Case Opened on 02:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Case Closed on 14:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 16:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 18:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided at arbitration request and serve as opening statements. As such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

• Jossi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party at 20:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Will Beback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Francis Schonken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Momento (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rumiton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Andries (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Msalt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jayen466 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Janice Rowe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nik Wright2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• PatW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• John Brauns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sylviecyn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (by request [1])
• Mukadderat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Prem Rawat 2
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Prem Rawat
• Community-enforced 1RR and disruption probation (March 4, 2008)

Despite the recent involvement of several editors, and the good progress being made in improving the article Prem Rawat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in the past month, a substantial amount of disruption has taken place, including edit warring, tendentious editing, soapboxing, personal attacks, and numerous round-trips to WP:AN/I. The article was protected three times since February 9, the last protection taking place today (March 16, 2008). See log

On March 4, upon a proposal made by User:Will Beback and I, the article was placed on 1RR and disruption probation. This helped for a while, only to be later ignored (See AN/I reports: 1,2, 3).

In addition to the disruption, evidence of which will be provided if ArbCom accepts to hear the case, several editors continue to challenge my involvement, despite my February 10 self-imposed moratorium in editing the article , in response to the feedback from the community related to my declared COI (See User:Jossi/Response#Declaration of intent), restricting myself to talk-page discussions and reporting disruption at AN/I. Despite requests from me and other editors to substantiate the challenge with diff-based evidence to any type of COI-based disruption or abuse of admin privileges, no such evidence has been forthcoming, leaving me with no recourse to defend myself.

I would encourage the ArbCom to hear this case with a view to impose article probation and/or other restrictions, as well as evaluate my behavior and the behaviors of all other involved editors and assess if any type of restrictions should be imposed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat the request I have formulated earlier today at WP:ANI [2]:

Hereby, then, I ask formally that Jossi would be disallowed any further involvement in any Prem Rawat-related topic, via whatever media under the WMF's remit, for unrelentlessly protecting POV-pushers like Momento and Janice Rowe.

Regarding Jossi's "Despite requests from me and other editors to substantiate the challenge with diff-based evidence to any type of disruption or abuse of admin privileges, no such evidence has been forthcoming" – we all know this is not about abuse of admin privileges. There's no desysop request, certainly not by me, and I have none seen brought forward in the Prem Rawat-related issues.

The case (if one is accepted) is about WP:COI involvement, which is still going out of hand even when editors which have such COI involvement only edit talk pages related to the articles at hand.

I'd propose (at least) that any editor directly or indirectly involved with the content of Prem Rawat related articles would be required To disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page. (italicised part copied from the recently concluded Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland#Editors instructed, D.) --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If COI is defined as editing that is incompatible with "the aims of Wikipedia which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia", then Jossi is innocent. He has made great efforts for many years to ensure that all articles he becomes involved in are "neutral and reliably sourced" and that includes the Prem Rawat article. The recent "The Register" article and editors who are antagonistic towards Jossi and/or Prem Rawat have created a "perfect storm". Numerous editors, many anonymous flocked to the Rawat article to add "criticism". Unfortunately, much of the "criticism" is a clear violation of the Biographies of Living Persons policy and that produced much reverting and edit warring. Jossi and WillBeback worked together to come up with the 1RR proposal which slowed things right down and was producing constructive results. Stricter enforcing of existing Wiki policies will solve the problem and that's what Jossi tries to do via the talk page. And for the record, I have no COI.Momento (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Brauns suggests below that I have been a student of Rawat for 30 years therefore I must have a COI. In fact, my over riding interest in the Rawat article is that it should be "neutral and reliably sourced", let the facts speak for themselves.Momento (talk) 02:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to let the facts speak for themselves, Momento, so could you either confirm or deny that you have been a follower of Rawat for over 30 years and held positions of authority in the organisations that support his work. If you confirm my information, then simply declare your COI, and continue. --John Brauns (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PatW is self-described as a former follower

I also urge acceptance of this case. However I think it would be absurd to make this an issue of POV pushing by non-administrators. There is a lively battle going on there with all asserting their POV's with varying degrees of civility. The presence of people who have not been and are not Rawat followers is of course very important to keep things balanced. What is clearly the current problem is that Jossi is not only an administrator but also is a highly dedicated Rawat follower with some important position as a the latter's webmaster, PR guy or whatever, and that considerably upsets the status quo between opposing POV's. Notably he has been judged as acting unfairly, not only by critics (which one might expect) but by neutral editors. I think that a more ideal 'level playing field' would be one where there is an experienced 'COI-less' administrator and all others are permitted to carry on. If ex-followers are to be considered ' persona non grata' then obviously current followers should be also. I don't think that's a practical solution but then again, I would willingly retire my influence if that were the case. As a critic, it may surprise you that probably the best outcome for me would be that the article about Prem Rawat was written entirely by totally non-involved people. I have complete faith that this situation would do fair justice to Prem Rawat. PatW (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to people who suggest I (or other editors with opposing POV) have an equally unwelcome COI to Jossi I would argue this: Our interests are on the whole to help correct imbalance in that article, but our opposite interests should counter-balance each other. That is the workable and fair principle that I understand Wikipedia has embraced. People who disagree are also welcome to edit and argue their case. I fully admit that I (as a self-confessed ex-member) should certainly not be in an administrative position there though. Neither should Jossi by the same token imho. Even truly neutral participants have objected to his involvement on these grounds. Because the article is so contentious, the last thing it needs is Rawat's own man wielding power there. I feel that his is a COI too far, that unbalances the status quo between opposing POV's and creates a very particular and detrimental atmosphere of mistrust. I choose not to criticise Jossi for POV pushing since that may appear hypocritical (and our impartial editors seem to be voicing that complaint as I believe is appropriate.) My request here therefore is that the principle of allowing administrators to police articles where they have a high degree of COI remains the focus of arbitration discussions and, that this subject is not compromised or diluted by other issues. Thank you.PatW (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Brauns is self-described as webmaster of sites critical of Prem Rawat

Although Jossi has declared a COI, he has not revealed which organisation that promotes Rawat's teachings he works for, nor in what capacity. From what I know of Jossi, it is my belief that his only purpose on Wikipedia is to protect Prem Rawat's reputation, and has done whatever is required to reach Admin status with that aim, including editing a wider range of articles than those related to Rawat, and getting involved in framing Wikipedia policies. If his interest was simply to improve Wikipedia he should have retired from all involvement with Rawat related articles, so that there was no possibility of Wikipedia being tarnished by his COI. There are plenty of other Admins to ensure that the Rawat articles are neutral. Also, Momento above has stated he has no COI. This is untrue - he has been a follower of Rawat for over 30 years, and has held positions of responsibility in Rawat's organisations. Although he has a right to contribute here under an anonymous pseudonym, he does not have the right to be untruthful. --John Brauns (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. The Prem Rawat articles have been under active editing for over three years, despite this they remain unstable and unsatisfactory. For a sustained period prior to publication of The Register article [3] the Rawat WP articles were in an effective state of sustained ‘ownership’ WP:OWN. Consensus was set as ‘that with which Jossi, Momento and Rumiton agreed, other editors were faced with a choice of ‘edit war’ or decline to participate.

2. Jossi’s role both prior to and following publication of The Register article has been ambiguous to say the least. His statement that he has a COI has not inhibited him from acting as administrator to the Rawat articles while at the same time officiously pronouncing upon his interpretation of Wikipedia rules as they further his preferred presentation of Prem Rawat on Wikipedia.

3. COI of editors of the Prem Rawat articles. There have been frequent charges and counter charges by various editors for several years over a general position of either current ‘students’ (followers) and of former followers of Rawat as editors of WP. The relevant part of WP:COI would seem to be:

Close relationships Friedrich Engels would have had difficulty editing the Karl Marx article, because he was a close friend, follower and collaborator of Marx.[2] Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization.

It is important to distinguish between the provisions of the Close relationships paragraph and the specific COI which apparently affects Jossi.

4. Religious affiliation of Sources and COI. The Arbitrators may consider it a content issue, however a source of contention, which has been used in a manner of sustained disruption by pro Rawat editors has been the issue of the religious affiliation (or claimed affiliation) of academic commentators upon Prem Rawat. This issue arose because in the light of the use of reference to the the work of Ron Geaves it was pointed out that Geaves was not only a long term follower of Rawat but was instrumental in Rawat becoming exposed to a western audience. In a ‘tit for tat’ response pro Rawat editors keep demanding that the religious affiliation of other academics must be made explicit or their work excluded on the grounds of COI.

5. Acknowledgement of ‘Close relationship’. I am happy to acknowledge a high level of commitment to two ideas which affect my editing of the Rawat articles. a) the idea (based upon rational assessment of evidence) that Prem Rawat has been the figurehead of a cult like collection of organisations within which abuse and moral fraud has been endemic. b) that the Wikipedia Rawat articles should be structured on a broad base of appropriate references.

6. Acknowledgement of unintended disruption. On 26.02.08 I made a major edit [[4]] to the Prem Rawat article which I believed I had adequately prefaced on the talk page. The object of the edit was to extend the range of references, to achieve which I then argued, and still do, it is necessary to change the structure of an article that had been created under sustained WP:OWN. Clearly my intentions had not been understood by other editors the majority of whom experienced my edit as disruptive. Nevertheless I consider that much of the continuing problem faced by editors is caused by attempting to squeeze a properly referenced article into a POV straightjacket imposed by the inadequacies of the existing article structure. Since February I have limited my contributions to the talk page.

--Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been without internet connection for nearly a week, so might be out of touch with the current state of play. Jossi has worked with extraordinary diligence to promote the ideas and ideals of Wikipedia through tens of thousands of edits to a vast number of articles. The suggestion made above that he is only involved with Wikipedia to impose a POV on the Prem Rawat articles is risible. It seems to me that for Wikipedia to continue to develop into the world's best encyclopedia, it needs mainly to take very seriously the standards that have already democratically evolved, and every article needs to be developed with the same care that went into formulating the Guidelines. The complaints that I have seen that Jossi was involved in forming those guidelines demonstrate an ignorance of the way Wikipedia works. NPOV, reliability of sources and verifiability are uppermost in all articles, and the principle of "do no harm" is paramount to a biography of a living person. Tabloidal stuff with loaded messages can be found anywhere with respect to any prominent person, and doesn't belong here. Jossi has worked patiently to bring these policies to the attention of editors. This does not mean there should be no criticism in the article, it just needs to be intelligent criticism. The persistent efforts of some editors to insert references to the subject's body weight and reported liking for icecream are examples of the sort of thing I have seen Jossi approach with at times an almost superhuman patience. Rumiton (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the Wikipedia guidelines re Conflict of Interest and I confirm here that I do not have one. Rumiton (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept - As parties on all sides agree, 1/ an "unusually divisive" matter between administrators, 2/ one that has had multiple attempts to resolve between those commenting above, none of which have come to anything, and 3/ one that needs resolving and is unlikely to go away, is detrimental to the community's admins, and is unlikely to be well resolved by other obvious means. (Important disclosure: If I have given any significant view or opinion on this in the past please will someone let me know. None comes to mind right now as a source of non-neutrality, but this was a high profile issue in the media a month ago, and like many users I'm fairly sure I've taken a look at this matter at some point or other as a result.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Kirill 22:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Concerns that Jossi has a conflict of interest in Prem Rawat and related articles have been raised widely, sometimes in undoubted good faith. A new look at the subject could help prevent disputes. Meanwhile the community-imposed sanction on the articles has manifestly not succeeded in preventing disrupting. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept to consider the behaviour of all editors to this article. --bainer (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Recuse. My past involvement in this matter has gained a high profile, so I think I should bow out of any case. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Passed 9 to 0, 14:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

2) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view; that is, they must fairly portray all significant points of view on a subject in accordance with their prevalence. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is unforgoable.

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

Passed 9 to 0, 14:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

3) An editor has a conflict of interest when their interests in editing Wikipedia, or the interests of those they represent, conflict or potentially conflict with the interests of the Wikipedia project in producing a neutral, verifiable encyclopaedia. An editor will have a conflict of interest with respect to an article if, for example, they stand to benefit financially from editing the article, or if the article is about them or about a business or organisation that they represent.

An editor who has a conflict of interest with respect to an article is generally discouraged from editing that article, but encouraged to otherwise contribute to the editorial process, for example by contributing to talk page discussions.

Passed 9 to 0, 14:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

4) Though the presence of a conflict of interest can often explain the production of problematic content, its mere existence is not problematic; indeed, a well-managed conflict of interest can lead to productive contributions.

Thus, when a user with a conflict of interest makes contributions, the presence of the conflict is a good reason for close review of those contributions by the community, but the contributions are not necessarily problematic; scrutiny must always be with reference to content policy. The focus, as always, must be on the content.

As the conflict of interest guideline states:

"Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to. The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles."

Passed 9 to 0, 14:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

5) Administrative tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a content dispute.

Passed 9 to 0, 14:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

6) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Passed 9 to 0, 14:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Passed 9 to 0, 14:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

1.1) The locus of dispute is the article Prem Rawat, and to a lesser extent, certain other related articles concerning the Prem Rawat movement.

Passed 8 to 0, 14:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

3) Following an administrators' noticeboard discussion, a one-revert rule editing restriction was applied to a number of Prem Rawat related articles for a period of three months beginning 4 March 2008.

In addition, a number of editors, including Jossi, have voluntarily taken on editing restrictions with respect to various articles related to the Prem Rawat movement (details).

Passed 9 to 0, 14:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

4) There has been some history of incivility and personal attacks surrounding articles related to the Prem Rawat movement, which has at times provided for a difficult editing environment.

Passed 9 to 0, 14:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

5) Jossi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has, on a number of occasions, indicated that he has a conflict of interest with respect to articles about the Prem Rawat movement (for example here and here), and this is not in dispute. Jossi has made a substantial number of edits to articles relating to the Prem Rawat movement (though only seven out of the last one thousand edits to Prem Rawat).

The evidence presented at this time has not disclosed a history of problematic editing, in terms of basic content policy, by Jossi.

Further to this observation, a conflict of interest noticeboard discussion in February 2008 did not indicate that Jossi had made problematic edits to the Prem Rawat article. As Thatcher observed in closing the discussion:

"After 88 KB of hand-wringing, we finally have a presentation of diffs that show Jossi edits the article, but no evidence of disruption, edit-warring, or misuse of administrative tools."

Passed 9 to 0, 14:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

6.1) Jossi disclosed his potential conflict of interest on 1 September 2004 voluntarily, and has been aware of the need to behave in a circumspect manner on pages relating to Prem Rawat. On 10 February 2008, he declared his intention to edit only talk pages for Prem Rawat related articles, a self-imposed restriction to which he has held. The Committee commends Jossi's voluntary restraint, and notes that it is not strictly required by the policy on conflicts of interests.

Passed 8 to 0, 14:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

1) Prem Rawat and related articles, including their talk pages, are subject to article probation. Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks and incivility.

This remedy supersedes the existing community based one-revert rule restriction.

Passed 9 to 1, 14:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Superseded on 20 December 2012.

Superseded by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

2.1) Editors on Prem Rawat and related articles and pages who have or may be perceived as having a conflict of interest with respect to these articles are reminded to review and to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on NPOV and conflicts of interest.

Passed 8 to 0, 14:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

All pages relating to Prem Rawat, broadly construed, are designated as a contentious topic.

Amended by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Removed by motion 18:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

1) All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat#Log of blocks and bans.

Passed 9 to 0, 14:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

1) Standard Discretionary sanctions are authorised with immediate effect for all pages relating to Prem Rawat, broadly construed; this supersedes the existing Article Probation remedy.

2) Any current non-expired Article Probation sanctions are hereby vacated and replaced with standard Discretionary Sanctions in the same terms and durations as the vacated sanctions. If appropriate, these may be appealed at Arbitration Enforcement.

3) The Logs of blocks, bans, and restrictions at the Prem Rawat 2 case page is to be merged into the original Prem Rawat log at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat#Logs of blocks, bans, and restrictions, which is to be used for all future recording of warnings and sanctions.

Passed 11 to 0, 16:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Superseded by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstention by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Passed 9 to 0 by motion at 18:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.