Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:52, 25 March 2008

How do we know the extent to which Arbcom arbitrators are informed about Jossi's COI?

I ask this because I have no idea whether it is either helpful or permissable to provide a number of links which I have unearthed on the matter. Some of these are links to external sites, many are within Misplaced Pages. PatW (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if the arbitrators and others are well informed about something, it is worth recording it as evidence anyway, in order that the evidence page contains all the necessary background for someone unfamiliar with the case to come up to speed. If you feel that Jossi's COI is worth noting, please do so. John Vandenberg (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

In general, it's best not to make any assumptions about the extent to which arbitrators are aware of the background of cases. There are a lot of arbitration issues which are discussed privately and do not appear onwiki. Other disputes rage onwiki and never come before the committee. If you think something is relevant to a case, then present it as evidence; it may be best in some cases to present evidence privately. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I was a little confused by the blurb in the header which made no mention of external links. Maybe I am a little paranoid about being 'correct' since I already stand accused of various transgressions of protocol. Jossi has repeatedly admonished me for linking to sites where there is really useful information but which he considers 'out of bounds'. I don't want to waste my 100 links or 1000 words (I think that's the gist of the evidence page isn't it?) which I may need later to defend myself. I have found one site which I would really like everyone to read because it has links to most of the things I feel prove Jossi's absurd degree of COI and it gives a good overview. Can I simply point everyone to this site and request they follow the links from there? Or should I reproduce them on the evidence page one by one? For reasons stated I would obviously rather link to the host article. Thank you.PatW (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Pat, Sam mentioned the possibility to present some evidence "privately": that means: send to the arbcom mailing list: arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org

Then, you can mention the point you try to make on the "/Evidence" page, saying: "evidence sent to ArbCom".

Some of such evidence has already been sent to ArbCom in this way, for example by me a few weeks before the Prem Rawat case was even initiated. Whether I'm going to refer to that evidence in the case here I don't know yet, just showing the possibilities.

And then a recommendation specifically for you: try to make it brief. Try to go by the principle: the shorter a message on a webpage, the more likely it's going to be read to the end by all involved.

If you're not sure whether a link to a particular external site can be used on the evidence page (e.g. extremist sources, compare definition of such sources at Misplaced Pages:RS#Extremist sources), you can always ask the ArbCom clerck (User:Jayvdb), and if the clerck can't decide, the arbitrators themselves whether the source is opportune. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

There's more latitude given here than is usually given in an article, especially a BLP. Post and link away. If it isn't allowed for some reason, the clerk, who controls this page, will let you know. If anyone besides the clerk or a sitting arbitrator removes any evidence you post, inform the clerk immediately and the clerk will take care of it. Cla68 (talk) 06:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Cla, apart from the "Post and link away" - there's always appreciation for orderly discussion. That is, I agree with "post and link away" if it doesn't lead to tabloid style. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess I believe in the firehose style of evidence presentation. I would suggest using bullet format with a bullet for each link/diff with a concise explanation explaining the significance of each diff/link. Introduce your bullet list with a short summary of the overall point you're trying to make that the bulleted evidence will support. Just some unsolicited advice. Cla68 (talk) 07:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It's Easter and I've had constant family commitments. I've been aware that I should present 'evidence' in somewhat of a hurry. Yesterday (and night) was my only chance to attempt something like everyone's helpfully suggested. I am aware that the links to 'page sections' (I've provided) may be harder to peruse than diffs. Jossi has immediately criticised me for this. I suppose he fancies I am being deliberately trouble-making. Trouble is, I have limited time and am not sure how to extract the Diffs from these Page Sections which is why I've included exact dates and times. I observe Jossi has used an incomplete quote against me (re. Momento's 'cynical' response to Vassayana's article appraisal.) Interestingly I've referred to the Page Section that contains the exact same quote (in full) but to make the opposite point to Jossi. I see there is a potential problem when isolated Diffs or parts of conversations are used out of context, unfairly or to mislead. Whilst I don't expect arbitrators to wade through each and every Page Section I would prefer that they did this in even just a few cases than judge my (or others) behaviour from isolated or incomplete quotes. This is why I've presented a more overall list of points which I consider to be pertinent. Thanks.PatW (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

delay proceedings

I dont think there is any benefit to be found in putting the case officially on hold for a few days. My personally recommendation is that people continue to present Evidence, and limit the Workshopping until Jossi has had time to present evidence. I think it would be appropriate that people refrain from proposing decisions; that stage is usually best left until a good body of evidence has been presented. John Vandenberg (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed a few "wikibreak" notices, as they are not evidence and this case will keep rolling on wiki style through these breaks. John Vandenberg (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Word Count

Is the 1,000 word limit only a guideline ? Or is Jossi as an admin allowed latitude that others are not ? Or is it that answering points raised by other Users does not count toward the 1,000 word limit ?

--Nik Wright2 (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It is only a guideline. Jossi is not given any special treatment. The 1000 word limit is for the main body of evidence presented, and long answers are not advisable. John Vandenberg (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

John Brauns's evidence

Jossi has requested here that I consider moving John Brauns's current evidence to the talk and requesting that he trim it down. In my opinion, that section of evidence is far from ideal as it is too descriptive, but it does assert a few relevant facts but they are not strongly backed by evidence. As a result, I've asked that John Brauns revise it for the benefit of the committee. John Vandenberg (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I will try to trim it in the next few days but the allegation that Jossi has never reverted a pro-Rawat edit is based on the fact that I would be pleasantly shocked if I ever saw him do this, and I have yet to experience such a shock. It is difficult to identify particular edits that he should have reverted. It would be much easier to prove me wrong, and Jossi could do so by listing a few diffs where he has reverted pro-Rawat edits.--John Brauns (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone asked?

In any formal or official capacity has anyone just straight out asked Jossi what his affiliations with Prem Rawat are? Hohohahaha (talk) 03:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I asked Jossi about his affiliations to Prem Rawat related websites, see Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 30#Unsupported claims and Lack of Good Faith: "Jossi, could you clarify your involvement in or relation (if any) to the websites listed in the "external links" section of the Prem Rawat article and/or under discussion here and/or subject to reverting in the article? Tx."

Jossi didn't answer and appeared annoyed with the question, see Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 31#Biographies of Living Persons:

• I re-iterate the question: "again, I ask you to clarify what I asked above in #Unsupported claims and Lack of Good Faith"
• Jossi's answer: " I have asked you politely to stop asking questions that you should know better than not to ask. "

--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You probably should add this to your evidence section if you haven't already. Cla68 (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I have asked Jossi several times and pointed out to him that the suspicion that he is formally involved in PR for Rawat would be resolved if he would just give a straight answer. He argues that such information is part of his private life, but I believe it goes to the heart of his COI. --John Brauns (talk) 11:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

For me, choosing to not answering a question like that means choosing to not participate in an article, per WP:COI. Period. It seems very straightforward and simple to me. Hohohahaha (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Me too. We'll see if the ArbCom agrees. Cla68 (talk) 04:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Are Apostates bad?

Does anyone here seriously think that apostates are universally as ethically-challenged as Isabella is suggesting in her 'Evidence'? Is it fair to polarise people here as either over-zealous lovers of Rawat or people who harbour nothing but hate for him? My experience is these are just the extremities of widely held feelings of both parties and that in fact, the majority of people occupy the middle ground. Whilst Isabella seem very keen to blacken vocal ex-premies who use that forum, she fails to go after the people who actually made the serious allegations about Prem Rawat there. Notably like Michael Dettmers who chose to make the most damning allegations on the ex-premie forum. All the others have done is report what he said very publicly. She talks about the ex-premies as if they were a group who should not be allowed to contact the media or generally oppose Rawat. There's no law against that is there? I think that arguments that seek to exclude people from editing WP for reasons of being either zealous premies or ex-premies, are irrelevant here. The remaining issue is whether they obey WP rules. (which we are all learning). The only reason Jossi is singled out as being a COI too far is that he get's to be player and referee which is not applicable to others. That's surely the common contention here from ex-premies and neutral people. PatW (talk) 04:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The question you ask: "are apostates bad?" is the kind of question that is not entertained in Misplaced Pages (if you want to learn more about the subject of apostasy, I would recommend The Politics of Religious Apostasy). Not only that, it is also the wrong question. You can be an apostate, a saint, a criminal, a good-deed doer, a feminist, a fascist, am anarchist, or anything you want to be. But when one comes to participate in Misplaced Pages, it is expected that these are put aside by contributing to bettering articles. If one attempts to use Misplaced Pages to further one's views, that is what is not accepted. If one tries to (mis)use Misplaced Pages to further one's activist agenda, that is not accepted. If one mis(uses) talk pages to bring personal opinions that do not contribute to the end result (an encyclopedic article) and that creates a toxic atmosphere in which no good comes out, that is not accepted. If one comes to Misplaced Pages to resolve their off-wiki disputes, that is not acceptable. There are other for for these: your blog, your personal website, your group's website, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The relevant question about apostates is whether sources that include their testimony can be used in a Misplaced Pages biography of a living person, not whether apostates can edit Misplaced Pages articles. BTW, Jossi, I'm unaware that PatW has a 'group', let alone whether such a hypothetical 'group' has a website. If and when former followers of Rawat form a group, and if I become a member of that group, I will let you know. Until then please do not spread the fiction that there is such a group. Thank you. --John Brauns (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi you say: "If one tries to (mis)use Misplaced Pages to further one's activist agenda, that is not accepted." And are we to suppose that you Jossi are not actively furthering your activist agenda as much as any of the other editors? PatW (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that I have not misused Misplaced Pages to purse an activist agenda (see my evidence), and that is one of the reasons that that I requested this arbitration (other reasons include the disruption over the last weeks). The ArbCom will revise the evidence presented, and if it finds that I or any party violated Misplaced Pages policies or their spirit, or disrupted Misplaced Pages, they may impose remedies and/or other restrictions on individual editors and/or articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Single purpose editors

• Person A comes here and makes 500 edits to one article he/she feels passionately about but has no time to address other articles.
• Person B comes here and makes 50000 edits to several articles all related to one subject he/she feels passionately about AND makes 500 edits to 50 other unrelated articles AND becomes a WP administrator.

Question : Which editor A or B, would WP consider to have the more singular editing purpose and why? PatW (talk) 04:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Single-purpose account --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've read it and it doesn't get to the nub of my question.PatW (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Most editors in Misplaced Pages, I believe, are mainly interested and do their editing in one or two selected subjects. That's the case with me. But, if an editor's edits are clearly biased and push a particular POV, for example such as trying to keep only positive information in articles about a particular religious leader and keeping out any critical information, then that may indicate an SPA. I guess it could be said also that an editor might hypothetically try to learn the informal rules for ingratiating themselves into any powerful clique in Misplaced Pages in order to hopefully allow said editor a freer hand to push POV in the subject area that interests him. Said editor might even use the connections that he develops with other influential editors to modify policies and guidelines to fit his bad-faith agenda. Do we know of any examples in which this might be occurring or has occurred? If so, then I hope the ArbCom would take action to nip this kind of behavior in the bud and make an example of the editor who tried to abuse the community's trust in such an egregious way. Cla68 (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

evidence by IsabellaW

Maelefique has requested here that I consider taking administrative action against IsabellaW's current evidence as it contains no diffs. It has similar problems to the evidence by John Brauns (it is too descriptive, and the few relevant assertions are not strongly backed by diffs). As a result, I've also asked that IsabellaW revise it for the benefit of the committee. John Vandenberg (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)