Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Prem Rawat
Status	Closed
Request date	00:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	See list
Mediator(s)	Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 23:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment	Case being mediated at the Mediation Committee, by myself.

User:AGK/A

talk:Prem Rawat, talk:Divine Light Mission, etc.

• Jayen466 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• Maelefique (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• Nik Wright2 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• Rainer P. (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• Savlonn (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• Terrymacro (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• Will Beback (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• Zanthorp (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

There is a long running dispute over many issues concerning Prem Rawat and related articles. Rather than solving an individual dispute, long term mediation is needed to help users find consensus on matters as they arise.

The topic has been the subject of an RfAR and mediation in 2008, and a second RfAR in 2009 in which the ArbCom recommended further mediation.

Potential issues:

1. Reinstating undisputed edits
2. Inclusion of the word "cult" in the intro to Prem Rawat
3. The problem arising from having definitive primary sources ... which contradict ... all the established literature.
4. The subject’s notability deriving from his relationship to an organisation.
5. The functional (as opposed to notional) history of the organisations that support(ed) Hans Rawat, Satya Pal Rawat and Prem Pal Rawat.
6. The inherent requirement to acknowledge the ‘cult’ appellation as it relates to both the Divine Light Mission/Elan Vital and Prem Rawat.
7. Use of names besides "Prem Rawat" where appropriate, in particular, "Guru Maharaj Ji" when writing about the DLM and the 1970s.
8. Making edits without consensus - should a formalised process of consensus be defined for the topics in question?
9. COI issues related to editors in this mediation process and possible editors in the future who may get involved.

Disputed sources:

1. Andrea Cagan
2. Randi
3. Watts

Less strife, more consensus.

It would help if a mediator could frame the discussion or otherwise help parties reach agreements on specific editing issues.

I've thought about it for quite some time, and I've decided to take this case on. I'm probably in the best position to mediate this, as I have prior knowledge of the dispute area, and I mediated this previously, so I know what can work, will work, and won't work, when it comes to mediation. I've written up some ground rules, that I'd like everyone to agree to. I hope that we can come to an amicable soltuion. Best, Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed an amendment request at RFAR, in the spirit of mediation, asking that discussions that take place in this mediation will be priveliged, and cannot be used as evidence against other editors in other forms of dispute resolution. I believe that this will allow freer, more candid discussion, where you can speak your mind, without fear of retribution. Feel free to comment. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might just note that there is a difference between "undisputed" and "has consensus". Might be best to obtain the latter in this case, rather than the former. Though I'd normally defer to WP:SILENCE, in this case, probably best if there's a solid consensus for everything. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 10:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that most of you are familiar with my style of mediation, nevertheless, I will post the ground rules below.

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

Please sign just your username below, with four tildes (~~~~) to indicate your agreement with the ground rules and your participation in the case.

--JN466 23:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Savlonn (talk) 06:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Nik Wright2 (talk) 06:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Rainer P. (talk) 07:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Terry Macro (talk) 08:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Zanthorp (talk) 07:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Will Beback  talk  00:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Maelefique ^(talk) 15:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That's great. I'm glad everyone agrees. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Umm. Before you jump the gun here, Steve, why have I been excluded from mediation? Have I been banned, blocked, or censured? There are parties here who accepted, rejected, and then added their names in acceptancein the past few days. Why am I not named as a party? It would be really good if the right hand is in communication with the left hand on this. Especially important is that the TerryMacro COI issue, which can be found on the talk page of this article, the talk page of Prem Rawat, and the COI Noticeboard, has not been resolved. I want to be a party to this mediation case. Please lemme know. Let's not ignore obvious outstanding issues that will affect mediation that are of great import. Thank you. Sylviecyn (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will respond to you in regards to this on your user talk page. Here really isn't the appropriate venue. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Case watchlisted, will keep an eye on this to see if anyone else wished to mediate it. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 11:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've posted a note about the ground rules on the talk page.   Will Beback  talk  23:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Steve has requested that privilege be extended to participants in this mediation. The Mediation Committee has agreed with this and is willing to accept the mediation as a Mediation Committee case. I will assist Steve with the mediation. Sunray (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The Mediation Committee case page has been set up at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 4. Participants are invited to sign in there. Sunray (talk) 00:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1%] Garner party agreement to ground rules.

[5%] Discuss and document current issues that need to be addressed, discussed, and resolved, over the course of the mediation. Address the fact that not all issues will be resolved, and discuss possible long term solutions.

[10%] Re-establish the party stances in the dispute, obtaining opening statements to ascertain what each party wishes to get out of the mediation, and the issues they feel need addressing.

[15%] Initiate discussion on the first issue, discussing issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Implement solution when one is achieved.

[25%] Initiate discussion on the second issue, discussing issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Implement solution when one is achieved.

[35%] Initiate discussion on the third issue, discussing issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Implement solution when one is achieved.

[45%] Initiate discussion on the fourth issue, discussing issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Implement solution when one is achieved.

[55%] Assess the status of the mediation, as to how the solutions that have been implemented have helped with the status of the article, discuss views with parties as to how the mediation, and status of the articles is progressing.

[60%] Re-visit previous issues, discussing alternative solutions, if required.

[80%] Discuss the articles with parties, offering advice as to how to better manage disputes in future, for example, the "no controversial edits without consensus" idea.

[90%] Discuss long term options to help keep the article stable, including long-term mediation on the talk page, as required.

[100%] Close mediation.