Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Jayen466

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) Wikipedia sets out to be a reputable and respected encyclopedia. As such, its aim is to neutrally reflect coverage found in the most reliable published sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Jayen466 12:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

No objection; kind of obvious. Durova^Charge! 00:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems self-evident. Rumiton (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Actually, I'm concerned by the word "most". It's more accurate to say that Wikipedia's aim is to reflect the range of opinion (given appropriate weight) found in reliable sources. I'm concerned that "most" would invite edit warring. For example, on the pages at issue here, Momento has argued that no press should be used as sources at all, only scholarly journals, because they are better sources. He was refuted in RfCs and Noticeboard discussions, but this language would seem to validate his extreme position retroactively. Msalt (talk) 07:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

For a precedent, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Cold_fusion#Neutral_point_of_view_and_sourcing. Jayen466 11:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Use of private websites – contra

2) Private websites set up to celebrate or expose living persons, featuring otherwise unpublished original research, copyrighted material previously published by reliable sources but hosted without license, user forum facilities and similar content, should not be used as sources for article content or as external links. This is particularly important where the original material featured on such a site is highly derogatory of a living person.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This includes sites with a celebratory or derogatory bent. "Private" means that the website is not the work of an established and reputable publishing firm, but the self-published work of an individual, or a collective of like-minded individuals. Jayen466 12:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Any person can set up and website and insist on inclusion unless Wikipedia has a policy to exclude.Momento (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• This asks the Committee to rule on a content and policy issue outside their remit. Durova^Charge! 00:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes and no. Repeatedly adding, or arguing for the inclusion of, such content is a conduct issue. Recent principles related to this include Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes#Biographies_of_living_persons, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sarah_Palin_protection_wheel_war#Biographies_of_living_persons. Jayen466 11:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Then that can be addressed under existing conduct policies. Durova^Charge! 18:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with Durova that this proposal asks the ArbCom to set policy. The core issue that the ArbCom needs to decide is narrower than this.   Will Beback  talk  18:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • You had suggested on Feb. 27 that arbcom guidance on this issue might be appropriate; these proposals are intended to facilitate that. Jayen466 19:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This seems like a huge policy leap with potentially difficult ramifications. Is Wikipedia the work of a reputable and established publishing firm? Talking Points Memo? IMDB? With Rawat, there are few recent published sources, but this would also apply to US presidents, etc. who have many. Msalt (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

According to longstanding WP policy, Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. Wikipedia:SPS#Wikipedia_and_sources_that_mirror_Wikipedia. Jayen466 00:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I know. My question is, what constitutes a "reputable and established publishing firm"? It sounds like you mean to exclude any website not published by say the New York Times, Time Magazine or Bertelsmann Publishing. External links aim to harness the power of the web, which is not found in these firms by and large. So "publishing firm" is an odd criterium. Msalt (talk) 07:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"Publishing firm" may sound a little old-fashioned, but how else to deal with the hit-and-run anonymity of the Internet? There must be agreed standards for linking. The web certainly has the "power" that you refer to, but when it attacks individuals, as it frequently does, it is a monster. Rumiton (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Posting out of section here; Msalt has a point. And Jayen's example may not be broadly applicable outside science disputes. It can require many years of study to understand a scientific subject well enough to cover that subject accurately and reliably. That isn't necessarily the case with other topics. Durova^Charge! 19:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Use of private websites – pro

3) Private websites set up to celebrate or expose living persons, featuring otherwise unpublished original research, copyrighted material previously published by reliable sources but hosted without license, user forum facilities and similar content, may be used as external links in BLPs and other articles if a majority of editors agree that the information and viewpoints expressed on such a site are of overriding importance to a balanced presentation of the BLP subject.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Not an option I favour, but it seems worthwhile to formulate it for consideration. Jayen466 12:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Not an option. The key word is "balanced". The argument can be that a universally admired person's article is "unbalanced" because there is no criticism, so some must be added.Momento (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This asks the Committee to rule on a policy and content issue outside their remit. Durova^Charge! 00:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This is suggesting that important and clear Wikipedia principles can be overturned by a vote. Rumiton (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Durova that this proposal asks the ArbCom to set policy. The core issue that the ArbCom needs to decide is narrower than this.   Will Beback  talk  18:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You had suggested on Feb. 27 that arbcom guidance on this issue might be appropriate; these proposals are intended to facilitate that. Jayen466 19:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Y

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Z

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: