was ridiculous. For my own reasons I have an issue with people that try to re-write history to suit their own desires. The combative struggle that this article became only increased my desire to make sure this article gets turned into something neutral, and accurate.
2. As I stated in the last arbitration (and previously on the PR talk page) I do have an alternative account that I edit from, however, that account is never used/never has been used to edit any articles/talkpages in the PR group of articles (ever!) and I have no problem with any uninvolved admin who wants to run either a checkuser, or who wants the name of my other account. I feel that for me the subject of this article is somewhat controversial, and I choose to keep it separate from other articles that I edit. This is completely within the scope of legitimate uses of alternate accounts. Due to the amount of discussion/arguing/ridiculous time wasting on things such as "Is Time/LA Times/New York Times a reliable source?" this account now accounts for the majority of my edits in Wikipedia.
3. It seems incredibly "convenient" to me, that whenever a follower of Rawat leaves the article for some reason, another one suddenly pops up and acts like he/she had no idea about what happened previously. This has happened several times, and frankly, it feels like an insult to my intelligence. Especially when they do things like blank their userpage that has links to PR 3 minutes before editing PR articles. These types of maneuvers as well as the constant arguing over even the smallest criticism, no matter how well sourced, make it very difficult for me to continue to assume good faith with some editors at times.
4. The COI's of editors on these articles is a major stumbling block. I'm not sure I have the answer to dealing with these COI's, but I am open to ideas, I think first we need to be clear on who has COI's.
5. I would like to see this article reflect an accurate history of PR as portrayed by the best sources we have.
6. I think Will, above, has contained most of my thoughts on other items we need to work on here, within his list. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 08:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Terry Macro

1. I did not become a Wiki editor to edit the PR or related topics as my interests were in some arcane areas of astrology. However I had PR and related topics on my watchlist for a long time and partially followed the editing and discussions and until recent times did not engage in any editing but I remember making a comment or two on the Talk pages earlier. My recent interest in both editing and discussions relate purely to NPOV. I have noticed that in most Wiki topics editors have an association, one way or another, with the subject, and due to my association with the subject I had some knowledge and first hand experience of the subject matter. I became concerned that a distorted view of the subject was continually being pushed by a faction of editors which if left unchecked will result in a increasingly distorted and biased view of the subject that was not in line wit the standards required for a BLP or of an encyclopedia.
2. Based on what I have read of the Wiki guidelines and following the COI allegations by Will Beback, and the subsequent arguments by various editor fore and against on the COI noticeboard, I have found no convincing reason why my association with the subject produces a COI. If an association with the subject automatically incurs a COI I have a COI. I have not been asked by any official, employee or representative of any organisation or person to act on behalf of the subject in editing at Wiki and I represent myself only. Will Beback refers to a COI guideline (ie Jossi's or the community guideline) which presumably relates to the topics in question, but in the subsequent arguments I don't remember a specific referral to such a guideline, and if there was a referral it must have been subtle or glossed over. I have had and continue to have various tangential involvements with the subject matter, none of which involves any representation or acting on behalf of the subject and from my perspective do not appear to breach COI. If the COI issue can be clarified I am willing to declare a COI if in fact this is what expected of someone in my circumstance.
3. COI is a difficult issue due to the anonymity of most of the editors. Only a a very few editors of these topics appear to not bring a POV and there is a lot of posturing by other editors to pretend they are neutral when any rational third party can see the pretense. Based on what I have read of Wiki guidelines it is impossible to exactly define the line between having a COI and not having a COI. My proposal is that definitions in this subject area of what is definitely excluded from COI and what in most instances is definitely included in COI would remove much of the confusion as COI issues would only become an issue for those editors sitting between these two positions. I am sure a list of conditions that indicate where a COI should be declared and where no COI exists would simplify the situation for present and future editors of these topics.
4. My view of the dispute is that it is the result of an off-Wiki conflict between former members or sympathisers of former members that are antagonistic to the subject and editors that are sympathetic to the subject. I have not been actively involved in any off-Wiki conflict with former disgruntled members and I have no personal conflict with any editors holding anti-subject positions. Because the passion and sincerity of each group to their own particular ideals, the editing and discussions in these topics reflect the passion and intensity of the protagonists. To address this dispute I believe that greater attention must be paid to the Wiki gudelnes for NPOV and and very high level of reliable sources suitable for an encyclopedia, as opposed to presenting a reflection of sensationalist media, of which at least one academic in the area has made clear comment upon. Wiki needs to be encyclopedic, not a rehash of sensationalist media, though the reporting of the claims of sensationalist media is perhaps appropriate.

To heighten the standard of Wiki in the subject area I would propose a detailed checklist of items to be approved before each and every edit to prevent edit warring. The amount of effort and energy put into discussing and editing this topic is ludicrous when compared to the end result over time, and this may be negated by slowing down the editorial process with a highly defined and detailed checklist of items that must achieve consensus for each item before the final edit. However I recognise I am new to this level of Wiki procedures etc and that therefore this proposal may be naive or inappropriate.

My list of issues that I propose is:

Structured checklist before any edit

Clarification of what is and isn't a COI Terry Macro (talk) 09:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Savlonn

1. What are my interests in regards to the Prem Rawat articles?

I first heard of Prem Rawat in 2008 when I read a controversial article posted in The Register. Though the article was blatantly sensationalist, I decided to have a look at the subject and make up my own mind as regards the claims, having recently become a Wikipedia editor.

I gave myself a brief history lesson on the life of Prem Rawat from decent sources and realised that the Wikipedia biography at the time just simply wasn't anywhere near neutral; it did not reflect the practical reality of key aspects of Prem Rawat's life. In particular it was very stifled; weighted towards narrow, academic material. It was missing many of the controversial aspects of Prem Rawat's youth and movement that were responsible for much of his notability, and which are found in high quality, reliable mainstream sources.

As such, I started getting involved in the discussions, with aim of helping to improve the article through making it more neutral and realistic.

2. Do I have any conflicts of interest with regards to Prem Rawat articles?

No. I have no outside interest in Prem Rawat or religious movements, having being an atheist since my teens.

3. How would I suggest dealing with conflicts of interest?

Through rigorous application of the exiting restrictions and remedies associated with these articles, and through the implementation of additional recommendations agreed during this mediation. I see COI as only being an applied problem; issues should be raised based on actual behaviour in respect of participation in the articles, and not pre-defined declarations of COI.

4.What is my view of the dispute at present, and what issues need to be addressed in this mediation, that would help resolve this dispute amicably? Give a list of issues, if possible.

In respect of the content disputes, I agree broadly with the other opening statements.

However, this dispute is as much about behaviour and governance as it is about content. To address this question, I wish to take a step backwards and re-articulate my questions related to this in ‘Prem Rawat’ discussion page.

If this mediation process is similar to last year’s mediation, it will require significant effort from participants for a period of months. I am prepared to commit to this effort, on the basis that the results of this mediation can become ‘sticky’ with firm governance in place to ensure that all this effort can’t be undone by anonymous IP addresses/new accounts changing the agreed content without consensus, knowing that revert restrictions against edit warring will play into their hands.

I commend the mediators for recognising that this dispute is not just about content, and asking us to consider these broader issues in our opening statements. However, I am concerned about a scenario that whatever we agree in respect of this side of the mediation process may be declared beyond the terms of reference of the mediation process, and thus not implemented with ‘teeth’. This is due to the fact that Mediation is a methodology for reaching agreement between differing parties, and not a governance process.

However, having said this, I don’t wish for any gaps in the process to hold up the mediation. As such, I suggest that the initial discussions around editing behaviour and processes should focus on developing tangible recommendations to be presented back to the Arbcom for implementation as additional remedies. Successful implementation would give the participants the comfort factor of knowing that this process is delivering more than just discussion. --Savlonn (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

List of issues:

Content issues: I am okay with the list provided by other users.

Non-content issues:

1. Edit warring / gaming the system through use of anonymous IP addresses or disposable accounts

2. Process for dealing with future (post mediation) significant article changes including:

a. New material or significant structural changes to article

b. Changes to text and location of sections agreed by consensus during mediation

c. Consideration of a structured approach to assessing the suitability of significant changes, tied to a process to enable reversions without penalty where significant changes have not met the assessment criteria. This could be the ‘checklist’ that Terry Macro proposes, or another method to assess whether the proposed changes meet agreed criteria such as agreed sources, participant consensus, adherence to BLP policies and guidelines, etc.

3. Proposals for alignment of Arbcom restrictions with proposed process as per (2.) above to prevent the following from occuring:

a. At the present time, Arbcom has applied a very strict allowable revert requirement of nothing except ‘undisputed vandalism and BLP violations’. This has the unintended consequence of enabling 'gaming the system' through not being able to prevent significant changes to an article, even without discussion, because someone ‘didn’t like it’.

b. A worst case scenario is that we finally reach consensus in mediation on a controversial section of the article, and have it inserted, only for the section to be removed or changed at the conclusion of the mediation without significant discussion or consensus. In this scenario, an editor in good faith restores the agreed section more than once, only to be banned by Arbitration Enforcement as the behaviour was not reversion of ‘undisputed vandalism’ -Savlonn (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Nik Wright2

1. History of Involvement

My involvement with Wikipedia and my interest in the Rawat articles are intrinsically linked, the details of which are archived here: [1] Having been dragged into editing to resolve an issue which at the time Wikipedia was unable or unwilling to address in any other way, I have been inclined to continue as an editor to see the correction of fundamental historical misrepresentations in the Rawat articles.

2. Connection to the Subject(s)

Any direct connections that I had with organisations which supported Prem Rawat, ceased over 3 decades ago. To the extent that there was an identifiable ‘belief’ system, if not any substantive ‘teaching’, attached to Guru Maharaj Ji (as he then was) and the Divine Light Mission, I now describe myself as a “former follower”. To the extent that I am a critic of Rawat and his supporting organisations, I am equally a critic of all ‘Guruism’, all belief driven organisations and all non direct service delivery non profit organisations and charities.

3. Problems with the articles as they stand

a) The existing articles have been predicated on two falsely synthesised propositions.

(i) the false proposition that Prem Rawat and the US focussed faction of what may loosely be termed the ‘Divine Light Mission movement’, is of greater encyclopaedic significance than Satpal Maharaj and the Indian focussed faction of the ‘Divine Light Mission movement’. Given that Satpal Maharaj became the ultimate inheritor of at least 66% of the global ‘Divine Light Mission movement’ as it stood in 1975, the current POV of the articles seems troubling ethnocentric.

(ii) synthesis that has allowed the anachronistic displacement of the focus of Prem Rawat’s encyclopaedic notability, from his childhood and adolescence to some notional ‘enduring’ notability.

b) The existing articles have been predicated on the false presumption: that the terms‘ movement’ and ‘organisation’ are interchangeable. Certainly a number of sources have made this ‘category error’, but it must be a function of editing not to allow synthesis to support the errors of one source by mixing that source in an undifferentiated melange with other sources.

c) The existing articles have been predicated on a falsity which has gained apparent probity by repetition by successive secondary sources. The falsity is demonstrable by reference to definitive primary sources. This falsity has a double aspect which has been repeatedly synthesised – (i) the Divine Light Mission was dissolved in the early 1980s (ii) a new organisation (Elan Vital) was created in the 1980s to replace the Divine Light Mission. Neither of these proposition are true yet they have not only appeared as 'content' but have strongly influenced article structure.

4. Resolution of content problems

Given a logical approach, the fundamental problems of these articles are eminently resolvable, it does require that in one specific area, editors accept that definitive primary sources are to be preferred to secondary sources, but Wikipedia should not be about repeating an error just because a number of authors from a select area of academia have ‘log rolled’ that error.

--Nik Wright2 (talk) 08:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sylviecyn

1. My only interest is to ensure that the historical record on the subject is written without revisionism.

2. I am a former follower of Prem Rawat. I worked for him in 1979-1980 for one year, [2] but never held any positions of responsibility or decision-making. It could be said that I'm a former follower of Rawat who is now critical of him and his movement, but I have no personal interest in being critical of him on Wikipedia talk pages.

3. Those editors with conflicts of interest on controversial topics such as Prem Rawat ought to be required to disclose their conflicts of interest as a show of good faith and transparency. Another show of good faith would be for those editors with conflicts to use great restraint when editing related articles. For instance, I limit myself to contributing the talk pages only and have rarely made edits to the articles' main spaces except for minor things such as grammar, punctuation, and style.

4. The current disputes are more of the same types of disputes that have been going on since the inception of the Rawat articles. Stonewalling, disruption, obfuscation, and delays have been orchestrated by some adherents of the subject. This is routinely done when information about the subject is deemed inappropriate and unacceptable by them for inclusion in the article, even when such material is supported by multiple reliable sources.

Prem Rawat's notability is tied to his fame as a young teenager when he first came to the west from India in the early 1970s. At that time, Prem Rawat (Guru Maharaj Ji) was well-covered by the media, as well as by scholars of new religious movements and other academic scholars. He is no longer notable in the present day, and this is evidenced by the lack of any press coverage about him and the scarcity of recent reliable academic sources. There is a great resistance by current Rawat adherents to accept this fact and as a result there have been frequent heated disputes over the use of certain of Prem Rawat's previous aliases and terms to describe him and/or his movement. This problem occurs routinely on the articles, even when multiple reliable sources support a proposed edit.

Sylviecyn (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Jayen466

1. I came to the topic after the Metz article. I got involved in discussions and stuck around.

2. My only contact with Rawat's students or ex-students has been through Wikipedia.

3. A sure sign of a COI is an editor who edits only one topic area, especially if the same editor also says quite openly that they think Wikipedia and its policies are useless. Apart from that, almost any editor here could be argued to have a COI, because most have positive or negative feelings about Rawat along with off-site allegiances. I don't think it is productive in our situation to argue about who has a COI; most everyone sits in a glass house. If we can't work anything out here, and strife continues interminably, I would be in favour of a solution following the Scientology model: ban POV editors on both sides of the debate.

4. I would like to increase our reliance on scholarly sources. While most here have strong feelings about Rawat, we could perhaps agree that a dispassionate article is what Wikipedia is expected to deliver. That would involve both sides foregoing any desire to use these articles for point scoring and advocacy. JN466 04:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

John Brauns

I am a former follower of Prem Rawat, and the current owner of the websites, ex-premie.org (although I consider myself the steward as the bulk of the information on the site was published before I took over), and the discussion forum site, prem-rawat-talk.org. I am also the legal owner of two other websites critical of Rawat but only because the instigators and authors could not risk being outed by current followers of Rawat.

My purpose here, when I have the time to get involved, is to help ensure that the Rawat articles do not, as far as possible, reflect the revisionism practiced by Rawat and his organisations. Fortunately, in recent months, others are doing this far better than I, so I have not felt the need to get involved too much.

Regarding sources, one thing should be made very clear - Rawat has not been the subject of ANY independent academic study since the internet age began. So none of the earlier studies had access to the former followers who are now willing to speak out. The only sources that do reflect the wider critical information now available are newspapers which some posters reject as unreliable. Given this, the article should either focus on the time when Rawat was notable, and simply say that since the mid-80s (for instance) he has ceased to be notable, or reflect the content of newspaper articles published since. --John Brauns (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Zanthorp

I am not a follower or former follower of Prem Rawat, nor have I ever been a member of any religious group. I am generally skeptical of religion although willing to give a reasonable hearing to new and interesting philosophies or ideas. I try to think outside the box. I appreciate anyone who can do the same. I do not have a strong opinion about PR. I do have strong opinions about civil liberties and related issues, fairness, and common decency.

In October last year, I encountered this topic here[[3]]. Then, on the recommendation of another editor[[4]] I had a look at Amazon's listing of Cagan's biography of PR[5], and I ordered it. I didn't read much of the Wikipedia article partly because it was so poorly written at that time. Youtube has a large selection of R's talks, so I watched some of those. My impression was positive. Later I looked at alternative web sites including some on-line articles critical of him. My impression remained unaltered. I started following some of the PR talk page discussions, eventually contributing when the arbcom was in progress. Based on everything I've observed IMO the year long topic ban applied to 2 editors was not a solution to underlying issues that continue to plague these discussions.

Probably all of us would agree that a promotional article is as unacceptable as an article that unfairly disparages the subject. Unless an editor has current involvement at a senior level in a PR related activity or organization or is a friend or family member, I doubt that a COI exists. Having an opinion does not equate to a COI.

Fairness
The notion of fairness applied to BLPs is enshrined in Wikipedia guidelines and policies. "Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair.[[6]]" There are several guidelines which cover how editors are supposed to be fair.

• "An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact [[7]]." Weasel-worded opinion pieces that lampoon or sensationalize the subject have appeared in reliable sources, e.g. TIME[8]. They are easily distinguishable from real news articles. Insisting that such articles be used because they appear in a reliable source is tendentious editing. A quick look at some of the older discussion pages shows that this issue has been a major source of contention.

• "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for the category must be made clear by the article text. Each article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag, and these facts must be sourced. Caution should be used in adding categories that suggest the person has a poor reputation (see false light).[[9]]" This one is germane to discussion over the 'cult' appellation.

• "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link.[[10]]" Questionable source guidelines are equally relevant to ancillary articles. The Teachings of PR article still includes material from an unreliable source, Ted Patrick[[11]]. Presenting such material as though it is credible and reliable is tendentious editing. Repeated insertion of this material has been a problem. N.B. I left the Patrick quote in the article because I thought we needed a cooling off period. Best to remove it, IMO.

• "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article[[12]]. This probably applies to anything written by Conway & Siegelman and to other extremist views that have been discredited by serious researchers. See also extremist / fringe sources[[13]]

Another problem has been the insertion of inappropriate or loaded expressions, e.g. "the Rawat cult" and "Rawat's former worshippers." The 2nd example still appears in the Teachings of PR article. I don't see much difference between that and vandalism.

NPOV has been used as an excuse to use tabloid-like opinion pieces, and fringe and questionable sources. Contentious material has been added out of context without adequate explanation. These issues and the lack of willingness to compromise are some of the problems that have brought us to this point.

I doubt that mediation will succeed unless we agree to apply guidelines designed to produce fair articles. If an editor cannot or does not want to produce fair articles, perhaps they should reconsider their involvement. Willingness to deliberately ignore these guidelines is an example of the COI that has stymied discussion, not involvement in some organization or other. It might save all of us a lot of time if editors with that COI were to withdraw from full involvement in mediation. Please see the proposal below for an alternative. --Zanthorp (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have opted out. --Zanthorp (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Rainer P.

Sorry for apparently slowing this process down (it definitely favours the unemployed!).

Ad 1) I have been a long-time student of Prem Rawat. I admire his work I have a strong supporting POV. I also have a lot of first-hand experience, which may be considered OR here, but it gives me motivation to support and protect Rawat’s work. And I have solid scientific training. I know things are sometimes not what they appear to be. When I first ran into WP articles on Rawat two or three years ago, I was appalled over the negativity and malice that seemed to soak these articles, and I felt something had to be done to amend that. It used to be a lot wilder than it’s now.

Ad 2) I have no conflict. As a student of Rawat, it is a natural part of his teachings for me to support his work. Every student will feel similarly, I guess. You can’t remain “neutral”, just like you can’t be neutral, when your loved ones are on trial. You know them better. But I never had any income or representational role in his organisations. I am evidently the main author of the German WP article on Rawat, but I am completely independent and free in that. I have a family and a profession. I understand and accept WP’s standard for neutrality.

Ad 3) A conflict means there are opposing motives. Like: If I depend on a company, I will not do anything to harm them, although I have to hide or distort facts or state fabrications, in order to protect myself. Or, if I play a representative role, I have to consider the interests of those I represent and pretend they are my own interests. Just having an opinion is not a conflict. Everybody here has an opinion on the subject. I would not trust a person who claims they don’t; I would rather presume an unconscious or hidden agenda. We should strive to be as sincere as we can. And there is always “good faith”. If an editor is or has been a student of Prem Rawat, they are likely to have contributed to his work in some way or another volunteeringly along the line. That’s not being an employee. I know what it means to be employed.

Ad 4) The present dispute is just another stage of the innate problem of this article. Some people have an axe to grind, and pretend educational motives when it’s really a very personal struggle for justification (you asked for my view). Some people wish to utilize WP as an instrument to propagate Rawat’s teachings. I can understand that, too. If we learn to work together, we may come up with something any reader can take profit from. Looking back, I see we are definitely making progress, at least in civility, painstaking as it may be. I have learned a lot. I still would like to have the cult-word moved from the lede, but I would not wager my equanimity for it. I understand Rawat’s role in the beginning of his mission appears easier to grasp if you ground notability on some kind of mainstream attention. I think, his notability in terms of actual influence has increased over time and is now much stronger than in those kindergarden days. You don’t want your parents to perseverate your diaper stories when you have grown. It’s nice to meet your old class mates every five years or so for a party, but things have moved on. I wouldn’t call that revisionism. And I would like to see Cagan’s book assessed again as a source, as I feel it has been undervalued here. There is no other comparable biography on the subject.--Rainer P. (talk) 02:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Opting out

Several editors have apparently had extensive personal experiences with this topic. It may be that some do not wish to compromise their privacy by revealing the full history of their involvement. That's understandable. In such cases, rather than concealing their involvement, perhaps it would be better to have them stay out of discussions and acquiesce to the mediated consensus of less-involved editors. This mediation will undoubedly last months and cover multiple issues. I propose that editors be given the option of removing themselves from mediation in lieu of disclosure if they commit to honoring edits made as a result of mediation.   Will Beback  talk  10:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I shall discuss this matter, and we will give feedback in the morning. Sunray might comment on his own in the morning. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 10:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors do have the option of opting out of mediation. Sunray (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I am opting out. I have given it a lot of thought, and though I don't believe i have a COI in the sense of what I perceive to be the Wiki's standards, I am not willing to make a full disclosure of my involvement with the subject for privacy reasons and the privacy of uninvolved third parties. I did not come to Wiki to edit PR or related topics so I do not have the advantage of anonomity like most other editors at these topics. If I made a full disclosure it could be perceived to be a COI but I am not willing to go through such a drama. The problem with Wiki's COI from my viewpoint is that it is a little like the Chinese legal system - an allegation is generally taken to be the same as a guilty verdict. As well as opting out I also intend to retire as an editor due to conflict of time for my current project of finishing my book on the astrological ages - which I have almost completed over the last three years with my reseasrch commecing 22 years ago. I probably cannot formally retire until next week as i am currently on a paradisaical tropical island and I am on the way to an even smaller island for some snorkelling - but it is unlikely to have readily available internet access. Fortunately I have learnt some excellent insights into RS and related topics that I will be able to utilise in my book. Also for those of you interested in the pseudo-science (according to Wiki's standards) of astrology, Wikipedia is an excellent example of the growing influence of the Age of Aquarius and I intend to mention it appropriately somewhere in the book.Terry Macro (talk) 07:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Zanthorp opting out: Steve has asked everyone involved to agree to abide by the outcome of this case. Due to recent developments I can no longer agree to that. It is therefore best that I opt out now before the process gets under way. The arbcom, I think unanimously, encouraged all parties to be involved in mediation. That included the banned editors[[14]]. Steve and Sunray decided not to adopt that recommendation. I proposed limited involvement that would have allowed a submission on each topic. I hoped that would provide an alternative to the views of a recently emerged group of editors with an established record of opposition to the subject.

In combination with Will Beback and Maelefique, there now exists a group whose members have in-depth knowledge of the subject and sources, who support each other as a team[[15]], (Thanks for the link, Will.) who express a negative view of the subject, and who want to edit the articles to reflect their POV. Will Beback has openly defending the use of questionable sources (e.g. Patrick; Conway & Siegleman) and spiced up at least one article with negatively loaded expressions (Rawat's cult / worshipers )[[16]] [[17]] There is no point pretending otherwise. Its only after being involved for a few months that I've come to appreciate how relentlessly this happens. The diffs don't give the real picture. It doesn't surprise me that the 2 banned editors lost their cool.

Incredibly, they did manage to work with opposing editors to make the biography far more readable between Oct / Nov 2008 and March this year when I first posted [[18]]. That gives cause for optimism and another reason to involve them in mediation.

From my perspective it is vital to get their side of the story. Without that I cannot make fully informed contributions to mediation. My knowledge of this topic is tiny by comparison. I am employed and I have a life to lead. I can't keep putting in the hours of research necessary to bring myself up to speed, certainly not for the duration of this mediation.

My continued involvement here will only help legitimize a process that is heavily biased towards a strong anti-Rawat group. The only well informed neutral advocate for fairness and balance is JN. Rainer P appears to be in more or less the same situation as me. I think the results of this 'mediation' are a forgone conclusion. I want no part of it.

A few final comments.

• About the attempt to add a press feedback loop with the insertion of 'cult' into the bio lede, again I put it to you, show me any other BLP that lists in the lede the terms used to describe an organization that the subject did not create that disbanded a quarter century ago.

• When Rawat arrived in the West he was notable only for his age and having a bunch of hippies as followers. He was not notable as leader of the DLM. Mention of that came later, probably due to the anti-cult movement. I checked early articles on one of the ex-follower web sites. They mention the DLM only in passing and with reference to R's followers. They make no assumption that Rawat was the leader, and in fact he wasn't. His mother was.

• For about 10 minutes I fell for Nik's non sequitur argument about lazy sociologists and the disbanding of the DLM. Embarrassing! Sociologists report what they see. They saw an organization disband and that's what they correctly reported.

Finally, thanks JN for your help with extra sources showing that Ted Patrick is a questionable source. That saved me a lot of time and helped enormously. You are an advocate for fairness, balance and genuine neutrality. Best of luck with your endeavors here. You'll need it.
Steve, thanks also for your hard work. --Zanthorp (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I don't belong to any team on Wikipedia or any type of group elsewhere. I've never emailed Will or Maelefique or others to tag-team or to convince anyone of my personal points of view. I certainly don't always agree with their opinions and proposals and say so. I'm disappointed with some of your comments above because they are actually incorrect about Prem Rawat's relationship with DLM/EV. The Conway and Siegleman book Snapping: America's Sudden Epidemic of Personality Change is a critically acclaimed book and has been in print since 1978 when it was published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, a reputable publishing house, with the 2nd edition published by Dell and later by Stillpoint, Conway and Siegleman's publishing firm. But that's a discussion for later on. Zanthorp, I'm puzzled about how you came to your assessments above based upon your limited time involved with the Rawat series of articles, particularly your comments about fellow editors. Anyway, all the best to you. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Timetable?

Is it possible for the mediators to assign some kind of reasonable timetable when things are required from those involved here? One of the common issues I see coming from editors in this article is an attempt to slow everything down as much as possible, so that very little gets done. In this case, you've asked for opening statements *how* long ago?? We're still waiting, and a quick check of contributions shows that the absent editors are, in fact, not absent. How long are we supposed to wait for the remaining editors before we either remove them from the participants list, or go on without their statements on the assumption that while this article may be important to them, there are other articles of greater importance to them, and they choose to use their time on those other articles instead? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this. Without speculating on other editor's motives, there certainly is a need to keep the mediation moving ahead. While timetables are not very feasible in mediation, there are various ways to keep things moving. If Steve agrees, perhaps we could proceed with discussion of the opening statements that have already been posted. Meanwhile I will ping the others to encourage them to get theirs done. Sunray (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for the delay in posting my opening statement. Its near completion along with a proposal. I've read everyone's statements, done a lot of additional reading and given it some thought. Will post within the next 24 hrs. --Zanthorp (talk) 07:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for limited involvement

I would like the opportunity to consider evidence and viewpoints from the two banned editors, and from anyone who might not want to commit to full involvement in mediation or who decides to opt out. Why not offer a limited option - one submission only and one right of reply per topic? --Zanthorp (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Based on Momento's most previous comments,"You have made a mockery of the mediation process", "Extraordinary. You two are just making stuff up on the run to justify your POV", "The new Crossin/Sunray "Don't Assume Good Faith" policy does not replace Wiki AGF policy.", "When I can be bothered I will add this latest example to the Wiki Hall of Shame", I don't see any evidence that Momento has any desire of working collaboratively, that he has anything helpful to these negotiations that needs to be said, or that his attitude is going to be helpful in any way. It seems more likely we will get to read more comments like these every time someone (or everyone) disagrees with him. What's to stop him from writing pages and pages of vitriol, all at once for his *one* comment? I think I will have to say I oppose this option. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The mediators already decided on those editors. You can see the decision in the section at the top of the page called "Archives." Also, I disagree on the "limited involvement" option. Sylviecyn (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Both of us considered the reasonings presented by Momento and Rumiton, we were unconvinced they would be an asset to this mediation. Thus, they will have no involvement in this case. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 19:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was flaged it as an issue for discussion during the mediation. Jayen pointed out that the mediation, if successful would be more likely to have lasting effect if they are involved. While we did decide that they would not participate as parties to the mediation, we left it open to discussion as to whether they could be involved in some limited way. Would participants be able to suggest how this might be accomplished? Sunray (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

One way to accomplish this would be to encourage Rumiton and Momento to comment on mediation progress on their user talk pages. Those so inclined could go there, see what they are saying, and represent their views here. --JN466 20:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've only just now learned (due to Maelifique's research) that Rumiton is another past or current employee of the Rawat movement,[19] a fact which he never saw fit to reveal to most other editors of the topic. If editors here are hiding their involvements with this topic and editing to further a POV in which they have a spiritual and financial interest then I don't see how we can assume good faith on their part.   Will Beback  talk  21:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, most of the people working at Amaroo are not employees. [20][21]. I also don't think we deny people the assumption of good faith because their edits are influenced by a spiritual interest in something. --JN466 21:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:COI explains that one of the reasons it's important to disclose significant outside interests is that when they are finally revealed they will lead to a loss of the assumption of good faith. During the intense editing of this topic in 2008, I was not aware that all three of the main pro-Rawat editors were current or past employees of the movement. I do not care to engage in mediation with people who acted so deceptively for such a long time.   Will Beback  talk  22:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Will, Jossi disclosed his COI; John Brauns pointed out that Momento has held positions of authority in Rawat's organisations in March 2008 (it is on the arbitration case page to this day); I have no particular reason to believe that Rumiton was a paid employee rather than one of hundreds of premie volunteers helping at Rawat events in Amaroo. None of these three editors ever hid the fact that they were students of Rawat's. --JN466 22:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where Momento made any disclosure. John Brauns, limited by WP:OUTING, merely asked Momento to make a disclosure and Momento remained silent. I don't see how that can be considered disclosure on Momento's part. And there was an even more serious COI on Momento's part that he didn't disclose as well. In addition to the named editors above, at least two of Jossi's socks claimed they weren't followers of Rawat, so such claims begin to lose their credibility. Anyway, so long as no one is going to be acting as a proxy for topic banned editors or participating in this mediation with undisclosed involvements, then there won't be a problem.   Will Beback  talk  00:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's well-documented that Prem Rawat says that he doesn't teach spirituality, religion, philosophy, etc. So this not about those things. Rawat has always said that, and it's also documented on all of the FAQ of official webpages of organizations that support him. Also, someone who volunteers is still involved in working on something, it's just not a financial COI. There are other COIs besides being paid for work done, that's why it's called "Conflict of Interest" It's not a penalty and ought not be viewed as such. Sylviecyn (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Rawat has been a guru and a teacher of meditation; I don't care what he says; by universal agreement, these are religious or spiritual roles. --JN466 22:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

[outdent]No one is trying to deprive, single out, or deny anyone of their privacy or rights, especially their religious affiliation or beliefs, due to conflicts of interest. To suggest that is absurd and incorrect. That's not what "conflict of interest" means. I recommend that everyone read the Wikipedia article Conflict of Interest. It's quite good as opposed to the wiki policy of COI, which is quite badly written. COI is about the disclosure by someone of their interest, association, or relationship with a person or entity which conflicts with their potential interest, association, or relationship with persons or entites. Disclosure is done in the spirit of ethical tranparency and honesty. It's incorrect to view COI disclosure as a breach of privacy because it's not. Lawyers disclose COIs all the time and when they do it, it's in the best interests of all parties involved, especially their clients. COI is a good thing, not a bad thing, that's why the legal and other professions have them in their codes of ethics. It's not too much to ask people to do it, most people happily and freely disclose when there is a COI, and Jayen's argument that it is somehow infringing on anyone's religious rights, practices, and beliefs is a red herring, an obfscuation of the meaning and spirit of COI. Sylviecyn (talk) 01:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Woops! we had an edit conflict. I posted at the same time as Sylviecyn. Hope it works this time.

I see there's quite a bit of opposition to the idea. I think JN466 is the only person here with in-depth knowledge of the topic other than 3 former followers plus Will and Maelefique who both seem to sympathize with an unfavorable view of the subject. I would like to have the chance to consider alternative views.

JN suggests that the banned editors post on their talk pages and be represented by others. If that's the only option, I'll have a look at their submissions but I don't want to represent them. I only want the chance to consider their take on issues. With good intentions the back door approach makes a mockery of mediation. How about giving them a strict word limit, one post only per topic? If either of them tries to be disruptive or hostile to other editors in that one post, delete them. Would that work? --Zanthorp (talk) 01:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't work for me unfortunately. We continually give editors chances, small bans, more small bans, warnings, more bans. Now Momento in particular is banned in a big way. There's a reason for that! Look at what he had to say in the linked page regarding his application to be part of this mediation. He's already been disruptive and hostile and he isn't even involved yet. Rumiton at least has had the good sense not to wave a big red flag in front of the bull. I was however disheartened (saddened? disappointed?) to learn of Rumiton's non-obvious involvment with Amaroo recently. It sure would be nice to know who we're really dealing with around here some days. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 02:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(Responding to Zanthorp) I don't honestly think that this approach would work. Momento has demonstrated disruptive behaviour already. Rumiton, not quite so, but nevertheless, both editors are still banned. We asked all of you your opinions, you responded, we asked Momento and Rumiton for comments, they commented. We considered everything, and delivered a decision on the matter. That should be the end of it. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but ... [22] ... only followin' orders, sir. :) --JN466 03:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

facepalm. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

:) --JN466 03:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(Wakes up, get coffee, sits down to review how the mediation has moved forward overnight, groans and has a sudden urge to go back to bed and lie in the foetal position :) I think there is a valid point around concerns that all the editors who have a deep understanding of the subject of the subject and are sympathetic toward him have either been banned or withdrawn from mediation in light of COI allegations. Perceptions are important, and in the long term the credibility of this mediation process may be questioned due to a perceived bias due to lack of involvement by these editors. Savlonn (talk) 09:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

In respect of the banned editors, I think it should be a case of ‘all or nothing’ involvement; I don’t think limited involvement would fulfil Sunray’s intentions. It could be argued that claiming fair involvement from these editors to demonstrate lack of bias would require equal treatment and thus full involvement in all aspect of mediation; conversely that allowing limited participation would be a strong indicator of bias in the mediation process. It would be a bit like allowing a witness to testify in court, but only if bound and gagged and able only to nod their head, then claiming that the process was fairer because they were allowed to participate! To continue the court analogy, it is however a fair process to determine up-front if a witness is considered to be reliable, and to exclude those from participating who are clearly shown not to be. We have gone through the fair process of determining whether these editors are fit to be parties to this case and it was determined that they are not. That should be end of the story. Savlonn (talk) 09:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a very different matter with Terry Macro and feel it is unfortunate that he has chosen to withdraw from the mediation. I cannot see how the debate around allegations of COI can possibly impact the outcome of the mediation process as there is absolutely no possibility of him being able to disguise any potential COI here. This leaves us with the question of behaviour, for which good faith should be assumed until demonstrated otherwise, as he has not been banned due to demonstrated lack of good faith. I understand the concerns some have around his potential involvement in ‘crafting ground rules’ for future editing of PR related articles, given the CIO allegations, however I think that on the basis of good faith he should be able to participate in the mediation process and use his own judgement as to what areas of mediation he should be participating in. Given the heightened awareness of his situation, I think we have the best possible environment of checks and balances to ensure that any potential COI cannot be applied during mediation. As such, I suggest that we encourage him to re-join mediation as a full and equal participant. Savlonn (talk) 09:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both of Savlonn's points. Regarding the latter, Terrymacro's COI has now been disclosed to the active editors on this topic. Outside of this mediation, it'd be best if he posts that disclosure where new editors can see it, but that's irrelevant inside of this mediation. I would much rather have Terrymacro, who has been honest about his identity and involvement, over the involvement of editors who continue to mask their COI and have a history of disruptive behavior. Going forward in this mediation, I think that Terrymacro's history, out in the open as it is, wouldn't be a topic of discussion. I join Savlonn in encouraging him to return.   Will Beback  talk  09:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

So after being shoved out the door, Terry Macro gets encouraged to return and the COI witch hunt continues with this pathetic attempt to create suspicion before mediation even gets started. Who are these editors "who continue to mask their COI and have a history of disruptive behavior?" Will Beback should stop waving his crucifix in the air. He should point it at his next victim, if he can. Point being, PUT UP or SHUT UP. --Zanthorp (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• sniff*sniff*... Ahh yes, the smell of a co-operative environment, where everyone is working together to achieve a common goal, there's nothing quite like it, is there? Hey, is it just me, or do some people seem a little "overly" sensitive to COI concerns? Also, and equally as important as Zanthorp's msg above, I don't have a crucifix, but I keep a clove of garlic to ward off vampires, can I point that at my victims instead? (I used to have sharks with frikkin' laser beams, but it's a long story...) --Maelefique ^(talk) 15:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No one forced Terry to do anything. It was his decision. Sylviecyn (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Question About Making Edits During Mediation

I noticed that Jayen466 made this edit to Teachings of Prem Rawat article. There wasn't any concensus to remove that material from that article and I disagree with Jayen's edit. Are we going to establish any ground rules for editing the Rawat articles while mediation in going on? I think that edit ought to be reverted until it can be discussed. Sylviecyn (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree and had already reverted his edit before I read this. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 17:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Maelefique! Sylviecyn (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

We certainly do not want to get into edit wars. Would someone be able to suggest a guideline for edits to PR articles during the mediation? Sunray (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I can give it a try but it will take me a day or two because I'm a bit busy right now. But, first, I'm a bit confused by the above Agenda. Those percentages add up to well over 100%. Can you or Steve please explain what the percentages mean? When I read it I didn't pay any attention to the numbers because I assumed that they added up to 100%. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It is usually assumed that mediation will at some point end. The percentages in the agenda at the top of this page indicate percentages of completion: so 50% is "mediation half-way completed", 75% is "mediation three-quarters completed" and so forth. That is why all the percentage numbers are ascending, from 1% to 100%. It's a chronological sequence. JN466 20:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Jayen is correct. The agenda is a % scale, percentage of completion. He's already said what I intended to say, so I need not regurgitate the above. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• I propose that anyone is free to edit as they wish; if their edit is reverted once, the revert stands, and the issue is automatically added to mediation. No one should be reverting reverts. We simply consider current article status the baseline from which we start. Any change from baseline which doesn't gain consensus becomes an issue for mediation. Okay? JN466 19:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem I have with this suggestion is that it encourages of a culture of "leap before you look". In other words, it encourages people to make changes without prior consensus; that is without looking around first to see what others think. It also encourages a "revert if you don't like it", adversarial culture, instead of a collaborative, consensus building culture. Surely it would be better if before you made the change you stated "This is my proposed change - let me know if you don't like it and we'll add it to the mediation list"? Savlonn (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. On the other hand, making a change is much the quickest way to find out if someone will object to it, and for smaller changes, such as inserting a comma, having to wait for permission would be tedious. I recall it was agreed earlier that the articles were open for editing ([23], [24]) by parties, as they are of course for anyone else who is not a party to mediation.

Once a passage is being discussed as part of mediation, I think we all agree it should not be edited except by the mediator making a consensus change. JN466 20:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there should be an exception to that. If an IP or previously uninvolved editor comes by and edits a passage currently subject to mediation, any party to the mediation should be entitled to restore the passage (once) to the baseline status, courteously pointing the editor to the ongoing discussions, pointing out that they are not allowed to repeat the edit under current arbcom restrictions, and inviting them to take part in mediation. If the other editor makes the same change anyway, they will end up at WP:AE, and an admin will revert. JN466 20:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The article has been semi-protected to avoid this scenario, though it won't protect from drive-by edits from logged-in editors. Looking back on the past year, many of the disputes on this topic have erupted as a result of such edits. I think that non-minor, undiscussed edits by editors who are not participating in mediation should be reverted automatically. If it occurs on other articles in the topic they should be semi-protected as well.   Will Beback  talk  21:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Prem Rawat is fully protected (sysops only); rightly so, in my view. --JN466 21:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I just realised that Jayen's proposal can't work, because of revert restrictions. Let's say that tomorrow someone else in good faith makes another significant change to a PR related article that Maelifique disagrees with. If he follows your suggestion and reverts the edit once, thus getting it on the mediation list, he will also find himself banned again, as this would exceed his 1RR per week restriction. Savlonn (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The 1-revert-per-week rule only refers to reversions of the same change. JN466 20:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

To be painfully clear, I did not revert because I disagreed with his edit. I reverted because I disagreed with his large-scale change to an article covered by this mediation that occurred without any discussion whatsoever (which doesn't mean I do agree with his edit either). -- Maelefique ^(talk) 20:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to mention to you that the article is only covered by this mediation because I added it a couple of days ago. [25] In fact, we should probably look at expanding that list. Cheers, --JN466 20:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

How is that better for you? If you added it, then you already knew when you made the edit that it was under mediation already! --Maelefique ^(talk) 22:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Once more: [26][27] The content was not "long-standing and stable", as you assert below; it was the subject of an edit-war at the end of May that led to two editors being blocked, and the article protected. It is also not sourced as per the requirements stated in the most recent arbcom remedies. Ted Patrick's career is a colourful one, punctuated by visits to jail; the anti-cult movement disowned him and his techniques decades ago, because they were indefensible from a civil liberties point of view. [28] Patrick is nowhere near the "best and most reputable sources". JN466 23:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediation obviously includes all articles directly related to Prem Rawat. I hope that's celar to everyone.   Will Beback  talk  21:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• I suggest you check with Steve - I'm pretty sure he came up with something around not editing sections of the article whilst the particular section is under mediation discussion. That would not cover Jayen's edit referred to above. I think common sense dictates a broader guideline to at least flag intended changes that may be perceived as contentious before inserting. Then, if others disagree with the change, add the item to the mediation list and don't go ahead with the change until then. In addition, I think we should have a blanket guideline against participants directly reverting anything except undisputed vandalism or breach of BLP. In a case such the one above, I strongly feel that participants should request involvement of a mediator and not to revert themselves. The reversion by Maelefique has raised tensions even further and is working against the spirit of collobaration. I don't have any more time at the moment to working a structured guideline in any more detail, but look forward to seeing the ideas of others. (p.s. just clashed with insert of Jayen's comment, so have put this below) Savlonn (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

IMO, the clarification would be that Jayen's removal of long standing, stable, sourced material without any discussion whatsoever, whilst in the middle of a mediation regarding things exactly like that, is what raised tensions here, not my revert. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 20:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought that Jayen's involvement in raising tensions was clearly implied in my statement. To clarify, I assumed that my statement "The reversion by Maelefique has raised tensions even further" would clearly imply that Jayen's edit without discussion/consensus was what raised tensions in the first place. This is also clearly implied by the existence of this section. Apologies if I wasn't clear. Savlonn (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I misread that to mean "raised above the normal already tense levels around here", I'll calm down and ease up on the coffee now... --Maelefique ^(talk) 20:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• How about if everyone agrees that they won't make any edits to any of the articles without first discussing it and reaching consensus. This is the reason we're now in mediation. During the last mediation with Steve, I thought things worked out quite well when proposals were made, consensus reached, and then Steve, the mediator, made the actual edit to the articles, not the parties. I'm in favor of doing that again. Sylviecyn (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• • It worked well last time. While it's a little inflexible, it can't be gamed. Implementing a similar rule to this mediation might work well. How about we do it this way. Simply, no controversial editing, period. Grammar fixes, and other minor gnome work should be fine, but if you have even the slightest thought that your edit will be controversial, don't do it. Brin up the matter here, and it can be discussed. If there's consensus for the change, it can be made. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    • The groundrules we all agreed to say that articles are open for editing except for items being actively mediated. I do not think that locking us out of editing a dozen articles mereely as a precaution is helpful. Let's deal with problems as they arise. I don't think that saying "it worked last time" is a helpful assertion, unless we're going to evaluate the overall outcomes of the previous mediation, which may or may not be a useful exercise.   Will Beback  talk  23:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Indeed, the ground rules do state that, but problems appear to be arising. Do you have an alternate proposal that you feel would work better? Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
        • In this case, Jayen deleted material (material that had been the focus of a recent dispute), and another editor restored it. The issue has been added to the list if things to mediate, which presumably means that no one involved in mediation (or drive-by editors either) should make a significant edit to it. What is the problem we need to address?   Will Beback  talk  00:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
        • To address Sunray's first posting in this thread, edit warring is not a serious concern in this mediation due to the editing restrictions that apply to all editors of all of these articles.   Will Beback  talk  00:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Ensuring that something like this doesn't happen in future, I guess. Something needs to be thought of, to ensure that an editing style, where people make controversial edits first, then discuss later, does not happen. It's somewhat like pushing someone's buttons until they react. Not a good approach, in my opinion. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
            • Why was Jayen's edit a problem we need to avoid? Perhaps rather than making a rule than constrinas everyone we should simply ask Jayen to avoid deleting sourced material that he knows is controversial? If he continues then we can deal with that behavior rather than publishing everyone.   Will Beback  talk  00:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
              • Well, as long as everyone has learned from this, then that should be the end of the matter. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
                • Actually, I'm not so sure anymore. See #WP:RSN below. Can someone ask Jayne to cool it until we get mediaion started in earnest?   Will Beback  talk  05:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
                  • Will, my only concern is that right at the beginning of this process, an edit was made on an issue that was unresolved upon starting this mediation. Also, if editors make contentious edits then I fear that mediation work will veer off track and ultimately this will stall the process of resolving disputes over content. I don't think the previous mediation was perfect, but at there was some good organization for dealing with each issue prior to anyone changing article contents. That's all. I welcome everyone's opinion on the matter. Thanks! Sylviecyn (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

List of articles involved

Should we expand the list of articles involved in this mediation effort to include all the Rawat-related articles? JN466 20:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd assumed that they were already included. They were included in the original mediation request.   Will Beback  talk  21:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's update the list then, so it is clear to the mediators also. JN466 21:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added the articles listed on Template:Prem Rawat. --JN466 22:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarification requested on privilege

I believe we are saying that anything that happens in mediation is "privileged, and cannot be used in other forms of dispute resolution." Could we make explicit what exactly is covered by privilege, and what is not? For example, are participants in mediation able to use noticeboards such as

• WP:AE (to enforce arbitration remedies),
• WP:RSN,
• WP:BLPN,
• WP:ANI (for personal attacks for example), etc.,

and if yes, what are they allowed to bring up on these noticeboards, and what not?

What happens if an editor violates the privilege? For example, what happens if an editor actually does diff something an editor said in mediation as evidence in a subsequent arbitration case, or on WP:ANI? I understand MedCom has no authority over ArbCom or AN/I, and vice versa; so how does privilege work in practice? --JN466 21:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

As someone who is not on the mediation committee, I couldn't be sure, I can only explain how I understand things.

I can't see a problem with RSN being used. The privelige of mediation, as I understand, only extends to the mediation pages and subpages, it does not prevent action being taken for bad conduct on article, article talk, or user talk pages. Edit warring on an article page will still get you in trouble, personal attacks on a talk page will still get you in strife. The privelige of mediation is designed to allow for open discussion, so basically, what happens on this talk page, cannot be used in any other forum, for DR purposes. If that makes any sense. I'm not 100% sure, and I'll let Sunray clarify, but this is roughly the answer you're looking for. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what Steve has said. Essentially you cannot take something done or discussed in this mediation to another decision forum. That would include RfC, ArbCom, AE, ANI, etc. As far as RSN and BLPN, they are advisory and do not apply to mediation in any case. However, as part of a discussion here, participants might decide to get a ruling (for e.g., on a source) from RSN. Sunray (talk) 05:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, but even so, such forums shouldn't be used in an attempt to gain authority of sorts to make an edit, if it is controversial. The best method would be to discuss the matter here. Consensus is the best way to do things. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:RSN

Note: I started a thread on Patrick as a source: [29]. JN466 05:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You've already added Patrick to the list of items to mediate. This appears to be an end-run around mediation, and by the ground rules of the mediation it would be inappropriate to make edits related to the use of Patrick as a source. Let's hold off on discusing Patrick until we get around to that item.   Will Beback  talk  05:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to somewhat agree. Me and Sunray are experts at resolving disputes, whereas people who comment at RS/N may not be so. This is something that we should handle. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Before securing a ruling from RSN, it would be important to get consensus here to do so, IMO. Sunray (talk) 06:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Look guys, I have no intention of making a related edit here. The worst you have to fear is that if there is a clear consensus against using Patrick at RS/N, I will quote that consensus in mediated discussions here, to add weight to my argument. Please allow the thread at RS/N to develop naturally. JN466 06:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not wait until we're discussing Patrick? What need is there for pushing this issue to the top of the list? Combined with your deletion of the related material, I don't think this is helpful mediation behavior.   Will Beback  talk  06:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's important to take the mediation step by step and stay focused upon the step at hand. My understanding is that we all make opening statements and then would discuss those first. In looking at Jayen's statement on the RN concerning Ted Patrick's book as a source, he doesn't only ask only for opinions on the reliability of the source. Jayen's statement makes editorial and biased comments about the veracity of source material itself (see the last two paragraphs) by asking the editors there to remember Jossi and then judge the quality of the opinion itself quoted from Patrick's book. That's not the basis upon which RS are evaluated. I think that borders on campaigning and is not helpful to this process, imo. As an aside, I personally find Patrick to be a rather repugnant individual and was personally involved in one of his kidnappings during my involvement with Rawat (a friend was kidnapped by him), but my opinion of him still can't be the basis for determining his books a reliable or not. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the cheerleading, appeals to emotion, and ridiculous mention of Jossi that are present inside that RS/N request make it about the worst looking "oh, I'd just like your unbiased opinion on this, you agree with me, right? right?..." I've seen. State the facts. Wait for input. Simple. Why doesn't he just change it a little more and say "admitted heavy drug users who barely have a connection with the subject and who are writing about it years later shouldn't be considered a best source, should they?" Oh wait, that's Collier, my bad. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Some participants have suggested that we park the discussion and action on this for now. I agree. Let's come back to it.

Reminder: Would all participants please try to avoid making judgmental comments about another participant, unless called for. It is enough to simply make observations and ask open questions, without speculating on motives or characterizing actions. As we go along, I will remove such comments from posts. Let's just stick to the facts and find ways to work together on sorting this out. Sunray (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That's an extremely helpful comment, Sunray. I'm admittedly a passionate and very opinionated woman (not to mention old and set in my ways) so I do appreciate and welcome your help in this area because I love to learn. That said, it would be more helpful to me (and I am only asking this on my own behalf) that rather than removing my judgmental comments which I make, that you strike them out. That would help me to identify the times when I go off the rails here...and that's only if it's acceptable to everyone else, i.e., striking out my inappropriate comments. Again, many thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, I don't really have the right to strike any of your comments - only you can do that. However, the policy on personal attacks does permit their removal. With the cooperation being shown, I don't anticipate having to do that :) Sunray (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, and thanks a lot for teaching me yet another new thing about mediation. I appreciate it. :) Sylviecyn (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing during mediation - Guideline?

We've still not reached a possible guideline for editing articles during the mediation. I proposed a possible guideline above, but I think that the best way for a guideline for editing would be if all of you discussed and developed one by yourselves. The ball is in your court. What's all of your thoughts on the matter? Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The current quidleins/ground rule is:

• Sections of content that are under discussion in this mediation should not be edited during the mediation...If, as part of the mediation, there are proposals to change this content while the case is running, I will make them if I feel there is consensus to do so.

This is a large mediation, involving nine or ten editors and thirteen articles. It won't be quick. The topic is also under strict editing rules that allow essentially one-revert-per week. So long as editors aren't acting disruptively I don't think that locking down all the text in all of the articles is necessary or productive.   Will Beback  talk  09:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Jayen's recent edit was not within the scope of the proposed guideline, but still triggered a lot of contention here. This is what we need to avoid in order for us to work collaboratively during mediation. However, I do agree that we shouldn't lock down 13 articles. I think the guideline should be for editors to take a common sense approach to editing article sections not under discussion in mediation and to discuss on the relevant talk page any significant proposed changes before inserting them in the article. Then, if there is opposition, the parties should agree to add the disputed topic to the mediation list and not go ahead with the change to the article. As I have written in the previous discussion above, I don't like the idea of going ahead with edits without consensus, with a 'revert if you don't like it' attitude, as this re-enforces an adversarial culture, which is directly opposed to the collaborative culture we are trying to create in mediation. As per the recent edit it can also cause disruption to the mediation, regardless of good intentions. Savlonn (talk) 10:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm for sticking with the original ground rule about editing that we all read and agreed to prior to signing on to this mediation. If common sense had worked before we most likely would not be in mediation now.  :) :) Sylviecyn (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go with the overly optimistic opinion that everyone has learned from the recent edit, and we're probably not going to have a repeat performance. Let's give common sense one more try before we lock-down the articles and see how that goes. I agree with Savlonn, if someone has an issue, they should bring it up on the relevant talk-page first (obviously), and if there's contention they can add it to the list to be mediated. --Maelefique ^(talk) 14:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sylviecyn reminds us that the groundrule states that edits should not be made on subjects under mediation. Savlonn suggests a common sense approach: Discussion of non-routine edits on the article talk page; if disputed, discussion here. I would underscore what Savlonn says about establishing a collaborative culture. Sunray (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been concerned by what seems a degree of circularilty over the last weeks discussions. I would like to see a clearly agreed process, I therfore suggest:

Editing during mediation – Guideline elements

1. insertion of new text or deletion of existing text, excepting minor changes to grammar, spelling etc but including any change in respect of references:

a)is a change that has been agreed within mediation and the edits are those actioned by mediators

or

b)is a change prefigured by draft proposals presented on the article talk page

2. in the case of 1b) a minimum of 48 hours allowed for either discussion on the talk page, or referral of associated issues to this mediation, in which latter case talk page discussion becomes deferred here.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving on and staying focused

Okay we were driven off track. Can we pull together and refocus? That's what I'd like to do. I think it would be good to proceed with discussion on the opening statements. I also think it might be helpful if a time limit is placed on such discussions. It doesn't matter to me what the time limit is, so long as everyone knows what it is: a week, two weeks, etc.?? I work much better with structure. So, can we set a time and place for opening statements discussions? Any help from Steve and Sunray will be appreciated by me. I'd like to begin. Thank you. Sylviecyn (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You took the words right out of my keyboard! We have at least half a dozen separate threads happening here and haven't started discussing the opening remarks. At the very least I would like to see the mediators channel discussion into single areas of focus. I am keen to start discussing the opening remarks, especially the differences in opinion around sourcing principles - from more focus on scholarly sources at one end to the use of newspapers and primary sources at the other. I don't think we can solve the 'cult' and other hot content issues until we look into the reasoning behind our opinions regarding sources. I'll stop here before I'm guilting of starting yet another thread prematurely. Savlonn (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, let's move on to the next step.   Will Beback  talk  22:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It might be best to start discussing opening statements. I have the feeling that Sunray and myself will discuss the opening statements prior to opening discussion here. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that we need to focus on the opening statements. The mediators will have some issues for discussion within the next 24 hours. Sunray (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Having read and thought about the opening statements, I have a few matters and questions to bring up, as well as a few, let's call them "contracts" that it would be helpful if all of you sign.

Firstly, some of you have suggested that a checklist be developed so that after the mediation is over, certain things need to be 'ticked off' in order for an edit to be made. In theory, and at first glance, it might seem like a good solution, but in practice, I think that such a method would be rather prone to gaming. For example, if one of the criteria to be met is something along the lines of "there must be a clear consensus before making controversial/any edits", a user or groups of users might band together to block an edit from happening. Tempers might flare as a result, and despite this rule, a user may make the edit, a dispute ensues, edit warring starts, blocks, et cetera. This obviously is only one example, but you get the general idea. Obviously a method for editing, post mediation, needs to be developed for when the mediation ends, but I am not so sure that this would be the best solution. Perhaps we can discuss this towards the tail of the mediation.

Conflicts of interest were also raised among many of you, as well as how to deal with said conflicts of interest. I do believe that if there are any editors here with conflicts of interest, that as long as these editors pledge that during these discussions, and on a larger scale, when editing Prem Rawat articles, you realize that as mediator, it is not our task to get everyone to agree, but to help parties formulate a resolution that is within the policies and guidelines of wikipedia, and we will not subvert these in order to achieve a resolution. I do know that there are some editors here who still have undeclared COIs, but as long as everyone agrees to put Wikipedia's best interests at heart, and recuse from a certain discussion if you feel unable to do so, then I don't thnk we will have many problems.

Finally, the issues to be addressed within the mediation. We will start with content issues, move on to conduct issues, and finally discuss long termsolutions for stability. I'll open up discussion below, where I'd like each of you to add to a single bullet list, with any possible issue you think may need to be addressed in the mediation. We will discuss this list, trim it down, then begin.

If all of you could agree to the following, that would be great.

1. I will put the best interests of Wikipedia before all else, considering the policies and guidelines discussed by the community, and if I feel unable to do so on a matter of discussion, I will recuse.

Agree. -Savlonn (talk) 11:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 13:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree.   Will Beback  talk  17:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. -Rainer P. (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. --JN466 20:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree --Maelefique ^(talk) 22:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree --John Brauns (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 10:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Are we waiting for this to be filled in before proceeding with mediation? Is there anything we can be doing while we're waiting so that the next step will go more quickly?   Will Beback  talk  22:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Bolded instructions. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 07:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding items to Mediation

(inserted this here to avoid being compounded within Savalonn's table)

Do we want to have a process of pre-discussion, before adding new items arising from ongoing editing, to the "to be mediated" list ? [30] is one ongoing unresolved content element where the disagreement covers both the proposed content and the process of article improvement. It might be useful to consider how this, and any similar subsequent disputes are to be approached before attempting to resolve the specific content element in dispute, in this case the question of step change versus total re-write needs to be addressed if total impasse is not to be very quickly arrived at. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarification questions to Mediators

I would like to respond in detail to Steve’s mediation plan, now that it has been tabled. I have started a new section, as this is distinct from the bullet list process above.

As per my opening statement, I am concerned about the possibility that the time spent resolving content issues may be wasted once mediation has completed, through third parties not involved in mediation un-doing whatever we achieve. This concern is reflected by the content first agenda order that Steve has produced. I don’t want a situation developing where we spend months resolving content issues with expectations that they will become 'sticky' through this mediation then actively looking to resolve all the big issues around the PR related articles, only to find discover near the end of mediation that this isn’t the case and that the process has no ‘teeth’

For this reason, I’m trying to clarify where we stand and is why I proposed we first deal with the conduct and stability issues to see if there is a way forward, before we tackle the content issues. However, it would be ok if at least we achieved clarification on our expectations from the medation before diving into the content issues.

In the table below I have posted some areas where I seek clarification on the scope of mediation. I would appreciate if the mediators could respond.

If the response from the mediators is “sorry folks, but all we can do is help facilitate discussions by parties involved in meditation – anything outside the involved parties is not within our remit” then at least we know where we stand.Savlonn (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Area	Scope question or issue
Discussion of post-mediation governance around editing of PR related articles, including involvement by third parties not involved in mediation.	According to Mediation policy, medation is for faciliting discussion among partites involved in mediaton; there is no scope for active involvement in requesting changes to policies or Arbcom article restrictions in respect of anyone not involved in medation.
Implementation of agreements around editing PR articles post mediation	If consensus is reached on non-content related issues, would the implementation of the agreement be within scope of the mediation process, even where the implementation would involve all editors involved in PR related articles, not only those parties to mediation?
Formulation of resolutions that would require a change in Wikipedia policies - perhaps restricted to PR related articles.	Steve stated that mediation is restrited to "formulate a resolution that is within the policies and guidelines of wikipedia,". I have detailed scenarios where current policies enable 'gaming the system'. Let's say we formulate a resolution that may not lie within current polices and wish to request that the current policies be changed to support the resolution. What if any would be the role the mediators in faciliting this process?

Savlonn (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself. I say this as both a mediator and a Wikipedian. As mediators, all we can do in disputes is help parties involved in the mediation. As a mediator, that basically sums up what we can do.

1) Correct, there is no scope allowing us to involve other parties that are not in the mediation. This is us acting as mediators. What we do as editors may be another matter, but formally, the limitations you stated are correct.

2) Once again, this is probably outside the scope of mediation, but it might be able to be included, if all parties agreed to the solution, a gentelmens agreement, as such.

3) We probably couldn't change policies to suit the mediation. It really depends on the situation. I'd like to see the scenarios you've formulated.

Hope this answers some questions. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 07:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much Steve; that is pretty much what I was expecting. I really appreciate that this is clarified now. I need to go away and have a think about what the implications will be, post mediation. I won't bring this up again until the subject is discussed within mediation. Savlonn (talk) 08:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between our roles as Wikipedians and our roles as Wikipedians. We can obviously participate in formulating and presenting long term solutions to this dispute. I'm just noting that this is not the role of a mediator. I appreciate your concerns and I have given some thought to it, and discussed long term solutions to the dispute, outside of this mediation, post mediation, with the committee, as they are most likely the only body who could implement such solutions, but I'm still waiting for a reply. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 08:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Rainer P.'s concerns

I am concerned about the structure of the mediation group, now that Zanthorp and Terry M. are out, and Momento and Rumiton are not admitted. It seems like I am the only active student of Rawat left, additionally handicapped by an inherent deficit of language and some demanding life circumstances like employment and family. I am facing several hard core anti-Rawat protagonists, who probably think the day has come and seem to command an unlimited amount of time, flanked by editors who are innocent enough to believe they don’t have a POV, or do anything to get these articles out of the sights of the Cade Metzes of this world as fast as possible, or take mainstream newsmags for the highest revelation of truth. I feel a bit dwarfed in this scenario, and I would hate to be inevitably merely used as a fig leaf over the pretense of a fair procedure, lending legitimacy to a game with loaded dice which in my estimation hardly has a chance producing a fair result. I would not want my signature under that. I am considering opting out also, what else can I do? I would very much like to help, but this looks to me like a losing battle to begin with. Am I being comprehensible? Can anybody give me one good reason to carry on? Or ban me, too? For some COI? The way things are going, that might give me a feeling of being taken serious somehow.--Rainer P. (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I'm as anti-Rawat as you are pro-cult. I'm getting a very tired of being continually painted that way, but I suppose it makes it easier to dismiss my input if you start with that assumption. At no point was TerryM forced out, in fact, my last words on the subject on his talkpage were "it would seem to me like a simple declaration of COI would be a good idea. It does not mean you cannot edit, or change the way you edit". "hard core anti-Rawat protagonists", is that a synonym for people that don't agree with you? I have an extremely limited amount of time to donate to Wikipedia, although I do have internet access to check on things for a couple of minutes, most of the day, which may give you the mistaken idea that I have a lot of time to spare. I find it ironic, that I remember thinking many times, how do these people *always* have so much time to devote on here, it's impossible to keep up, I guess it's just perception. Does it occur to anyone that those "innocent" editors may have read all the rhetoric, and decided for themselves based on the evidence provided? A game with loaded dice? Only if by that you mean a game where the loud voices of a few don't outweigh the voices of everyone else. This isn't a battle, it's the crafting of a process, if you don't want to be part of that, I think that's only going to hurt the progress of the article in the long run, but I don't think asking you to stay is going to change your mind either. Having a COI doesn't get anyone banned. Having a COI, covering it up, denying it, editing in a largely non-NPOV way, and then arguing about it doesn't even get you banned (apparently!). But I do see why you would feel you aren't always going to get your way in these mediations, and in the "then I'm going to take my ball and go home" kind of way, I would understand your decision to quit. I hope you do not, but after working on these articles for so long, I am completely familiar with your feelings of exasperation and frustration. Also, in my opinion, anyone who can compile the phrase "additionally handicapped by an inherent deficit of language" (and without even a spelling error!) is certainly more than qualified linguistically to participate here, and is likely more proficient than a few other editors. --Maelefique ^(talk) 17:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Maelefique, I am not pro-cult. I am just pro-Rawat. I dislike cults and would not want my children to be in one. Thank you for complimenting my English! But be assured it takes me more time to formulate what I want to say, and most of the time I am left with a feeling things could have been said a lot easier, had I been raised in your language. I don't mind people not agreeing with me, I am old enough for that. And I did not mean you by hard core (you I meant by mainstream newsmags, of course, and a bit by innocent). I couuld always relate to your sometimes exaggerative style, only revealing your human nature and your need for fun and passion. Hard cores to my mind are editors who correspond on a daily basis on the international anti-Rawat-forum in their never-ending struggle to confirm one another in their their mutual apostasy - at least that's my assessment. And in a way, one might say this is a battle (that's being a bit exaggerative on my part), and I feel I am in a position to consider strategic fallback, although I enjoy much more to get things done in an atmosphere of mutual respect and appreciation. And I have not made up my mind yet, that's why I am posting this, and I am thankful for your and other editors' input.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

RainerP, you said:

I am concerned about the structure of the mediation group, now that Zanthorp and Terry M. are out, and Momento and Rumiton are not admitted. It seems like I am the only active student of Rawat left...

RainerP, you just said that Zanthorpe is a student of Prem Rawat. Zanthorp declared that he is not a student of Prem Rawat in his opening statement. Are you saying that he is a Rawat student but has deceived us? Sylviecyn (talk)

Sorry, Sylviecyn, for being mistakable. I have in fact always felt Zanthorp as being a pro-Rawat editor, but I would never accuse anyone of deliberately deceiving us. I'm just missing him here, because to me he has been the rare case yet of an editor in this environment, who has a perceptible pro-Rawat angle without being a student!--Rainer P. (talk) 09:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Rainer P., the point of this mediation, in my opinion, is to work together to built consensus and to assume good faith about each other. I don't think anyone's POV should be represented (see my post below). Plus, you still have Jayen466 on your side who is a well-known champion of new religious movements and their leaders on Wikipedia. Additionally, I don't think that it's a requirement for editors to be employed or not employed. Everybody has a different life situation and they work with what amount of time is available. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding words, Sylviecyn! You are certainly right about JN, whose expertise I also appreciate very much. I do not actually want my or anybody's POV represented, I would be as glad as anybody if we contrived balanced and neutral articles in the end. I don't doubt your intellectual acuity. But you know we find ourselves on disparate sides in our appraisal of Prem Rawat's nature. I am just afraid this mediation process (11 Rawat articles!) exceeds my potential and might compromise the quality of my engagement here or my work, which is rather demanding. I became more active on WP only to maintain a minimum of balance after main premie-protagonists had been burnt away within remarkably short time. I really feel Rawat's work is extremely important to humanity, and WP has a high responsibility for reflecting not only the historical record (we can probably find agreement on that), but also the underlying deeper present aspects of the phenomenon, which I find far more notable and interesting for a prospective reader. I hope Steve C. is more optimistic than I am!---Rainer P. (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

For starters, Rainer P, I think you could have voiced your concerns a little better. That said, I have realized the potential problems of not having a balanced set of parties, and I am in discussion with the Arbitration Committee on several possible solutions. We haven't reached a final decision yet, so I can't say anything further at this time. Please be patient. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 19:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, some of the editors included in this mediation have made very few edits to the relevant articles. For exmaple, user:John Brauns has made only 39 edits to Prem Rawat over the last five years, and user:Sylviecyn has made just 26 edits to that article in over three years of editing. Since they have relatively little involvement beyond posting talk page comments, if balance is a concern perhaps some less-involved editors could join others in opting out. A smaller mediation group would certainly speed up discussions.   Will Beback  talk  19:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I should most certainly opt out, as I have made only a handful of edits to Prem Rawat. However, my understanding is that we are encouraged to reach consensus on the talk pages before an actual edit to an article is made, so in that case it doesn't really matter who actually makes the edit. As such, I think Will's reasoning based on editing statistics is not appropriate. I disagree in principle with attempting to define additional criteria for reducing involvement in mediation, as this can be seen as yet another form of discrimination, regardless of intentions. Surely lessons have been learned from the impact of bringing the COI disupte into mediation? Savlonn (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you should opt out because you seem neutral without an agenda, and that's making everyone else here very suspicious! (I'm kidding, I'm kidding, I'm kidding!). I agree with Savlonn, with the exception of the banned editors, I would like to try and find a way to include more people, rather than less people. I don't know how to do that though and I am concerned that efforts to do so will lead to aggressively pro, or con, editors who have no real interest in the articles beyond their own ends. IE, the type of editor who makes drive-by IP edits that are very specific and knowledgeable, as well as controversial, without any discussion at all. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 21:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Steve, thanks for the update. Regular communication makes people feel more comfortable. It is like a train stopped at red signal. The railways have learned that regular PA status updates explaining the delay are the best way to keep passengers calm, even if it is not know when the train will start moving again. Savlonn (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel it's important to let you all know what's going on. At present, we feel that there may notbe a balance of views, between the editors currently involved in this dispute, and we are discussing the situation, and possible solutions. I'll keep you all posted. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Steve, I really appreciate and admire your mediation style, and I feel you understood my concerns. I see patience is needed. I would gladly continue, if the situation can be resolved somehow.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Update - I poked arbcom-l for a status update, as I can do little but sit on my butt and wait for a reply. They say that there should be a response in 24-48 hours. I have discussed a range of potential isseues, and offered my thoughts and suggestions. I hope to have a reply by 8am AEST, but whenever I get it, I'll let you all know. I apologise for the delay, Sunray has been busy offwik, and I feel there are issues that need to be addressed before we resume mediation. I'll keep you all posted. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 10:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

AEST = Australian Eastern Standard Time = UTC+10h.Savlonn (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

What does the ArbCom have to do with the status of this mediation?   Will Beback  talk  20:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Will, surely by now you fully understand what the ArbCom have to do with the mediation and arbitration decision in respect of Prem Rawat? Savlonn (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

[outdent]I'm having a bit of trouble wrapping my head around the mediators and the ARBCOM discussing an "imbalance" in numbers of pro or con editors. I'll tell you why. That concept doesn't assume good faith towards the so-called "anti-Rawat" editors by the ARBCOM or the mediators. I eschew the description "anti-Rawat" and especially "hate-group" that has so often been tossed and bandied around the articles talk pages about me and other former Rawat followers here, in particular towards those who are still parties to this mediation. Moreover, the concept of a balanced number or "pro" and "con" editors is irrelevant if we are to be striving towards adherence to NPOV.

Contrary to popular belief here by Rawat students, I do have the intellectual maturity and acuity to be critical of Prem Rawat elsewhere while maintaining civility and objectivity here about the reliable sources and content. Also, there is popular belief (and frequent, blatant accusation) by adherents here that any uninvolved editor who has never had involvement with Rawat, is also an "anti-Rawat" editor if they disagree with the Rawat students and tend to agree with the former followers. That's a myth that needs to stop here and now. My opening statement is the truth. I don't have any agenda other than to observe the proposed Rawat edits and comment when I have time and when appropriate, so that the correct historical record is written about Rawat and his organizations, based on available, reliable sources. If all parties involved, including mediators and ARBCOM, cannot believe that simple statment, than I don't see the point of this mediation. Having said that, I'm no quitter and I'm not opting out and won't opt out. Those editors who have opted out did so of their own volition, but now we seem to be once again (!) in the mode of back peddling and stalling this mediation on their behalf. RainerP is concerned that by his fellow students opting out, Rawat students' pov won't be represented. It makes no sense to me that anyone needs their pov represented under NPOV and BLP guidelines. That goes against the general Wikipedia principles, no?  :) Sylviecyn (talk) 13:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been meaning to respond to these comments all day, but time ran away from me. The reason that I emailed the committee was not to ensure that there was an equal number of "pro and anti rawat editors", but to discuss the fact that there maynot be a fully mixed group of editors in the mediation, and that this may somewhat affect the mediation. I basically suggested solutions, weighing up pros and cons of each. We realize that NPOV is important, and we are not seeking parties to represent groups of editors, but we feel it may be of benefit to have a mixed bag of participants. I also discussed possible long term solutions to this dispute, without having to resort to a third arbitration case. This mediation will end eventually, and I want solutions in place to ensure a smooth and stable editing enviroment. I still have not received a response from the committee, and I will keep you all posted. I did ask above, for you all to compile a list, in bullet form, of every possible issue we could address in this mediation. We can then discuss these, flesh out the signigicant issues, and proceed from there. Best, Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 10:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If it'd help even out the teams I could switch sides.

The best thing going for this mediation and topic is that there are three editors who aren't affiliated with one or the other view of this matter. Mediation may give a chance for reasonable and moderate voices to be heard more clearly. Sometimes in a polarized editing environment there is an epic quality to disputes. Let's try to bring things back to the middle ground.   Will Beback  talk  11:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the sound of that: "bring things back to the middle ground." How though, will we ensure that all points of view are represented in proper proportion? Sunray (talk) 07:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been following this discussion, but have held off participating until now. RainerP, has expressed some concerns about balance of points of view. Various approaches have been touched on, but there is no clear consensus on whether this is a problem and, if it is, what to do about it. I suggest that the problem-solvers, assuming it is indeed a problem, should be the participants in this mediation. Sunray (talk) 07:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The viewpoints of editors shouldn't matter. It's the viewpoints represented in reliable sources that matter. If we can agree on the reliable sources then we just summarize what they say with weight proportional to their importance and number.   Will Beback  talk  07:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I only have time for a brief comment now; I will come back to this later. I agree with Will's first point in terms of content. However, the viewpoints of editors do matter when it comes to deciding how weighting should be applied. This is a key point of contention for this mediation and requires all points of view to be fairly heard for consensus to be reached. It is also quite a complex topic, as it involves claims of endemic bias by groups of sources that are are considered 'reliable'. As such, we need to have as many knowledgable participants as possible argue their points, even if this becomes a slow and painful process. I am hopeful that those who have chosen to 'opt out' will wish to have their voices heard when we have this discussion. Savlonn (talk) 09:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the viewpoints of editors should figure into this at all. Strong pro-POVs and attempts by some to block reliable sources (over and over for years now) and to insert promotional material has been the major problems that bring us to mediation in the first place. This isn't such a complex topic if editors use the reliable sources and common sense to guide them for weight. All available reliable sources on the subjects have been documented extensively by uninvolved editors on article subpages. It's not as if the articles have to undergo complete rewrites so this isn't such a daunting task as folks here seem to think. Two editors were banned for behavior and two opted out. Those things are both a result of personal choices made by those editors. So, once again, let's move on, please! This perseverating about editors gone seems like spinning wheels in mud.  :) Sylviecyn (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that Steve left a message on Rumiton's user page. Can the mediators please tell us specifically what is going on and what the hold up here is about? Specificity would be great. Thanks! Sylviecyn (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Rumiton had asked me a few questions about the mediation, and I answered them. It had nothing to do with his involvement. There's no hold up on our end. I've asked further up for a bulleted list of all issues, so help us move forward by compiling this list. Best, Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Issues

Content Related Issues

• Inclusion of the word "cult" in the intro to Prem Rawat
• The subject’s notability deriving from his relationship to an organisation.
• The functional (as opposed to notional) history of the organisations that support(ed) Hans Rawat, Satya Pal Rawat and Prem Pal Rawat.
• The inherent requirement to acknowledge the ‘cult’ appellation as it relates to both the Divine Light Mission/Elan Vital and Prem Rawat.
• Use of names besides "Prem Rawat" where appropriate, in particular, "Guru Maharaj Ji" when writing about the DLM and the 1970s.
• Weighting of notability as Religous leader with scholarly focus vs notability due to lifestyle, events in his youth, etc. with mainstream focus.
• Issues of organisational chronology across all related articles
• The problem (as it relates to DLM, EV etc) arising from having definitive primary sources which contradict established literature.
• The functional (as opposed to notional) history of the organisations that support(ed) Hans Rawat, Satya Pal Rawat and Prem Pal Rawat.
• The confusion of the notion of “movement” as compared to defined organisations, arising from source synthesis.
• The inherent requirement to acknowledge the ‘cult’ appellation as it relates to Prem Rawat and the organisations that support him, in all related articles.
• The category name. Currently, the father and the organization he created are categorized under Category:Prem Rawat, his youngest son's name. Eventually we'll get an article about the notable oldest brother too, making the category even more awkward. A more generic category that better encompasses the family would be helpful.

Disputed sources

Specific Disputed sources

• Cagan
• Randi
• Watts
• Geaves
• Patrick
• Conway & Siegelman
• 'Time' magazine
• Collier

Issues relating to sources

• Claims that some categories of mainstream reliable sources shouldn't be used due to endemic bias
• The problem arising from having definitive primary sources ... which contradict ... all the established literature.
• Lack of reliable sources for Rawat's life since the late 80s - should we even cover this period?
• Competence and Relevance for Academic Sources.

Non-Content Related Issues

• Reinstating undisputed edits (note: not an issue but included as a request for priority)
• Making edits without consensus - should a formalised process of consensus be defined for the topics in question?
• Process/Policy for allowing reverts of non-consensus based significant changes without penalty.
• Consideration of Flagged Revisions as method of post-mediation article governance?

Discussion

Re-factored from Mediation page as a starting point with some additions by me.Savlonn (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I moved the discussion to the end- it's easier to thread that way. Also, I merged Conway and Siegelman - it's one book co-written by them which is disputed. Also, the implementation of flagged revisions is hoped-for by many, but shows no sign of happening any time soon. If and when it is activated it may be a boon to dsipputed articles like this, but we shouldn't count on it as a solution until it is active and stable.   Will Beback  talk  22:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, Will. I knew Conway & Siegelman were co-authors but had a brain lapse! Also, I'm aware that flagged revisions hasn't gone live, but was wondering whether we could suggest using PR as a potential PoC/Beta/Showcase, etc or as a case to help push things along with flagged revisions. By the looks of things, we might need to become actively involved in policy development to help embed whatever consensus is reached in medidation. I would like to at least leave the item in the list for discussion during mediation, and if we decide that it's not feasable, then that's fine. Savlonn (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: I just learned that another step towards flagged revisions may be coming soon, so we'll see what happens.   Will Beback  talk  08:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I added Collier, seemed like the place to put it, rather than a separate section of my own, FTR. --Maelefique ^(talk) 22:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes - I assume Steve just wants a single, consolidated list of issues. I don't see the need for us to sign our next to each item, as we have used opening statements and discussions for this.Savlonn (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, one list of issues will be adequate, it would be silly to ask you to seperately put lists together. :) Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added what I know will be a controversial issue but with pro-Rawat sources such as Geaves and Cagan, and critical newspaper sources since the late 80s, being questioned; as well as primary sources being unusable without corroboration; we could have the situation where there are no agreed reliable sources for Rawat's life during the last 20 years. Logically this would lead to the article stopping in the 80s. --John Brauns (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I've developed some of the more complex points I've added to the list at Expanded I realise my approach my seem overly complicated but there is a significant amount of POV to unpick and this has been trailed across a number of articles such that while a common history should be identifiable in all those articles, there's actually a significant amount of disparity. In the past this disparity has been used to create POV refuges and the only way to avoid that is for all editors to have a common understanding of what the relevant sources indicate is the verifiable history as it affects all related articles.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 07:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ping: Steve/Sunray - any chance of getting the signbot disabled for this page, so that we can work collaboratively on things like lists without having each individual entry automatically signed? Savlonn (talk) 07:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 07:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom reply

I'll keep it reasonably brief. I asked a few questions to the committee, and I have answers.

1. In their opinion, the topic bans on Momento and Rumiton do extend to mediation, however they may make a one time statement on this page, though at our discrection. 2. The committee would consider passing additional measures, such as article mentorship and semi protection in future, if it was needed.

That's basically it, and they were the answers I was after. This is simply a notification. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 08:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering a new approach

Following the recent discussion here, I am not clear whether mediation is viable at this point. As several participants have suggested, for mediation to be effective, there have to clear positions that can be mediated. I'm not sure that we have that here. I would like to discuss a different approach. Perhaps we could suspend the mediation for the time being and see if we could form an editing team (or project team) to describe the current problems (many of which have already been identified here), develop guidelines and an action plan and begin editing the various articles. Would participants be interested in such an approach? Sunray (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Has anything like that been done before? If I understnad correctly it would be more like planned, structured editing than outright mediation. If so it's would be worth a try.   Will Beback  talk  05:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this has been done before as a byproduct of a mediation. However, as I'm sure you know, there have been many collaborative editing projects throughout Wikipedia that would have similar features. One possible model would be the article improvement drive. Other examples can be found in many good article or featured article nominations. Probably it would make the most sense to develop a suitable structure ourselves, adapting some of the features of these collaborations. Sunray (talk) 05:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

A smaller team might be useful. Propose Rainer, myself, Will and Nik, plus the mediators; that would gives us a balanced spectrum of opinion. JN466 05:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

A smaller group might be the best approach. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm entirely happy to participate in an alternative to mediation, however I don't think that nominating editors 'out' is a good approach and if there is to be a smaller group it must be down to those currently remaining in the mediation to indicate that either they are content not to play a part in the new arrangements, or that they do indeed want to be involved.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 08:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I support the idea, as long all participants in this mediation can have their say when they wish. I agree that a smaller core group would help thing run faster and smoother. However, as I have stated previously, this shouldn't be at the cost of future claims that the process has somehow been unfair to some.

I suggest that we agree how this 'project team' approach would work, then articulate this in a brief approach statement, to be agreed by all current participants. In other words, we take the same explicit agreement approach as per mediation requests, or Steve's 'contract' concept, to prevent the situation of anyone claiming in future that they didn't agree to the process or think it was unfair. Savlonn (talk) 10:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly against. Mediation is definitely needed with the remaining parties and the ARBCOM recommended it. Without the protection of mediation it will be much more difficult to hammer out the content issues. Also against the suggestion about excluding any mediation parties to make a smaller "editing team." Trust, me Sunray, there is still plenty of strong disagreement among remaining parties on article content that requires mediation. Besides, we can discuss "process" until the cows come home, go back out to pasture and come back again, and never get to the subject and purpose of this mediation. Please let's move forward and and rock and roll!  :):) Sylviecyn (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the intent was to exclude anyone. It seemed that the main idea of Sunray's proposal is to create a structure similar to a wikiproject to handle the meta-discussions. If it's like a wikiproject, anyone could sign up and participate. Perhaps Sunray could give more details about his proposal.   Will Beback  talk  00:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

What's a Wikiproject and a meta-discussion? And, yes, Jayen's proposal was to exclude certain people. It's up there in black and white!  :) Sylviecyn (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

When I saw this, something like WP:IPCOLL came to mind. I think that's the sort of proposal we've made here. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a better way to look at this would be an experiment in collaborative editing as part of the mediation. It is fairly common to move a mediation to an article talk page. In this case we could take this one step further and initiate it as a project to work on the range of Prem Rawat articles. And certainly it would not be my intent to exclude anyone. I think that all participants should be able to participate according to their abilities and time available. Also, there would, no doubt, be disagreements at times and the advantage for us would be to have a process in place (i.e., mediation) to deal with them. We might even want to return to this page at times for a more structured mediation.

I agree with Will that a wikiproject might be an interesting way to go. I like Steve's example of IPCOLL. Would someone (Will?) be willing to look into what would be involved in setting up a wikiproject? Then we could discuss further whether we wanted to do that or make it more informal. We would likely need a fair amount of energy behind this to make it work. Sunray (talk) 06:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, there is a Wikiproject council which tries to maintain order between overlapping projects, and to delete inappropriate projects. I'll check over there and find out what's involved in creating a project, and report back here.   Will Beback  talk  06:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I now strongly agree with the wikiproject idea, having just looked at WP:IPCOLL and related pages. The key things this approach has going for it include:

• Focus on constructive editing, with mediation process in place to manage disputes as they arise, before they get out of hand.
• Structured list of current article issues to work on
• Separate pages for discussing process and content
• Inclusive table of participants with encouragement for others to join. Many people not politically involved have joined with the stated intention of having moderate voices dampen the previous volatility.

As others have commented above, the mediation process will be still be available as required for the issues we have raised, but in an article specific context Savlonn (talk) 08:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

[outdent]Savlonn's list above has already been covered here, except for allowing for new "moderate voices." It was my understanding that the process of working on articles/issues contents within this mediation would be facilitated by the creation of specific and separate pages for each article/issue in order to keep things organized. Where they're created is immaterial and unimportant, imo. Otherwise, working on the articles/issues would become an organizational nightmare. I'm strongly against opening up the mediation to other parties in a "Wikiproject" (what is a "Wikiproject, anyway?) because those new "moderate voices" aren't parties to this mediation. What happens if problems arise (and they will) and we must revert to mediation? Do we have to start from scratch, discussing all this boring stuff all over again that we've already discussed for so long now?

New moderate voices would delay the process because they have to get themselves up to speed on these very complicated subjects, and it would take a great deal more time. I said above that this isn't a complicated subject, but that was assuming only the parties to mediation would be participating. Moreover, there is no guarantee that additional "more moderate" editors would indeed be moderate or new. Who's going to observe those new "more moderate" editors that show up to disrupt (and they will show up)? I've been editing this subject for years: disrupters will show up, so please don't be naive, folks. Without the safety and protection of formal mediation this new suggestion is only asking for trouble and more long delays. This thread feels to me like we engaged in reinventing the wheel and I don't get it. Maybe it's my age.  :) Honestly, I'm frustrated, but I'm an old lady who's been multi-tasking, writing, organizing, training, managing people and business, and working in communications for decades -- this mediation is not organized and is becoming most unhelpful. I don't see this process as so complicated that we have to keep discussing the "process." At the rate we're going, we'll be approaching a year from now and still not be working on article content. It's ridiculous. How many weeks have we been discussing process and editors, when the whole purpose of mediation is to resolve content? Can we please start working on the articles already? Can we please move on and get working? I feel like I'm standing in a long line waiting to do something while folks are holding things up by discussing the line. Sheesh... :):)Sylviecyn (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

We've now heard from five participants. Four are in favour of initiating a project and one (Sylviecyn) is not. Sylvie's concerns centre on opening the project up to outside editors. The concern is that this could be disruptive. On the other hand, Sylvie is unhappy with the way things are progressing here, feels that the mediation is unorganized and unhelpful and wants to get working. I have two comments: 1) Given Wikipedia's makeup, disruption can occur anywhere, anytime and that includes mediation pages. 2) To improve our chances of success, whether on this page or on a project page, we will need to be well-organized. Sunray (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject: Prem Rawat

• A WikiProject is a collection of pages devoted to the management of a specific topic or family of topics within Wikipedia; and, simultaneously, a group of editors who use those pages to collaborate on encyclopedic work. It is not a place to write encyclopedia articles directly, but a resource to help coordinate and organize the writing and editing of those articles.

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide

The basic steps are to create a proposal that defines the sope of the project (in this case all Rawat-related articles). A sufficient number of editors need to express an interest (the minimum appears to be five). Then the proposal is discussed and if there is sufficient support it's created. (Here's an archive of previous discussions: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Archive 3.) An important and perhaps delicate task is deciding on a parent project, from this directory: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. We might have to settle on a poor fit (like Hinduism) since there seem to be a lack of projects that would encompass this topic. Assuming everyone involved here signs on there should be enough support to create the project.   Will Beback  talk  21:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

A poor fit may be unavoidable but I would suggest that some consideration be given to History and Society >Social Organizations [31] this would reflect well the categories of sources that have been used so far, and also avoids any inaccurate religious typologies.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

That'd work. Frankly, I think the parent project is mostly a formality and probably won't affect anything significant. The more generic and less contentious the better.   Will Beback  talk  22:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that History and Society > Social Organizations would be a better choice than a religious parent. However, I don't think that we are obligated to pick a parent project. Sunray (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can recall, when Wikiprojects are set up, a parent project is needed, for navigation purposes. I had to select a parent project when I set up WP:24, but I guess I'm comparing apples and oranges. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as Steve says every project has to have a place in the hierarchy for navigational purposes, which probably won't be very relevant to this topic. I don't think the "parent" project governs or guides the "child" project.   Will Beback  talk  00:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Just we can see what it might look like, I've started /Wikiproject proposal. However I suggest that we keep the discussion here until there's a general consensus to move forward with it. Of course anyone is welcome to edit the description.   Will Beback  talk  01:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion either way regarding mediation or a Wikiproject, but it would be nice to to see something actually happening! --John Brauns (talk) 06:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that we do need to get going. We have now heard from six participants and the tally is: four in favour of a project, one against, one neutral. It would be good to hear from Maelefique and RainerP on the subject. Also, while we are waiting, how about we start to work out the project description, goals, work process, behavioural guidelines, etc., for the project? We could use the good work already done (above) to set out the project description and goals. We could also establish some behavioural guidelines. Do we want a decision rule? By that, I mean a way of measuring consensus if we get stuck. Alternatively, since the project would be moderated, we could leave it up to the moderators to determine consensus. Sunray (talk) 08:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't say I am clear about what to expect; I tend to understand things only when they're happening to me. So, let it happen.----Rainer P. (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm in two minds on a decision making model. Part of me thinks a method of judging consensus might be a good idea, but the question really is, who would do the measuring? A supermajority rule would somewhat possibly give less credit to reasoned arguments, as opposed to the number of yay's versus nays. I do somewhat prefer the latter option, allowing the moderators of the wikiproject, to determine consensus, on certain items, as I trust they would be neutral users, uninvolved in the dispute. But that's just my 2c. Steve Crossin ^talk 09:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Did we did take a vote to do the Wikiproject, even though Wikipedia isn't a democracy? Or are we still proceeding with mediation? Since no one can predict the future, Steve, I suggest that we dispense with all speculation about what will happen, how, and by whom. Let's pick an issue from the above bullet list and get going on the content of articles by creating a subpage (I don't know how to do that) and start work on the contents of articles. When or if we run across problems we can fix them at that time. Sunray reiterated my long post above by saying we need to be organized. Consensus means agreement among parties, but it's not about voting, super or otherwise.  :) :) :) Sylviecyn (talk) 15:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

While consensus decision-making does not mean unanimity, an attempt should be made to resolve or mitigate the views of the minority. In this case, you haven't responded to my concern about the mediation not being viable. If we do not have a viable mediation case, we cannot invoke the privilege of mediation or exclude people. With a project, we can establish criteria for participation. This would likely give us more opportunity to work collaboratively on the articles while minimizing disruption. Sunray (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me if you and Steve are unsure of how to proceed with this mediation you ought to have consulted the mediation committee for advice before now, not the parties. I think now that I know what a "Wikiproject" is it seems like a reasonable way to go. So long as we get there very soon! Life is passing me by. :) Sylviecyn (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rainer P., (huh...weird, I thought saying that would be a lot more painful...) I've looked at the other wikiproject, but I'm not quite sure what to expect either. I'm not opposed to it, and I guess I'll have to see how it works out so I can get a better grasp on it. I did like the page of "battleground statistics", I like the clarity that provides. Since you'd have to be a member to edit (although anyone can join), would that mean that IP's would not be able to edit? I would be in favour of that as well.-- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Maelefique. Now everyone has spoken. It looks like we have sufficient support to initiate a project. I'm not sure about IPs being members. There is less accountability for IPs. Are there other views on this? Sunray (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what basis we'd have to excluding anyone. However given the history of socking in this topic I know that I will regard any IP or newly registered account with scepticism. I agree with Sylviecyn that if we'r going to do with we should go ahead and do it. It's been over a month since the initial request for mediation and it'd be good to start moving forward. I don't think the Wikiproject description will be "written in stone", but if anyone wants to edit it this would be a good time. Otherwise, please sign as a supporter so we can submit the proposal. Since it'll take another week or so for the propsoal to be approved once it's submitted, I suggest that we start doing whatever we'd do in a project, which we can move over to the project once it's formally approved.   Will Beback  talk  19:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

::::: I disagree with excluding IP addresses. My understanding is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and that whilst registration is encouraged, there should be no discrimination against unregistered editors. I was involved with this subject for several months using an IP address, and only registered after an editor started referring to me '82' (first subnet of my IP address). I understand that I was treated equally then, and would be very dissapointed now if I was still using an IP address and suddenly I was excluded on this basis. I may seem to be self-contradictory with this opinion, as I have been a vocal advocate for governance to prevent unregistered accounts from gaming the system. However, this is a fundumental policy issue that should be consistent across all of Wikipedia. Another reason for my position is that newly registered 'disposable' accounts have been used in the same manner as IP addressees to 'game the system' with respect to Prem Rawat related articles. As such, we need to address this at a deeper governance level, not just through a 'band-aid' approach of using technical means to exclude IP addresses. Hopefully the very structure we create for the wikiproject will serve this purpose. Savlonn (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• It's not an exclusion per se, as I understood the other wikiproject, anyone can add themselves to it (I don't remember the mechanism off the top of my head), and then edit those pages but that extra step would certainly provide a useful indicator of attempts to game the system. It would also remove the claim of drive-by IP edits as being simply misunderstood new users, presumably, if they have the time to edit in any useful capacity, they would have the time to read a paragraph or two first. Similar to what Will said above, I also think a few bad apples have done a fair amount of damage the atmosphere of editing around here, and just like anywhere else in the world, there's rules that we all have to live by, but sometimes there are cases where there are also additional rules. Does that make these articles no longer articles that "anyone can edit"? I don't think so, but we just have to proceed a little more cautiously given the history here. Quoted from the IPICOLL page "This project page can be edited by all members. To become a member, please write a short message in the Member statements section." I don't see anything massively exclusionary there, although, admittedly, I don't see any IP users either, but then if that's the case there, we aren't breaking any new ground here either. --Maelefique ^(talk) 21:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

oops - I missed the point you picked up on. It looks like in theory an IP address could apply to become a member. That's good enough for me, so I have withdrawn my opposition. Merci for the clarification. Savlonn (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I am still unconvinced we should allow IPs as members. This whole case has had too much bad experience with sockpuppets to allow anyone to join without restriction. I would prefer to say something like: "This project is open to all users who agree to abide by the following guidelines..." [List of agreed on behavioural guidlelines encompassing WP:CON, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, etc.]. What would be the case for not doing this? Sunray (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I've suggested an approach below that would distinguish between members and non-members and allow for participation by IPs. Sunray (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Project initiation

The proposal page is at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 4/Wikiproject proposal. Please sign it if you support it. (So far this mediation seems to have principally revovled around signing things. It reminds me of a real estate transaction.)   Will Beback  talk  20:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL at your real estate comparison. Yes, I think we should start doing some work. I assume that the mediators would act as moderators for this project. I'm wondering whether we should add Will as a moderator too. In any case, I've included a section for "Moderators", so let's discuss that. I really like the description IPCOLL has for "Members" [32] Shall we adopt something like that? Sunray (talk) 15:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think having Steve, Sunray, and Will as moderators is a wonderful idea and strongly support. I hope Will is willing to do it. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's all try to be moderate. ;)   Will Beback  talk  17:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll work on it.  ;) Sylviecyn (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Since the project now has a number of supporters, I'll go ahead and move the page to start the approval process.   Will Beback  talk  21:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I wrote a whole note of explanation, but I apparently deleted it without saving. Anyway, see WP:RAWAT.   Will Beback  talk  06:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Draft membership criteria

This project is open to all users who agree to abide by the following guidelines:

1. Members commit, to the best of their ability, to always "comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of other editors, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable and verifiable sources.
2. Moderators may remove posts that are incivil.
3. Decisions for the WikiProject will be based on the consensus of members. Non-members are welcome to make comments providing they are in the spirit of # 1.

Prospective members will submit a brief statement, below, outlining their interests in the project.

Comments

• The above was adapted from the IPCOLL membership requirements. Note that "prospective members" would be those, other than the participants in this case, who wish to join after the project has been accepted. Would this be suitable for our purposes? Suggested additions or changes? Sunray (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Fine with me.   Will Beback  talk  21:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • See WP:RAWAT. I used an earlier draft of the text above.   Will Beback  talk  06:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• I am ok with the membership criteria above Savlonn (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• I suggest that we modify the 'dealing with disputes' and 'Citing and reporting incidents' sections of the new project page to reflect the fact that we have active moderators to help with disputes within the project, including uninvolved users who can act in a mediation capacity. My thinking here is that we should word these sections to reflect an attemp to keep dispute resolution internal to the project as much as possible, before external escalation. I am very busy this week, but if no-one tackles this task today I will try to find some time tomorrow to write something for these sections. Savlonn (talk) 13:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, that all makes sense. We might also want to capture some of the work that has already been done on this page for the wikiproject. For example the list of issues you developed, above, could form the basis for a workplan. Sunray (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Everything looks good so far. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been contacted by a group member who is concerned about Will moderating. Perhaps participants should not be named as moderators in the early days of the project. If others agree, I would like to re-visit this later. Sunray (talk) 08:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I never had any intention of moderating. As for listing particiapnts or members, we should remember that this is an outgrowth of mediation and dispute resolution. For that reason alone (and perhaps for others too) participants should be specified from the start. They are already listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Prem Rawat, and we should move that list over, or tell folks that they have yet another entry to sign.   Will Beback  talk  08:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Given the divisive nature of this dispute, it's not surprising someone objected to Will as a moderator. I think finding someone who won't lead to some editor voicing concerns is going to be a challenge itself. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Does " open to all users who agree to abide by the following guidelines,,," include Rumiton and me?Momento (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, once your topic bans have expired.   Will Beback  talk  00:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I was actually asking Steve and Sunray since I understand it is their responsibility.Momento (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should take the question to their talkpages, and they can decide to bring it here if they need to. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 01:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

As long as you agree to the guidelines that the project puts forward, and your topic bans have expired, you will be allowed to participate. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward

What's the next step in this process? Should we just go back to editing like we have in the past? Should we start discussing issues that we've listed? If so, what page do we use? I think we need to start addressing the issues after a month of discussing process.   Will Beback  talk  05:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I've made some suggestions, above. I think we should work here until the project is approved. Several people have indicated that they want to get going. One thing we could do is start discussing the issues identified in opening statements. Another would be to set out a work plan for the wikiproject. I do agree that it is important to get going. Sunray (talk) 06:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's really necessary to wait for approval, but it probably does't matter much for the time being. Why don't we set up a fresh page (which we can't later move into the project), pick a topic, and start? If we try to create a work plan first, it could take weeks and none of us really know where we're headed with this anyway. The work plan may become obvious as we proceed and we can work on it in parallel.   Will Beback  talk  06:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. Sunray (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree lets not do the work plan thing. There's two things that I think would help as starting points from a Project perspective - one is the creation, even as just a stub, of a Satpal Maharaj article, the other is a project wide chronology of critical events/dates. I've put together a draft [33]The point isn't to gather all the key event/dates from all the related articles, but to identify those event/dates which are critical and common to all the project articles. By assessing these key events in a chronological context with reference to all appropriate sources, we'll resolve any problems just once, instead having to go through each event article by article. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 4/Current Article Issues and Satpal Maharaj. Let's get started.   Will Beback  talk  17:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll start the Satpal stub in a few minutes.   Will Beback  talk  17:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, it's live. The presence of that article makes the issue with the category name more pressing, so I've initiated a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 4/Current Article Issues#Category and template names.   Will Beback  talk  19:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Wherever we take this forward I think getting agreement on which sources can be used has to be the top priority. As I said before I don't think we have a single reliable source for Rawat's life from the 90s on. I just had a look at one source for a statement that Rawat attended a festival of peace in Brazil and it's a newspaper advertisement! I happened to know that the Brazilian Portugese word for advertisement is 'propaganda'. --John Brauns (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's any plan for prioritizing items. WE don't want to raise too many issues at once and fail to solve any of them. I think the categoriztion issue is coming to a rapid close, so it may soon be time to work in the next topic (whatever that is). "Sources" is a big topic, but it's foundational so it makes sense to handle it early.   Will Beback  talk  04:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Plan or no plan, it makes no sense to work on any content without first addressing sources. And, of course, press releases are not reliable sources. For, example the German (Wiki) Rawat article has lots of links to press releases by TPRF (The Prem Rawat Foundation) which I would consider unacceptable by Wiki standards of determining reliable sources. Press releases are tantamount to advertisements. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Imagine that! And the German article even carries an external link to EPO!--Rainer P. (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources seems as good a place as any, Cagan was at the top of our list, any objections to starting with that one? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources are certainly a problem and while I share John’s concern and I agree with Will’s observation that sources are ‘foundational’, trying to resolve the sourcing problem could be a pretty nightmarish task, unless we agree some kind of common means of assessment that is far more concrete than reliance on RS policy. Of course WP:RS must apply, but we are faced with deconstructing some extensive POV writing in the existing articles that are covered by the Project and how sources have been used may be as problematic as the nature of each source. To take John’s example – the use of an advertisement may not be prohibited by WP:RS if all that is required of the source is demonstration of the ‘fact’ of the advertisement, however an advertisement can’t of itself be a demonstration of the ‘fact’ that an event took place.

My suggestion is that we agree at a Project level, a systematic approach to source categorisation, based on an assessment of the way an individual source can be used within the project articles, the process would be:

• Top Level Assessment: Agree that a source meets in principle, WP:RS

• Mid Level Assessment:

1. Categorise as to whether the source is Academic, Journalistic or Self Published(by the subject)
2. Categorise on the basis of relevance – (a)Project Wide –source is relevant to all or most articles (b)source is relevant to an Individual article only.
3. Categorise on the basis of Date applicability (a source can’t apply to article content that concerns events that occur after the source publishing date)

• Base Level Assessment:

1. Categorise Academic sources on the basis of (a) Is the specific material to be referenced, relevant to the author's area of expertise (b) Is the specific material to be referenced, incidental to author's area of expertise ( a professor of Mathematics doesn't become an expert on ornithology just because in a paper on Number Theory he comments on the flocking behaviour of birds!)
2. Categorise Journalistic sources on the basis of (a) Is the specific material to be referenced primarily a factual report, investigation etc (b) Is the specific material to be referenced primarily opinion, commentary etc.(use may well be justified but requires different structural presentation than a simple factual report).

This may seem horribly bureaucratic but if we can agree a common standard at the outset we will save time and effort later on. We will also have a clear process that other editors will need to address if later on they dispute the decisions taken. It would be a huge effort to go through every source that is currently used in every related article, so I’d further suggest we use the above approach only on those currently disputed sources, and apply the process to other sources as the articles are worked through in detail.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that does seem horribly bureaucratic and perhaps overly detailed. Do we have the tools and information to be able to make all of these distinctions? But I agree with the idea of having some framework for evaluating sources that goes beyond the sometimes vague statements in WP:V. I'm not sure I understand all of the principles you've outlined here. May I suggest that you take a few sources and analyze them according to this scheme, as an example?   Will Beback  talk  21:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anyone disagreeing with making "sources" the next issue to be addressed. On our list of issues have several specific sources that have been questioned, and also a more general question about types of sources. I see two different suggestions for where to start (Cagan or an assessment framework). While we may decide to modify or discard Nik Wright2's proposal, perhaps we should at least discuss it first to see if there's interest in using something like that. If we do, we should create a thread for it on Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 4/Current Article Issues. Any other thoughts on what issue (or sub-issue) to address next?   Will Beback  talk  21:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm ok with creating a framework, and, as an example like Will asked for above, lets use Cagan to start trying to flesh out this framework. (Do ya like how I merged those both into one unified approach? Clever huh? lol...) -- Maelefique ^(talk) 06:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaos once we have agreed on the framework Cagan might be the first real discussion on sources. But it is complicated and controversial, so I don't think it would be a good example of how the framework would work generally. Rather, I'd suggest picking something like a scholarly book, a mainstream media article, and a self-published source ("self" meaning by the TPRF or other Rawat-related organization). If we tried to use Cagan as an example to figure out the framework we'd end up arguing about Cagan. However we can certainly be thinking how the framework would apply to Cagan and the other disputed sources on the list.   Will Beback  talk  07:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've created a new section with three examples, perhaps other editors might like to try adding their own 'test' runs or critiquing the assessments I've made.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've copied the "process" from above and moved the "examples" from below to Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 4/Current Article Issues#Source assessment framework. Let's hold the discussion of the issue there, and keep this page for more general discussions.   Will Beback  talk  09:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm lost. How many subpages do we have going? Where is the submission on the project? Do we need a directory? Sunray (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

/Current Article Issues is the only subpage of this mediation that I know of. It was named with the assumption that'd it be moved into the project at some point. Eventually, we should probably also have a page that just lists the pending issues- which is currently at #List of Issues above. The idea, corect me if I'm wrong, is to have the actual discussions of issues on the subpage, while using this page to discuss the general process. I'm not sure what will happen to this page and the mediation once the project becomes active, but we can burn that bridge when we come to it.   Will Beback  talk  18:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The project proposal is still here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Prem Rawat. Now that there are eight members we can probably activate it. The project page will have a directory of subpages.   Will Beback  talk  00:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose this is getting confusing, especially since some names are so long. And I created an issues list page. Here's a complete list of all the pages and their status.

• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 4 Main mediation page.
• Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 4 This page. When the project becomes active I presume the general discussions will move to its talk page instead of here.

• Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 4/Current article issues list List of issues, copied from this page. Will be moved to project subpage once project is active.
• Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 4/Current Article Issues Discussion of issues. There are active threads there now. Will be moved to project subpage.

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Prem Rawat Project page, ready to go.
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Prem Rawat Proposal page. Since this project was pre-arranged it was probably an unnecessary step. It hasn't generated any objections from the community.

I hope that's clear. I suggest that as soon as the membership stuff is settled we could activate the project and move this party out of mediation.   Will Beback  talk  05:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking good. I believe we have sorted out issues related to membership. Sunray (talk) 08:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, so shall I move those pages and transfer the member's names to the project page? Or would you prefer to do that?   Will Beback  talk  22:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, by all means, go ahead with that. Sunray (talk) 01:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Application of Draft Framework for Assessment of Sources

moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 4/Current Article Issues.   Will Beback  talk  09:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:RAWAT

Wikipedia:WikiProject Prem Rawat (shortcut WP:RAWAT) is now active. Per Sunray's request, I've moved pages or material there and have listed it as an active project. I suggest that all interested parties watchlist these pages:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Prem Rawat
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Prem Rawat/Current article issues
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Prem Rawat/Current article issues list

Now that the project is active, we need to decide the status of the mediation and this page. One option would be to close mediation, or just declare it dormant, and move the discussions of general issues to the project talk page under the continued moderation of Sunray and Steve Crossin. Is there a better way to proceed?   Will Beback  talk  07:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Could we get input from the moderators as to the proper place to continue the discussion? I'd like to make a proposal for the next issue to be handled, but I'm unsure of whether to do so on this page or on the new project talk page.   Will Beback  talk  08:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's put a hold on the mediation (say for one month) and move discussion to the project page. If a need to resume mediation arises we can come back here. If nothing comes up, we will close the mediation. Sunray (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've posted a new issue at Wikipedia:WikiProject Prem Rawat/Current article issues.   Will Beback  talk  04:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Closing mediation

The mediation has been on hold for the past two months while the project was getting off the ground. During this time, editing of the Prem Rawat-related articles has been relatively problem free. Participants have been working out some of the problems relating to use of sources. While there have been disagreements, discussion has remained civil. Thanks to participants for their good work. Closed as successful. Sunray (talk) 07:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)