Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard +  Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics ( Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks +  Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Case Opened on 20:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Case Closed on 02:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Case Amended by motion on 16:31, 20 December 2012 (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 when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), 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, bans, and restrictions 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.

Initiated by Durova ^Charge! at 08:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Durova ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Francis Schonken ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Will Beback ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Rumiton ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Momento ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jayen466 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Francis Schonken [1]
• Will Beback [2]
• Rumiton [3]
• Momento [4]
• Jayen466 [5]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat
• Last summer's mediation
• Content RFC [6] [7]
• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat-Balyogeshwar

Since the last arbitration there have been seven arbitration enforcement threads about this dispute, [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] three of which occurred after New Year's. The administrator who closed the most recent AE thread referred matters to arbitration. There was a content RFC within the last month, a mediation last summer, and a new mediation has been requested.

Normally we'd give time for other dispute resolution to play itself out, but this instance is unusual. Momento insists that he is being harassed by Will Beback. When a person believes they are being harassed then it is understandable that they would regard negotiation with the harasser as an inadequate solution, and instead insist upon intervention to stop the harassment. Will Beback insists he is not harassing Momento, and regards Momento's continued complaints as something like stonewalling. I specifically asked at AE whether mediation could resolve their problems and both parties to the new mediation replied that the issues exceed the scope of mediation.

Other policy issues exist such edit warring as the proper scope of BLP. People who have observed this situation for months have noted that when one page gets full protected the dispute tends to migrate to related pages. The Committee's decision last year to delegate discretionary sanctions hasn't worked. Although there's a measure of agreement that sanctions are needed, no administrator has threaded through all the conflicting arguments and made a determination. Durova ^Charge! 08:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Added links to individual AE threads per John Vandenberg's request. Durova ^Charge! 08:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Per Bainer's request, invited input from the following. Durova ^Charge! 18:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Shell Kinney
• PhilKnight
• Sandstein
• Cla68 (not an admin, but very experienced)
• Jehochman

Will Beback has added Jossi as a named party. If there is is strong evidence of recent socking since Jossi's retirement then that would be appropriate; otherwise suggesting the name be removed. [15] Durova ^Charge! 18:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

As noted below, Will has withdrawn Jossi's name. Durova ^Charge! 01:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Arbitration is too blunt a tool for the Rawat articles. Several parties in the last arbcom case, on all sides of the debate, stated their feelings upon conclusion that the outcome did not justify the amount of time and energy invested. I'd rather see formal mediation, where specific content issues can be discussed and negotiated. Informal mediation, which was in place several months last year under Steve Crossin, proved at least partially effective. Jayen 466 10:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Note: The list of parties above is not complete. It should include as a minimum those Rawat editors who commented at the AE threads. Off the top of my head, people missing are Msalt ( talk · contribs), Sylviecyn ( talk · contribs), Nik_Wright2 ( talk · contribs) and Pedrero ( talk · contribs). Jayen 466 11:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• I've left notes on the talk pages of the above editors. Jayen 466 11:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

This dispute predates Wikipedia. There are two opposing camps: the current members and the former members. They have profound and irreconcilable differences in their views of the topic. There've been seven AE filings and numerous threads on various noticeboards since last May. The topic went through a very extensive informal mediation from June to August 2008. While that mediation effort did result in some progress, it took over 100,000 words of talk, ended with the banning of the mediator, and has been substantially undone since then. The editors at WP:AE seem unable to handle this issue anymore, writing that the most recent dispute was either too simple or too complex for AE.

Momento has accused me of harassment at least 12 times since October, but when I've asked him to provide proof he's been silent. He uses the term very broadly. [16] Momento is a single purpose editor: fewer than a dozen edits out of his last 1600 (since May 2008) have been to other topics. [17] Keeping negative material out seems to be his greatest concern. [18] I've also learned that Momento has an undisclosed conflict of interest, and that he's promoted his own writings as a source without acknowledging his authorship. Rumiton, while not quite an SPA, is primarily focused on this topic too. Together with Momento they form a tag team to promote a particular POV.

The "anti-" editors have problems of a different kind. They mostly seem to have little understanding or patience for Wikipedia and their involvement has been often marked poor behaviors. They've insulted both the subject and the "pro-" editors, have engaged in edit wars, have inserted inappropriate links, have been blocked repeatedly, and have shaken their fists at the system in frustration. As a whole, they haven't been productive or NPOV editors.

Jayen466 and I are essentially in the middle. I believe we're both trying to bring the topic towards a more neutral middle ground but it's mostly been an unproductive activity. The previous remedies haven't worked. Other dispute resolution steps have been unsuccessful (or show little chance of succeeding). It's necessary to reopen this case to find a better resolution.   Will Beback  talk  11:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• I will submit the evidence about Jossi privately to the ArbCom.   Will Beback  talk  17:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• I've removed Jossi from the list of parties, and will submit the evidence as a separate matter.   Will Beback  talk  00:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply

WillBeBack is a fiercely anti-Rawat editor and over a long period of time, he has consistently violated WP:CIV to harass me, particularly -

• Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors

Example 1: Demonstrates a long standing pattern of "deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors". Here, in May 2008, WillBeBack asks me three times if "Collier is the most reliable source available", I say "No" three times. He then misleads another editor by falsely claiming that I assert that "Collier is the most reliable source available". [19]

Example 2: Providing evidence in an AE is a serious matter but WillBeBack demonstrates the intensity of "deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors". In the second AE complaint WillBeBack writes "Momento bears blame in this matter in that he instigated changes to material that had already been discussed, was sourced, and was stable. And then he proceeded to edit war over it". [20] A check of the history shows that Cla68 is the editor who "instigated changes to material that had already been discussed, was sourced, and was stable" and shows that WillBeBack and four other editors were edit warring before I make my second edit. [21]

Example 3: Demonstrates a willingness to selectively quote edit history to mislead other editors in an AE. Here in the third AE WillBeBack writes Momento has "a pattern of misbehavior regarding this particular bit of information" [22], giving this diff [23] but fails to disclose that my edit was to remove an undiscussed three hour old addition by FrancisSchonken to the lead that had been stable on this point for four years. [24] WillBeBack provides two more reverts from me but fails to disclose that during this period FrancisSchonken inserted this undiscussed addition 5 times and was also reverted by another editor before we gave up. [25]

Example 4: Demonstrates the harassment persists. In the third AE complaint WillBeBack wrote that the three protections in 2008 were "due to edit conflicts of which Momento was a part". [26] In fact, I was only a minor participant in one. [27]

I can provide plenty more examples of how WillBeBack "deliberately asserts false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors". Most recently in order to produce an unfavorable outcome against me in a AE forum. And how he selectively applies policy and guidelines to harass me, but the above evidence is more than enough to prove my claim that "I am being harassed by Will Beback". And, therefore I "insist upon intervention to stop the harassment". Momento ( talk) 03:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Contrary to Sylviecyn's statement above, the Prem Rawat article did not start out as a piece of promotional puff, it started as a hatchet job on the subject by an editor called Mike Finch, who no longer edits (see Prem Rawat/history.) To be fair, the requirements for BLP had not fully evolved then, but it was still an entirely objectionable piece which cried out for improvement. The furore about the name Balyogeshwar, and its putative place in the lead, springs from its origins as a childhood nickname. Bal means child. His elder brother's childhood/adolescent name was Bal Bagwan, and both of them dropped these names and others as a matter of course as they grew up. My not wanting this name in the lead is not an anti-Indian thing, quite the opposite, it is just that many aspects of traditional Indian behaviour are unknown, or seem strange, in the west. There are editors here who seem to want to maximise this, inserting Hindi names and script in the lead, and making this biography seem as alien and foreign as it can be made. Anyway, I think we have resolved this particular issue, we have all(?) agreed to "formerly."

I also have a problem with Will Beback's stance above as "neutral" to the subject of this article. He has also recently described himself as "skeptical". I shall spend a couple of hours tomorrow going through the archives collecting diffs that will show that "hostile" would be a better word. Rumiton ( talk) 15:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

• Jossi ( talk · contribs) has not edited since January 1, 2009, should he still be listed as a party for the general case or will that be dealt with separately and privately? MBisanz ^talk 14:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• He has been removed by Will Beback ( talk · contribs). Tiptoety ^talk 01:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (8/0/2/3)

• Comment Could we have links to the seven AE threads please. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 08:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment 2, I am still considering this request, however I will recuse if any party in the previous case requests it. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 13:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Accept to review the events of the last month or two, and the behaviour of the editors involved in the recent flare up. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 08:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Recuse. -- Vassyana ( talk) 09:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Accept to review the behaviour of all involved editors. A cursory review of these arbitration enforcement discussions seems to indicate that there are a number of parties engaged in editing the relevant article who are resistant to any form of collaboration. Normally this sort of situation might call for remedies to be amended or added to by motion, but given that this involves matters not covered by findings of fact in the first case, I don't think that would be appropriate. I think perhaps that the uninvolved admins who commented in the various enforcement discussions should also be invited to comment on this request. -- bainer ( talk) 10:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Will Beback, please submit the evidence you have collected with respect to sockpuppets to the Committee using the mailing list. Awaiting further statements before deciding on the case. Risker ( talk) 14:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Accept after reading the additional statements, to examine the behaviour of all parties, and the effectiveness of prior remedies. Risker ( talk) 14:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Accept. To review all parties' behavior and effectiveness of remedies. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Accept per bainer. FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Accept. Wizardman 15:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Accept - either the previous case didn't address the root cause of the disputes, or new disputes need to be addressed. Either way, a second case seems needed here, as arbitration enforcement doesn't seem to have worked. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Recuse for reasons stated in my email to arbcom-l on 28 January. However I encourage acceptance. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 00:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Accept. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision Information

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

Purpose of Wikipedia

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, or political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Passed 13 to 0, 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

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. Wikipedia is a mirror for human knowledge: it seeks to reflect, and not distort, the current state of thought on a subject.

Passed 13 to 0, 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral point of view and sourcing

3) The requirement of the neutral point of view 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 13 to 0, 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy of sourcing

4) The contents of source materials must be presented accurately and fairly. By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor represents that the quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes the contents and meaning of the original source, and that it is not being misleadingly or unfairly excerpted out of context.

Passed 13 to 0, 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons

5) 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 13 to 0, 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Identify sources

7) Even when adding sourced and cited material to an article, it is very often useful to identify the source used in the article text. This is so not only for opinions advocated by the source, but also for facts asserted by the source. Doing so not only facilitates evaluation of the veracity of the material by the reader, but helps to delineate the article's presentation of various points of view. This is particularly the case where the material is challenged or likely to be challenged. Weasel words should be avoided.

Passed 13 to 0, 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources in languages other than English

8) It is entirely permissible to use sources written in languages other than English in Wikipedia articles. However, for the convenience of readers, equivalent English language sources (if any) are to be preferred. Translations published by reliable sources are to be preferred to translations by Wikipedia editors.

The Babel system may be used to find users able to translate such sources in order to assist with verification of references.

Passed 13 to 0, 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

External links

9) External links are links in an article to resources outside of Wikipedia, other than those resources which are being directly used as sources for the article. Typically, resources that provide neutral and accurate material, but whose contents are - for reason of detail, copyright limitations, or otherwise - beyond the scope of inclusion in Wikipedia, should be linked to. Resources whose contents are ultimately germane for inclusion in Wikipedia ought not be linked, but rather their contents should be incorporated into the article.

Resources which are not sufficiently neutral or accurate to stand alone, but which nevertheless provide useful material, should similarly be incorporated into the article, where context and complementary material may be provided to address the problem of neutrality or accuracy. If this is not possible or not appropriate in the circumstances, then the resource should not be linked to.

Passed 9 to 3 to 1, 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

External links and biographies of living persons

10) Just as biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, the process of deciding whether or not to include an external link in a biography of a living person must be motivated by the objective of preventing potential harm to the subject. Particular attention should be paid to the desirability of either treating within the article, or else excluding, resources which do not live up to the standards of neutrality and accuracy such that they may stand alone, without any context or complementary material.

Passed 11 to 0 to 2, 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of dispute is the article Prem Rawat, and to a lesser extent, certain other related articles concerning the Prem Rawat movement. The dispute broadly concerns the inclusion or exclusion of a variety of material critical of Rawat, of organisations associated with Rawat, of Rawat's supporters and detractors, and of Rawat's teachings.

Passed 13 to 0, 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Prior remedies

2) In the earlier Prem Rawat case, the Committee, recognising a broad background of problematic editing to Prem Rawat and related articles, placed those articles on article probation and reminded involved editors "who have or may be perceived as having a conflict of interest with respect to these articles ... to review and to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on [the neutral point of view] and conflicts of interest." The article probation remedy superseded an existing one-revert rule restriction imposed by the community following an administrators' noticeboard discussion.

Passed 13 to 0, 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement of prior remedies

3) The aforementioned article probation remedy has proved difficult to enforce. While some blocks and topic bans have been applied under it, arbitration enforcement noticeboard discussions have generally been intractable and unproductive, with many descending into arguments amongst the disputants (examples: May 08, Sep 08, Jan 09, Feb 09, Feb 09). This difficulty was noted by administrators Jehochman ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Sandstein ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), both of whom had responded to enforcement discussions, in their statements to the Committee.

Passed 13 to 0, 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Prior mediation

4.1) This dispute was the subject of an informal mediation from April to August 2008. The mediation, which was somewhat successful, ended after a request for a changeover to formal mediation was made, but unanimous agreement among the parties on proceeding to formal mediation could not be secured.

Passed 12 to 0 to 1, 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

5) The Prem Rawat article, and to a lesser extent related articles, have been subject to a plethora of edit-wars, involving a number of different editors. Examples include:

inclusion or exclusion of various external links (Feb 2008)

Francis Schonken, Momento, Francis Schonken, Janice Rowe, Francis Schonken, 24.176.193.149, Francis Schonken, 32.155.57.53, Francis Schonken, Momento, Francis Schonken, Rainer P., Francis Schonken

inclusion or exclusion of the word "Balyogeshwar" in the article's lede (Feb 2008)

Francis Schonken, Momento, Francis Schonken, Momento, Francis Schonken

a passage concerning Rawat's father's death (May 2008)

Momento, Francis Schonken, Momento, Francis Schonken, Momento

Note that this edit war commenced only a day after the Prem Rawat case closed.

concerning the lede and a section entitled "lifestyle" (Oct 08)

Rumiton, Will Beback, Momento, Will Beback

concerning an external link (Jan 09)

On Prem Rawat: 99.245.228.162, Momento, 80.225.154.116, Rumiton, 41.223.60.60, Rumiton, Nik Wright2, Pongostick, Nik Wright2, Momento, 41.223.60.60, Momento, Nik Wright2, Momento, 41.223.60.60, Momento, 41.223.60.60, Rumiton

On teachings of Prem Rawat: Nik Wright2, Pongostick

On Elan Vital (organization): Nik Wright2, Jayen466

concerning external links (Jan 09)

66.253.10.227, Will Beback, Pongostick, Will Beback, Pongostick

concerning the lede (Jan 09)

Cla68, Rumiton, Cla68, Momento, Pongostick, Jayen466 (partial revert), Rumiton (new addition), Will Beback, Rumiton (partial revert), Surdas, Pongostick, Will Beback, Pongostick, Surdas, Momento (partial revert), Wowest, 32.172.21.9, Surdas, 32.172.21.9, Mike R, Pongostick (partial revert)

Passed 13 to 0, 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Momento

6) Momento ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has:

1. treated Wikipedia as a battleground: [28], [29]
2. absent adequate justification based on policy or consensus, repeatedly removed sourced material: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]

Passed 10 to 3, 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Rumiton

7) Rumiton ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has:

1. removed sourced material, stating that the source is wrong: [42],
2. altered a direct quotation from a source: [43], [44]
3. treated Wikipedia as a battleground: [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]

Passed 10 to 3, 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Jossi

8) The Arbitration Committee notes that Jossi ( talk · contribs), a party to the prior Prem Rawat case, has retired.

Passed 11 to 0, 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

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.

Momento topic banned

1) Momento ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from editing Prem Rawat or any related article (including talk pages) for one year.

Passed 8 to 5, 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Rumiton topic banned

2) Rumiton ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from editing Prem Rawat or any related article (including talk pages) for one year.

Passed 8 to 5, 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Revert limitations

3.1) The Prem Rawat article and all related articles are subject to an editing restriction for one year. No user may revert any given changes to a subject article more than once within a seven day period, except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations. Furthermore, if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period.

Passed 11 to 1 to 1, 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Users admonished

3.2) Francis Schonken ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Nik Wright2 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Pongostick ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Will Beback ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are admonished for their conduct in articles related to Prem Rawat.

Passed 10 to 0 to 1, 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Mediation encouraged

4) The parties and other interested editors are encouraged to resume or restart mediation in relation to Prem Rawat and related articles.

Passed 13 to 0, 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Remedies preserved

5) The remedies applied in this case are in addition to the existing remedies applied in the Prem Rawat case, which are not affected by this decision.

Passed 13 to 0, 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Jossi required to resolve disputes before returning to this area

6) Should Jossi return to Wikipedia to edit articles related to Prem Rawat, he is required to contact the Arbitration Committee so any outstanding editing disputes can be resolved. Per usual practices, this remedy applies to the person, not a named user account.

Passed 11 to 1 to 1, 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement by block

1a) Should any user violate a topic ban or an editing restriction imposed in or under this case, that user may be briefly blocked, up to one week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2#Log of blocks and bans.

Passed 9 to 0, 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Superseded on 20 December 2012.

Enforcement by extension of bans or restrictions

2) Should any user violate a topic ban or an editing restriction imposed in or under this case, their ban or restriction may be reset, instead of or in addition to enforcement by block. All resettings are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2#Log of blocks and bans. Superseded on 20 December 2012.

Passed 13 to 0, 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Modified by motion

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)