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)

Withdrawing support. Appeared at first to be an unobjectionable proposal (although a bit overly obvious). Upon viewing the subsequent discussion, am developing concerns that specific might become a wedge issue. It wouldn't further the ends of the encyclopedia to elaborate upon existing policy in a manner that fuels dispute. Durova^Charge! 21:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

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

We have had numerous instances in which editors have complained about poor sources, but when we've brought the disputes to noticeboards uninvolved editors have affirmed that the sources were reliable. I think we need to look at the flip siude of this - that relevant material found in reliable sources should not be excluded, that all significant viewpoints are necessary for NPOV, and that deleting such material is harmful to the project.   Will Beback  talk  20:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Editors have certainly disagreed in the past about where to draw the line, and probably will continue to do so in future. Let's just remember though that Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sarah_Palin_protection_wheel_war#Biographies_of_living_persons and "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." clearly tell us that, in BLPs especially, there is a line to be drawn. And I think no one disputes that when editors have strong views about the subject and would like the WP article to tell "the truth" about the guy – or in effect, would like to do him harm by discrediting him – then that invariably tends to colour their judgment about what sources to include. Jayen466 21:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This has been a common retort - "we're not a tabloid". But no one has suggested using tabloid papers as sources, and when I've asked for editors to specificy what they mean by "tabloid" they've changed the subject until the next time they made the complaint. Your recitation above doesn't address the issue of using the most reliable sources that you propose above, nor does it address the problem of properly sourced material being removed. I've seen editors delete sourced material because it conflicted with what they claimed was the "truth" according to their personal knowledge. We only know what is verifiable according to reliable sources. So again, how does tihs principle apply to the case at hand?   Will Beback  talk  21:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

We have to draw a clear distinction between reliably published and self-published sources, and make clear that NPOV means reflecting viewpoints in reliable published sources. Jayen466 22:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Where has anyone proposed using self-published sources, other than Cagan? (Cagan is a special case- we largely agreed that it is not self-published in the conventional meaning. However there was no agreement that it was a reliable source, yet editors have continued to add it, so perhaps we should add evidence about that.) If there have been disputes about self-published sources besides Cagan perhaps you could refresh my memory by adding evidence.   Will Beback  talk  22:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This set of three proposals is about the ex-premie site, and whether we should consider it as being among the most reliable sources worthy of being reflected in this article – even if only as an EL – or not. Editors have argued that the ex-premie site represents a significant POV that is more reliable than available scholarly sources and therefore should be represented in the article as an external link. Some editors have considered the question so important that they edit-warred and got themselves blocked at AE over it. Jayen466 22:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

These three proposals are formulated in wording that could have considerably broader applications. If that was your sole intention, then suggest you reformulate your proposals so that would be the only effect. Durova^Charge! 22:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources and external links are different things, and this proposal only addresses sources. But since you've raised the issue there is a serious problem with the continued use of Cagan, and this may be the best pleace to address it. If we agree that we should only use the best sources, and if we've shown that one source is far from the best, then it's a problem if editors keep using that source. Right?   Will Beback  talk  22:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggest you move that discussion to the workshop talk page? Durova^Charge! 23:09, 2 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)

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)

I don't subscribe to the view that social science and religious scholarship are expendable commodities in the encyclopedic treatment of sociological and religious topics. Where scholarly sources exist, they are usually considered the most reliable sources. The rest is covered by WP:SOURCES and WP:RS. Jayen466 20:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that you hold such a view, Jayen. Durova^Charge! 20:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, do you hold such a view? Because what you said above sounded like Wikipedia editors could and should decide in which areas existing scholarly literature should be consulted, and in which areas it could be dispensed with. Perhaps that wasn't your intent, but I would find that a troubling proposition. Jayen466 20:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Philosophical discussions are best conducted elsewhere. I don't edit this topic anyway; am withdrawing support since this is becoming contentious. Durova^Charge! 21:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

More topical precedents can be found in the Sathya Sai Baba arbitration findings 2007 and 2006. (Incidentally, the Sai Baba case is headed for RFAR again, unless I am very much mistaken.) These arbcom decisions also address the use of scholarly sources. Jayen466 11:49, 3 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)

I think that the behavioral issue here is whether the same 3RR exemption that applies to removing actual text in a BLP also applies to removing external links. Even if an external link is inappropriate for one reason or another, it isn't clear now that it is OK to edit wr over removing it. Momento was told last year by an uninvolved admin that it wasn't. It isn't necessary for the ArbCom to decide the content issue.   Will Beback  talk  19:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Would you like to work on drawing up corresponding proposals? Jayen466 22:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course.   Will Beback  talk  23:00, 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)

Agreed, there should be clearer standard for external links. But "established publishing firm" has no useful meaning in regards to websites, and this arbitration is not the place to make such a sweeping new standard. Perhaps we need an external links noticeboard? I don't know. Also, in case anyone doesn't know, I edit a website that aims to be a fair, nonpartisan, opinionated collection of "all the scandals on all of the [U.S.] presidential candidates" - The Skeleton Closet - so I have a personal stake in the discussion. Msalt (talk) 09:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"Etablished publishing firm" is not part of the proposal. Something like IMDB or the Gothamist makes the grade as an encyclopedic source; something like EPO or the Skeleton Closet does not – please don't take that personally, there is a place for such websites, but I would argue that they are not good sources for an encyclopedia, especially not BLP articles. Jayen466 11:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing personal taken, though I think the Arbcom might want a better principle than "they are not good sources." Gothamist is new to me -- it looks to be a "news of the moment" source, ironically (given discussions in this article) somewhat like a tabloid.[1] Gothamist looks like a newspaper online; it would then be compared to an other newspaper as a source, and I would always prefer the New York Times, LA Times, Wall Street Journal, etc. Don't know EPO either, and wasn't involved in the 1 link compromise, again you may be conflating external links with sources. To me a valuable reason for an EL is to provide a fair survey of information with pointers to reliable sources; ie a quick way for the reader to find more information. That would be the purpose of IMDB, Skeleton Closet, and presumably EPO - Gothamist would not be of much use for that. Msalt (talk) 14:54, 3 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)

See my response above.   Will Beback  talk  19:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Especially given my personal experience, I think that external links should be judged by their reliability, not whether they are negative or positive in focus. Wikipedia policy favors covering the range of reliably sourced POVs, and requires the positive view (or at least how the subject chooses to represent themselves). In certain (admittedly unusual) cases, a fair reliable website that compiles negative material as a matter of focus may be precisely what Wikipedia calls for in an external link. In the case at hand, for example, if there were a high quality, reliable website that compiled material critical of various religious figures without a sectarian preference. Rick Ross may aspire to that, from what I've seen in discussions here, though I have not read his site and don't have any opinion as to whether it is up to standard. I gather that he is both controversial and a Wikipedia editor. Msalt (talk) 09:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV and sourcing

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Adapted from a principle that was part of the final decision in the 2007 Sai Baba case. Jayen466 16:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I accept that. I don't think the role of scholarly sources can be over-emphasised. As it stands it could use a bit of trimming, esp the last sentence, but the sentence on using more polarised sources to illustrate the range of opinion seems an encyclopedic step in the right direction. Rumiton (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there are occasions where the role of scholarly sources might be overemphasized. Would you trust scientific research about the health effects of tobacco that was funded by tobacco companies? I'd be more interested in an investigative report on the tobacco industry's campaign financing practices, which no academic journal would be likely to cover but a good mainstream newspaper would publish. Not everything worth our attention occurs within the ivory tower. Durova^Charge! 17:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This section IMHO overemphasizes the role of of scholarly sources, which as stated above would support contentious editing by Momento (who has unilaterally deleted high-quality newspaper sources as inferior to scholarly journals, even when the newspapers discuss subjects not covered in journals (which of course, don't cover as many subjects as newspapers and magazines.) Msalt (talk) 05:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy

5) Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It is not an appropriate platform for propaganda or advocacy of any kind, nor is it a suitable vehicle for the promotion of websites engaged in such efforts.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, partly following two principles from the 2006 and 2007 Sai Baba cases. Jayen466 16:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do you mention websites but omit books? Peace is Possible has been promoted even more extrensively than the website and advocates a particular POV. I'd support this if "websites" was deleted or if "books" was included.   Will Beback  talk  01:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Citing a book is not the same as promoting it, in the way that a link to a website promotes that website. For background, the Rawat biography by Andrea Cagan (an established celebrity biographer who is not a follower of Rawat's to my knowledge) is published by a one-book publisher apparently owned by people with close ties to Rawat. Translations in a number of languages have appeared with more established publishers abroad. The question of how to use this book and whether to use it at all has in the past been a point of contention. Because of its proximity to the subject, I think Cagan is generally best covered by WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB, in essence: Fine to use sparingly where such use is not unduly self-serving and makes no claims about third parties, but a more reputable source should always be preferred where available. Have there ever been arbcom principles or remedies about the proper use of (quasi-)authorised biographies? Jayen466 13:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Linking to a website conveys the idea that the content meets the standards of Wikipedia. In effect the site becomes part of the article. Books don't act in quite the same way, but I agree that the anti-soapbox rules should still apply. Rumiton (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:V does not say "use questionable sources about living people if those are the best you can find". Cagan is published by MightRiver, and we aren't writing any articles about them, so it is incorrect to call it "self-published" in this context. We went over all of this last summer. As for promotion, both the book and the website have been promoted on Wikipedia. Both have been linked, and both have had articles written about them. I think we need to be neutral in hope we approach these sources which have a lot in common. Clearly, advocacy is a problem in this topic but it is mostly a problem of advocacy by followers of the subject who've been the dominant editors of the topic.   Will Beback  talk  01:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I could support this proposal if "websites" is removed, or if it's broadened to cover all sources, including partisan publications.   Will Beback  talk  01:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

How could we word it? While I agree that Cagan could aptly be described as a "partisan publication", that term in itself is not well suited to help editors involved in a dispute. Jayen466 08:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This gets into a difficult gray area: article NPOV v. source NPOV. Many sources do have a point of view, and part of our core responsibility as editors is to represent the reliable ones in the approximate proportion their weight carries in the real world. Individual editors who themselves have strong views on a topic often mistake the presence of an opposing opinion for advocacy of that opinion, and this proposal does nothing to sharpen a line that is often too blurry and a source of contention. For example, on the topic of abortion Operation Rescue and the National Organization for Women have well-known advocacy positions. They are both a presence in public debate; Wikipedia cannot ignore their existence. But would this proposal make things harder or or easier for editors to sort out how to represent them fairly? I think it would make matters more difficult. Durova^Charge! 16:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

How about replacing "promotion of websites engaged in such efforts" with promotion of propaganda or advocacy"? Of course, this contradicts the directive to include organizations' own official websites, both as it stands now and as I propose. Msalt (talk) 05:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

6) Editors at Wikipedia are expected to work towards NPOV in their editing activities. It is not possible to pursue NPOV while remaining committed to advancing outside interests. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest codifies the principle that editors may not edit articles about themselves or organizations they represent due to this inherent conflict. However, the conflict of interest guideline is of deliberately limited compass and does not prohibit editors from working on articles about entities to which they have only an indirect relationship.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Based on a principle from the Sai Baba case, with a quote from current WP:COI policy integrated. Jayen466 12:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel we are quite there yet with this one. Does an editor who owns an involved, non-neutral website have a COI? Does a member of an organisation "represent" the organisation? Should a local community representative of the US Republican Party edit a biography of George W. Bush? Previous WP:COI decisions I have seen suggested (but not all that clearly) that "interest" here primarily means pecuniary interest. That at least is clear-cut. Rumiton (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe that's an incorrect interpretation of the policy. WP:COI says: Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. That includes advocacy and activism. Clearly, a guru-student relationship is stronger than a Wikipedia-editor relationship. If editors cannnot place Wikipedia ahead of their views of their spiritual teacher then they have a COI.   Will Beback  talk  22:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it is fair and proper for Wikipedia to ask editors to act first and foremost in the interest of creating an NPOV article when participating in Wikipedia, and to investigate for themselves if they are able to do so. However, note that we ask this of all editors, irrespective of their religious (or antireligious) stance. Clearly, to a person with a profound belief in Jesus as their Saviour, or in Muhammad (PBUH) as the Seal of the Prophets, this belief will have a greater and deeper significance in their lives than their participation in Wikipedia. Even so, we expect them to do a fair job of summarising what the best and most reliable authoritative sources have said, even if it goes against their own ingrained view. (And we all know that in actual practice many, many editors with strong POVs fall short of the ideal.) Jayen466 01:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

For reference, here is the final decision of last year's case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat#Final_decision Jayen466 13:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with your example. The point is, COI is not a ban, but a higher level of scrutiny. It's fine that followers of a Jesus or Muhammad or Prem Rawat or any religious figure are allowed to edit that figure's page, but it's only appropriate that their contributions be closely scrutinized when they're editing his page for overly positive POV. That's common sense. It in no implies any judgement of their religious belief or general ability to edit. Msalt (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

What is this intended to clarify? Other than a general statement on COI, it appears to have little direct application to this dispute. Durova^Charge! 16:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

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.

Removal of poorly sourced negative information

1) Negative information in an article or on a talk page regarding Prem Rawat or organizations affiliated with him which is poorly sourced may be removed without discussion. The three revert rule shall not apply to such removal. This includes links to critical websites which contain original research or which consist of personal accounts of negative experiences with Prem Rawat or organizations affiliated with him. It is inappropriate for a user to insert a link to a website maintained by the user (or in which the user plays an important role).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This is a verbatim copy of the remedy issued in the 2006 Sai Baba arbitration case, and reconfirmed in the 2007 case. Jayen466 17:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This is just a restatement of the long-standing reverting requirements contained in BLP. Poorly sourced, defamatory material is to be deleted without discussion. Rumiton (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The absolute last thing this article needs is encouragement for unilateral reverting. I don't know what happened at Sai Baba, but we have seen many cases in which Momento and others have pushed the meaning of BLP to extremes in order to justify deletions that happen to coincide with their POV. And why specify negative information? The BLP policy suggests removal of all contentious material which is poorly sourced, not just negative. It would be much better to highlight this line of the policy: "Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory information about living persons should bring the matter to the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard for resolution by an administrator." Msalt (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of poorly sourced information

2) Information in an article or on a talk page regarding Prem Rawat or organizations affiliated with him which is poorly sourced may be removed. This includes links to websites which contain original research or which consist of personal accounts of experiences with Prem Rawat or organizations affiliated with him. It is inappropriate for a user to insert a link to a website maintained by the user (or in which the user plays an important role).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Adaptation of the same remedy used in the Sai Baba case. Addresses part of the concern expressed by MSalt, above. (I now see the wisdom of having both of these remedies side by side, even though at first sight they appear almost identical.) Jayen466 12:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

First, I would change "information" to "material". Information implies that it is true, which it may not be. BLP mandates that poorly sourced derogatory material SHOULD be removed without discussion, so no problem with that. Your second paragraph says that material which is questionable but not derogatory, "MAY be removed". But any material in any article may be removed if there is a good reason (reverting isn't a crime). How would this be effective in improving the article? Rumiton (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If this is going to list examples it should be broad enough to include PIP, another source that comes nowhere near being the most reliable available.   Will Beback  talk  00:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

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: