Initiated by

Rainer P.

Case affected

Prem Rawat 2

Remedy to which an amendment is requested

• Rainer P. (talk · contribs) indefinitely banned from all articles and discussions related to Prem Rawat [1]

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Rainer P. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Momento (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notification)
• Rumiton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notification)
• The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (notification)

Information about amendment request

• Rainer P. indefinitely banned from all articles and discussions related to Prem Rawat. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat_2#Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictions

• Request : Rainer P. unbanned.

• I have been indefinitely topic-banned by The Blade of the Northern Lights, for “persistant battleground behaviour” but he provides no evidence or diffs to support that charge.

• I have never engaged in “battleground behavior”. I regard my influence there as neutral, moderate and conciliatory. About the only comment about me notes “Rainer's attempt to pull this discussion back on track seems a move in a positive direction”.[2]

• I have edited Prem Rawat articles less than 10 times in three years. I have made edits only with full consent from all after previous discussion, like my last edit to the article on October 19th.[3]

• Most of my edits have been to the Talk Page because I have extensive knowledge of the subject and want to help the article editors. I have never been uncivil despite being frequently provoked.

• I have never been warned or criticised in over three years of editing.

• I have never been part of an Arbitration action. And so, as per Discretionary Sanctions, I should have received a warning before banning.[4][5]

• I have never been banned or blocked or otherwise been subject to disciplinary actions.

• I have looked at all my edits and I cannot see what I have done wrong.

Thanks for inviting me to comment. I don't understand the reason for Blade's implementation of these bans so I will wait to hear from him before commenting further. Rumiton (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Blade has made a statement. For the record, I am not a SPA. In 5 years, I have made 9316 Wikipedia edits to 1138 pages, including helping develop several high-profile articles to FA status (see my Talk Page.)

I have now read Blade's comments 4 times, but I still find them problematic. He says: "What I could see was a pattern of editing that was slowly but surely slanting the article away from criticisms of Rawat." This may be true, but is it necessarily a bad thing? If an article starts off by being unduly weighted against a subject; if it is packed with long-ago trivia and gossip from lesser sources and ignores or minimises the real recent achievements that sources tell us a subject has made, is restoring a balance not what we are supposed to do? OTOH, if someone believes that this is not the case, should they not vigorously present their argument on the talk page?

He then says, "Rainer P. came by with some frequency to support the first two." (Momento and me.) Is this also a bad thing? "Although Rainer P. didn't edit the article a lot, he made a large number of comments now located at Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 49." Yes, that's true, he did.

"Jimbo stated his intent to get involved in trying to remove the bias from the article." I don't want to add lese-majesty to whatever may be my other crimes, but IMO Jimbo's editing was hardly directed at "removing bias" when he added the word "cult" prominently to the lead. The word now appears twice three times in the first paragraph, without even the specific in-line attribution which is recommended in the Style Manual.

It seems to me that Blade has overstepped the line in deciding for himself what is undue weight, and especially in banning Rainer P. who is one of the mildest and most conciliatory editors I have worked with. Rumiton (talk) 11:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few impressions of the recent dynamics of this article discussion page and editing that includes Blade of the Northern Lights recent blocks. I had very little knowledge of Prem Rawat and of the editors who edit on this article until a few months ago with one exception, a now banned editor. I came to the page because of a comment I saw on Jimbo's talk page which seemed to me to be very uncivil.

Clearly discussion and editing on this page is highly contentious. However, while editors had strong opinions about how policy applied to content and sources, I did not see anything unreasonable in the issues raised. it seemed to me that some editors where intent on protecting past edits and content, while other editors were interested in contesting some content. I don't see anything wrong with any of this. Discussion pages are for discussion. This is contentious and a BLP so there's going to be lots of differing opinion. Once an uninvolved editor (olive) had come onto the page and Blade had made a few warning remarks in reference to civility, I felt things on the page settled down and editors were making a real effort to work collaboratively. I think that general process was ongoing and working. Issues were being discussed and then acted upon and there was little edit warring. The only inappropriate aspect of the process was periodic incivility which tended to degrade the process. I didn't see battleground behaviour in Memento, Rumiton or Rainer. Nor did the three of them always agree with each other. That isn't to say they didn't have strong opinions and were willing to express them. Rainer was always mild mannered, polite, and conciliatory in his positions. (I'm not taking credit for any quieting down on the page. I suspect any outside person requesting quiet above the din could change the long standing dynamic on that page)

It was after the page had quieted down and following a comment on Jimbo's talk page, and when progress was being made in terms of talk page dynamics that Blade sanctioned 4 editors silmultaneoulsy with out diffs to support the sanctions. Blade's ban didn't appear to follow the normal WP process by pointing to diffs of threads showing problematic behavior so I think posting diffs especially within context of the discussion as a whole would be a good next step for the banning admin to take.

In theory, sanctions in WP are meant to improve behavior. One can't improve if one doesn't know specifically what one has done wrong.(olive (talk) 03:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

• @Sir Fozzie: Editors have been sanctioned already. I may not have understood your statement.
• My points, and I may have not articulated them very well is that It would be helpful if diffs indicating sanctionable behaviour for each editor be shown rather than a simultaneous editor sanction with no diffs.
• @ Commenting Arbs: My first reading of the article when I came to it a few months ago was that it contained, as some contentious articles do, subtle tiny points which together serve to colour the article as a whole. This is an insidious form of editing dangerous for an encyclopedia especially on a BLP article. As is now, the article reads in a pretty neutral way excluding the second sentence of the lead which serves to describe another human being in only one way. Not good and not neutral. My experience with the editors on this page was that there was a genuine effort to improve their editing. The sanction came as a shock, especially the sanction of Rainer, in light of the improvements I saw in editing behaviour. Perhaps the difference with someone coming in, who is aware of the history and contentious nature of the article in general, but has no view of the editors, nor preconceptions about the topic area is that I didn't know or care what Rawat is in a personal way, nor do I care about editor motive. I'm looking at the present situation. I as a reader now, as the article is, sense that Rawat is controversial, has detractors and supporters, and I have a sense of what his tenets are. I no longer feel I am being manipulated to see Rawat in any particular way. The slant when I came in was pejorative. The Nixon article is probably a good example of a neutral article that could have easily been slanted in a pejorative way. This means to me process on the article is starting to work. I have left the article because support of edits was seen as support of editors which left me open for a a lot of abusive comments. Not what I have time for.(olive (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

In response to Roger Davies, if you want to switch the remedies over to discretionary sanctions, and want to find a way to deal with the existing bans, you could decide that any existing bans placed under the old remedies are vacated, but are replaced by new bans of the same duration subject to arbitration enforcement appeal. Once you had made that change, you could deal with Rainer P.'s appeal by having a clerk copy it over to WP:Arbitration enforcement. EdJohnston (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the evidence of Rainer's "persistent battleground behaviour"? I can't see it. Little Olive Oil and Silk Tork can't see it. BOTNL can't provide a single diff. And no one has raised it on Rainer's talk page or Prem Rawat talk. The only person accused of "battleground behaviour" on the Prem Rawat articles this year is PatW. Four separate editors have found it necessary to go to PatW's talk page and ask him to modify his behaviour to no avail. [6][7][8][9] And that doesn't include numerous comments on Prem Rawat talk. As for BOTNL's observation that "it was becoming obvious the article was being stifled by the incessant fighting and tendentious editing", I think this comment from an independent editor who wanted to contribute sums it up nicely - "I came to this page to see if the allegations being made about Memento's editing were true, but what strikes me as more egregious are the constant personal attacks by PatW and Surdas. Because of the hostility and unconstructive comments by those two, I'm unwilling to get involved at this point. PatW and Surdas, if you will work on getting your behavior back in line with WP's policies, I think more page watchers, such as myself, might be willing to get involved in the content discussion".[10] Rainer may be an SPA but he is, as WP:SPA notes "a well-intentioned editor with a niche interest" and "the community seeks to attract new and well-informed users knowledgeable in a particular subject". Rainer's appeal should have been over in five minutes, he has done nothing wrong and "the project" is diminished when "mild mannered, polite, and conciliatory" editors are hounded and sanctioned for their personal beliefs.Momento (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Despite Silk Tork's optimism I think it is highly unlikely that, despite that fact the Rainer has done nothing wrong, he will get "a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at AE" agreeing with that. We've already seen him sanctioned without a shred of evidence. And two Abitrators have already made it clear that simply being an SPA is cause for concern.Momento (talk) 08:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Just to clarify. BOTNL says that "he had initially intended to institute the topic bans in late October, but first Hurricane Sandy and then a nasty snowstorm had other ideas". In fact BOTNL made more than one hundred edits from Hurricane Sandy until he decided to ban me on November 15th, less than 24 hours after PatW wrote on Jimbo's page. He now characterises my edits between November 10 and 15 as giving "the article a very pro-Rawat slant". Have any of you looked at these edits? Here's a synopsis.[11] And note that 17 editors were editing the article in the preceding month and not one of them objected to my proposals or edits. From October 1st to the time of my banning 20 different editors made 72 edits to the Prem Rawat article "hardly an article being stifled" as claimed by BOTNL. So who is turning Prem Rawat into a "battleground"? The editor BOTNL avoids discussing. An editor whose talk page has been visited 18 times by editors asking him to stop his "battleground" behaviour.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] Not to mention the countless times he has been asked to stop on the PR talk page. [30] And yet BOTNL did nothing until he banned Rainer.Momento (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me begin by saying I also think a blanket lifting here would be a bad idea; as noted below by Risker, there's something else at work with PatW's situation, and in any event these sorts of issues are normally considered on a case-by-case basis. In early April of this year, an ANI thread brought my attention to the Prem Rawat topic area; since that time, I have been watching over the Prem Rawat article and a few associated articles. From April to August, Rumiton was under an indefinite topic ban, but I was monitoring the other users linked above, and when I lifted his ban I continued to watch him. What I could see was a pattern of editing that was slowly but surely slanting the article away from criticisms of Rawat. Although Momento, Rumiton, and PatW (PatW being the sole voice of opposition) were clearly the most active of the three, Rainer P. came by with some frequency to support the first two; the percentage of edits these editors had to Prem Rawat and the talkpage referred to by Roger Davies below also caught my eye. With the exception of a couple of outbursts from PatW, it's not something that can easily be packaged in diffs, but watching it happen it was becoming very clear what was going on. User:Steven Zhang had come in to mediate in August, and he was seeing exactly the same patterns I was. By mid-October, it was becoming obvious the article was being stifled by the incessant fighting and tendentious editing. Although Rainer P. didn't edit the article a lot, he made a large number of comments now located at Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 49 (which for some reason isn't linked in the archive box at Talk:Prem Rawat; someone who knows how such things work may want to fix that seems this has been fixed; many thanks to Hahc21).

As was stated in the messages I gave them each, I had initially intended to institute the topic bans in late October, but first Hurricane Sandy and then a nasty snowstorm had other ideas, and I didn't think it'd be fair of me to topic ban people and disappear for several days; in those couple weeks, I saw a series of edits between November 10 and November 15 from Momento and Rumiton. These edits clearly gave the article a very pro-Rawat slant, and the tone on the talkpage made it readily obvious that was the intent. It was to the point where another editor noted on the talkpage how obvious it was, and even Jimbo stated his intent to get involved in trying to remove the bias from the article (something he later did); this made it even more obvious to me the continued presence of these users would be detrimental. I knew none of them would want to raise an AE thread because it would almost certainly result in the filer[s] being banned as well, and knowing the article was under article probation I decided to unilaterally do it myself.

I don't have a particularly strong opinion on whether or not to remove the article probation sanction and replace it with standard DS; though the current article probation makes it easier for one administrator to manage major problems without requiring 15 threads in 10 places, I also understand not wanting to give administrators too much power over articles. As to the lifting of the topic bans, I think allowing SPAs who clearly have some sort of agenda back into the article will lead to exactly the same problems there were before. If you're going to replace article probation with standard DS, I'd support EdJohnston's suggestion above. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies; thanks for cleaning up the logs. It makes the job of AE admins a lot easier if we're certain we're logging things in the right place.
@Newyorkbrad; the case of Rainer P. is certainly a bit murkier than the others, but here's my take on it. Two users, Momento and Rumiton, were by far the most vocal pushing a particular POV; although Rainer P. didn't himself initiate many proposals on the talkpage, I saw that he was showing up to support the other two with an extremely high level of frequency. As mentioned above, I also noticed the extremely high percentage of edits to both the article and talkpage. When considering what to do, I thought given his history that if I were to only ban Momento and Rumiton, Rainer P. would almost certainly pick up right where they left off; given this would defeat the purpose of stopping users from stifling the article, I decided to ban him as well. It's not unlike some AE cases where upon looking at a situation, you not only see a problem with the subject of the thread but with someone else not originally mentioned. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Momento; just as I didn't want to hand out a topic ban and then disappear for several days, I also didn't want to come out of nowhere after being almost completely gone for almost a week and do something this drastic. Sandy hit my area Monday, October 29; I didn't get my internet back until the 3rd of November, Sunday afternoon. The very next day, I heard of the snowstorm, and while it ended up not knocking my power out it debilitated several towns immediately around mine and the threat of it lingered until about 4 or 5 days afterwards. I also have some other interests on Wikipedia as well, so it wasn't really the first thing I thought to do once I knew I was in the clear. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary.

Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• I've looked back at the contributions of Rainer P. (which are mainly to the talkpage of Prem Rawat) and I cannot find any problematic edits. I think it would help if The Blade of the Northern Lights could identify the problem areas for us. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 05:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And would this be better placed at AE? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 05:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support replacing the 2008 remedy with Standard Discretionary Sanctions, and then moving this individual's appeal to AE where the other users may also make an appeal if they wish. That a user has most of their edits in one location is not in itself a reason for a topic ban (even if the location is controversial) - it is the nature of the edits that matter (as discussed in Wikipedia:Single-purpose account), and I expect that during the individual appeals at AE it will be the nature of the edits of each user that will be examined rather than the amount. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've had a look at this too, but a slightly different perspective. The authority for the sanctions comes from the 2008 Prem Rawat Article Probation remedy. The 2008 remedy does not require prior warnings, and has no appeal provisions. Whatever else happens, we probably need to consider whether the 2008 remedy needs to be modernised by replacing it with Standard Discretionary Sanctions. If we do go down that road, we could consider replacing the current indefinite topic bans with warnings to bring enforcement into line with current provisions, though probably not for all four editors involved. In any event, I'd like very much to hear from Blade of the Northern Lights before this amendment request gets much older. Parhaps one of the clerks would be good enough to notify User:The Blade of the Northern Lights as well as the other topic-banned editors, User:Momento, User:Rumiton and User:PatW. Thanks in advance,  Roger Davies ^talk 14:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just looking at the contribution histories, 71% of Momento's edits are either to Prem Rawat or its talk page; 37% of Rumiton's; 86% of Rainer P.'s; and 77% of PatW's. Between them, they've added 11,800 edits to these pages.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @EdJohnston. That's a good idea. I'll think on the other mechanics/implications,  Roger Davies ^talk 18:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd be fine with bringing the remedy into the modern DS framework, however, a blanket lifting of the sanctions would be a bad idea. This appeal, however, we need to hear from Blade before proceeding further. (A motion on the underlying remedy would be in order before that, though) Courcelles 23:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Would be interested in bringing this into line with the current discretionary sanctions framework. I will note that I recently blocked PatW indefinitely for an attempt to out a user in relation to this topic. I am quite concerned about the fact that we seem to be dealing with several editors whose sole contribution to the project is in the Prem Rawat topic area, and I am unconvinced that any steps that permit these accounts to continue to monopolize the topic area is beneficial to the project. Risker (talk) 03:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that we need to bring this case in line with "modern" discretionary sanctions, but I don't think a blanket lifting of sanctions is workable, nor desirable. I share Risker's concerns that there are a number of SPA's who are very close to the edge of a sanction here. SirFozzie (talk) 09:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I completely understand why The Blade of the Northern Lights perceived problems in the editing of Prem Rawat, but if Rainer P. is correct that he "had never been warned or criticised in over three years of editing," then I can understand his perspective that immediately escalating to an indefinite topic-ban might be a bit drastic. I'd welcome The Blade of the Northern Lights' thoughts on that aspect. I also agree with the suggestion of moving to a discretionary sanctions regime on Prem Rawat and related articles, and allowing editors who are currently the subject of sanctions based on the 2008 decision (including Rainer P.) to request reconsideration of their status on AE. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By motion, the committee resolves that:

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.

Enacted - Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. There appears to be consensus for this in the discussion above. As a bit of gold-plating, I have consolidated the logs for RfAr:PR and RfAr:PR2 as they are currently separated. I should add that this motion is purely an administrative action and is in no way critical of User:The Blade of the Northern Lights. Please tweak if needed.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kirill ^[talk] 13:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Appropriate tidying up - including the merging of the logs. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Risker (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. This makes good sense as an amendment to the two Prem Rawat decisions. If it passes, could a Clerk please answer any questions Rainer P (or anyone else) might have about the procedures, as I expect that the distinction between an appeal to ArbCom and an appeal to Arbitration Enforcement may be opaque to editors unfamiliar with the arbitration pages. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Good housekeeping. Courcelles 17:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. SirFozzie (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Jclemens (talk) 07:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Upon implementation of this motion, Rainer's appeal should be submitted in the usual way to the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard. AGK [•] 23:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Arbitrator comments

• When this motion is enacted. would the clerks please notify all the users currently under the old sanctions to let them know of the change, given this creates a route of appeal that did not exist prior? Thanks. Courcelles 19:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The only users under current sanctions are those here.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---