Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:29, 29 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' 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 review 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)

Interesting comment there, Jossi - "The ArbCom will revise the evidence presented"! :-) I do hope this was a typo. --John Brauns (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a growing sense that what some people are trying to do is paint editors with strong views as 'activists' who are not welcome as editors. This brings up the question as to what is an activist. My understanding is that it is someone who pursues a policy of vigorous action. I asked a few people who I work with for their interpretation and got this; "Someone who tells people to act" Surely this route is highly fraught with double-standards? I think it could be argued surreptitiously that any one of the editors is 'activist'. I personally would be highly offended to be called an activist and would consider it extremely provocative. Jossi, please would you tell me what your definition of an activist is please? (I might add that I do not consider Jossi an activist either!) PatW (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not consider you to be an activist either, Pat. But some of the parties in the case, may fit that description. Note that there is nothing inherently wrong with being an activist (there are many activists editing Misplaced Pages in diverse areas). What is not accepted is to pursue an activist agenda or to further external conflicts related to their activism in Misplaced Pages: Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, may I ask if you consider yourself an activist? You certainly appear to be far more of an activist than any ex-premie I know. :-) --John Brauns (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)The problem as I see it is that Jossi agrees with Elan Vital's allegation of ex-premies being a hate-group, but there's no evidence of the hate-group allegation other than the fiction that's been cooked up by Prem Rawat’s Elan Vital and its members who have taken our discussion forum posts out of context and have engaged in a years-long smear campaign against people that are critical of Prem Rawat.

Jossi wants to promote his idea that using the word "cult" is the same as his false allegation calling me a hate-group member. I don’t think so. In the United States, the stigma of the label of "hate-group" pinned to my name is tantamount to someone calling me a member of the KKK, Skin Heads, Neo-Nazis and other real hate groups that exist in the world and have notorious reputations of extremist hatred and violence. Al Qaeda is a hate-group. Hate groups are monitored by the FBI and anti-hate group organizations. Ex-premies are not a hate group by any stretch of the imagination, nor is it any kind of group other than being an online community of discussion forum posters who are critical of Rawat while they talk together about their involvement with Prem Rawat and how it has hurt them. Most people post on that forum for emotional support as they leave Elan Vital NRM and it's leader, Prem Rawat. Imagine what it might be like to leave a new religious movement but after joining a discussion forum the result of talking about it in public is that you're labeled as a hate-group.

Moreover, Elan Vital and Jossi, et al, aren't qualified to define anyone as hate-group, that's why the reference to the allegations against Rawat's former followers was removed from the Hate group article. On the other hand, the word "cult" is a term that has been used by sociologists of new religious movements and members of the media many times over to describe DLM/EV and Prem Rawat. Such sources currently exist as reliable sources in the Prem Rawat article. So, the only people that refer to former followers of this NRM as a hate-group, is the NRM iself and its members who became disgruntled years ago by reading the criticism of Prem Rawat on Ex-premie.org and the Ex-premie fora. When Jossi and other adherents refer to people here as members of the "activist group" you can pretty much bet that what they mean is "hate group." I challenge anyone to try editing Misplaced Pages in that atmosphere.

After Isabellaw posted her piece on the PR Talk page on March 11th, I strongly objected. The next day, on March 12th, Jossi then told me this on the DLM talk page (concerning my March 12th post on the DLM talk page when I inadvertently used the word "cult" in my post): "Please stop the baiting, Sylviecyn. If you have an opinion about the subject, keep it to yourself. Unless you want your group to start being characterized in talk pages on pejorative terms as well." DLM talk. I wasn't baiting Jossi (I wasn't even talking to him!) by using the term and furthermore viewed Jossi’s comment to me as a mild threat, knowing that many premies have come to Misplaced Pages to use it as a soapbox to promote the "ex-premies are a hate-group" smear. I didn't respond to him because I didn't want the conversation to escalate, not because I agreed with him that I was baiting anyone. I'm sorry for the length of this post -- I know it's long, but it's a complicated situation that can't be explained briefly. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:59, 28 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)

Well I agree and, not to beat about the bush, my question was designed to garner some support for my contention that this 'accusation' of being a single-purpose editor has a glaring loophole and can be used very unfairly against people like myself who have a wide range of interests but who get so bogged down in arguments with truly single-purposed opponents, that they have no time left for other articles. Since nobody's biting maybe I should answer my own question. Yes, there are a lot of 'what ifs' to consider. Things are not so black and white. I think B could very well have a more single purpose. Anyway I've extrapolated this argument a little on the Evidence Page herePatW (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I was trying to be too coy in my comment above. We should judge editors by their edits. Are their edits reasonably NPOV and properly sourced? Is there a pattern of not editing in an NPOV way? Do they abuse functions like redirects to try to hide sourced information they don't approve of? If their editing isn't reasonably and consistently NPOV, properly sourced, and non-abusive, then they might be judged as being a bad-faith SPA. Cla68 (talk) 00:30, 26 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)

Would you please also consider that Sylviecyn is protesting against Isabella's links to pages that attack her personally by withholding her evidence that would be germane to this case? 1) I think her evidence as an involved party is important and 2) I don't think anyone here has posted equivalent links that slander people in such an offensive way. (for example links to Encyclopedia Dramatica article about Jossi).PatW (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

As you can see I warned Isabella on March 11 when she posted what was off-topic information in article talk-page. As for the link evidence presented by IsabellaW in the Evidence page, all I see in that link is copies of a series of posts that contain hate unseemly speech which were posted in the ex-premie fora over the years. I do not see Sylviecyn's name mentioned in any of the links. In any case, if neither IsabellaW or John Brauns take action to summarize their evidence as requested by the clerk, he may do that for them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, I strongly object to your characterisation of the occasional unrepresentative emotional outbursts on the discussion forums of former followers of Rawat as 'hate speech'. It is nothing of the kind - no reasonable person reading those discussions in full would agree with your opinion, and this certainly is NOT the place to express such an inflamatory view. FYI, I will complete the revision of my evidence tomorrow (Wednesday). Oh, and please stop Wikilawyering, especially here:- In any case, if neither IsabellaW or John Brauns take action to summarize their evidence as requested by the clerk, he may do that for them. --John Brauns (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies - I had hoped to revise my evidence today, but I have not been able to complete it. I hope to post it Thursday. --John Brauns (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have refactored the comment. You may understand now how it feels when someone is the target of inflammatory comments, or being labeled with pejoratives. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe you made this comment:-"You may understand now how it feels when someone is the target of inflammatory comments, or being labeled with pejoratives". As you very well know, I have been the target of inflammatory comments ever since I became an active critic of Prem Rawat. Just do a Google search on "John Brauns" --John Brauns (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'm unclear on the policy here. If Isabella was discussing the subject of a BLP, we would remove her links and statements as derogatory and poorly sourced. If she was talking TO editors, that would violate WP:NPA. But she appears to be discussing, generally, a group that includes many editors and posting links to information directly derogatory to at least one editor. It seems clear that this SHOULD be a violation of policy, but I don't know the guidelines well enough to know if it actually is. Can anyone fill me in, please? Thanks. Msalt (talk) 01:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to leave this determination to the arbiters in attendance who are dealing with our case. Jayen466 01:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Msalt, the clerk has discretion to refactor the evidence page if needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi claims above:"I do not see Sylviecyn's name mentioned in any of the links.' However on this link of Isabella's and other pages on that site SylvieCyn is named and attacked as suffering from mental illness and 'severe abuse as a child' amongst other ridiculous things like: "she has been masquerading as an editor at an on-line encyclopedia for the purpose of inserting negative material into an article about Prem Rawat."PatW (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The Clerk should indeed remove links to the attack site, however as the 'evidence' from User:IsabellaW has been allowed to stand for over 2 days it may need to be considered formally by the arbitrators given that what User:IsabellaW has raised deals materially with Jossi's actions as an editor and an admin. I have provided additional background in a response to User:IsabellaW ] --Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikidashboard

moved from my talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In the ArbCom Evidence, you make a good point that those numbers combine Talk and Main article edits. Can you suggest a more accurate way to provide those statistics? I think the numbers separated by a slash are the article/talk numbers, right? I could add those for context. That wouldn't give the % of each, but I think a little algebra could work that out, right? If x1 + y1 = 30% of z, and x2 + y2 = 15% of z... hmm, no, I'm not sure that is enough information unless I know the ratio of total article edits to total talk edits.

Anyway, I certainly don't want to distort or obscure the numbers. Suggestions appreciated. Thanks. Msalt (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In related news, obviously you noticed my addition to evidence above. I also added two examples to this section: . I want to make sure you are aware of that and have full opportunity to respond. Msalt (talk) 08:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This tool gives separate figures for Prem Rawat and Talk:Prem Rawat. Just enter either in the search field. Jayen466 01:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jayen. I couldn't actually get that to work for me -- it showed one edit by Zappaz in 2004. However, I found the total number of edits on WikiDashboard, I think, inside the graph and hard to see, which allowed me to use the algebra I described above. Does this look right? Msalt (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No, not exactly. Since the article's creation in 2004, there have been 4982 edits, of which 1234 were minor edits (spellers, ref fixes and the like).

Of the 3748 non-minor edits, Momento made 602, Jossi, 562, and Rumiton 423 (1587 or 42% for all three together).

Perhaps try the tool again, it works for me. Here is the output I get for Prem Rawat, and here is the output I get for Talk:Prem Rawat. Jayen466 12:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at it, the figures seem to match those from Wikidashboard (with the difference that the dashboard only covers the last 24 months, and does not distinguish between major and minor edits). Jayen466 12:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very, very much Jayen. I don't know what I was doing wrong, but I will now update my table with the better statistics, and exclude minor edits. Also, I will add other editors who are criticized here (Francis and PatW) and myself for fairness. Wikidashboard also seems to miss edits after 12/31/2007, if I'm not mistaken. Msalt (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

One thing worth observing is that many of the editors to this article have the habit of making strings of small edits in a row, rather than compiling several changes into one edit, and this can reduce the utility of plain edit counting. --bainer (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I forcefully object to this "combined" approach. Let editors and their edits stand on their merits, please. Also to consider is that some editors have been working on the article for 4 years and others for a month. So, yes, I made hunderds of edits over in 2004-2005. And yes, I made 63 edits in the last 12 months. Francis made 140 edits in the month and half, So? What is the point? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Here are three updated tables, with minor edits deleted from all numbers. Please let me know if these numbers look right. If you know a way to restrict the data to a recent time period, please let me know - that's why I'm working this out here collaboratively. The tool Jayen suggested does show month by month statistics. Amazingly, there have been 2,952 talk edits just in February and March of this year (29.5% of the total over 4 years), and 668 Article edits (17.8% despite long stretches of page protection). So it's a good thing we've got that time period included here. Msalt (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I expressed a strong objection about this "combined" edit counts. And I repeat my strong objection again. Please consider making one list that does not "combine" edits: it is divisive, and against the principles of this project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jossi - looking at combined numbers is unfair - let's just look at Jossi's contribs to the Rawat talk page - 23.4% - Unbelievable - that's what is called service! :-) --John Brauns (talk) 02:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the combined counts are fine. Thanks for them. Sylviecyn (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jossi here. What this whole situation suffers from is entrenched factions, with the focus of attention sometimes directed more on the people in the opposite camp than on the article. We will never solve this situation unless and until the focus shifts on the article, reading sources, and proposing edits based on them. I invite all editors to reflect on that. There are three elements here: your POV, the POV opposed to yours, and the article. If the only two forces active are the opposing ones of the two POVs, they will absorb each other, and the stalemate will continue. Movement is only possible by focusing on the third element, the available literature and the article to be built from it. If that's where the focus is, then everybody's energy can flow in the same direction and the article will move forward. There is still room for different POVs in this, but that way, these POVs will do something productive, rather than exhausting themselves on the opponent.

If the circle at the top is the article, and the two camps are the two circles at the bottom, this is what we have been doing:

. . O

O-><-O

What we need to do is this:

.. O
.. ^ ^
. / . \
O . . O

See Force field analysis. There is no need for personal conflict. (Sorry for the bad drawings.) Jayen466 20:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern(s), which are very appropriate. It's the reality of factions on this article that bothers me, not the description of them. I'm describing these factions as part of seeking change to end this problem. I trust the ArbCom to disregard any evidence that is inappropriate or divisive. Msalt (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't participate in Misplaced Pages so that my POV can be placed in the article. I used to think that way, back when the article was first created. But, I've learned things over these years, and I've gotten to the point where I'd just like to see a modicum of faithfulness to the sources be kept and some manner of truth be told about Rawat's life, based on the sources available. The problem with the Prem Rawat article is that there are two stories of his life: One is Prem Rawat's public story that is a striking revision of his life history (when one knows the truth), and the second is his actual life story, and his movement, as provided by sources. The way the article stands it's barely comprehensible imo because it's nothing but tortured text that has been fought over, word by excrutiating word. The editors who are pro-Rawat want only Rawat's new public image portrayed -- an advertorial. Me? I'd like to see a real biography written, within the guidelines, no wikilawyering, and using available sources. That means that the Pro-Rawat people must stop acting like they own the article because that's exactly what they have done, regardless of how many times Jossi has lectured me about the wiki OWN policy. Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it true. In fact, all the new folks were doing a great job, until Jossi & Co. threw their usual wrench into the works. Sylviecyn (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I see individuals, not factions. There is not a single person that I don't find myself agreeing with, or feeling respect for, at various times in this exercise. Why don't we try and concentrate on the positives for a change? And, with respect, it is no good for anyone to say that "This is not the truth because I lived through it and it was different for me" – what we need is reliable published sources that say how it was. If others don't bring those reliable published sources, you have to locate them and bring them to the table. Of the ex-premies, Nik is the only one I remember who has actually done that work to any meaningful extent during these last seven weeks and researched material that our process still has not digested. And I do not share the view that it was "Jossi & Co." who threw a spanner in the works. In many cases, their concerns were reasonable, valid and reflective of the fact that they have a greater familiarity with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines like WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:TALK and so forth. Adherence to those is non-negotiable here, so it's best to know what they say. My tuppence worth. Jayen466 00:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have any corrections or suggestions on the numbers themselves? I greatly appreciate Jayen466's earlier suggestions, which made them much more accurate. I will wait a while longer before adding the actual evidence, in case there are more ideas to improve them. Thanks, Msalt (talk) 00:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally think this is useless information. The article I edited 400 times two years ago, is not the same article we have today, as edits are not cumulative. What is the use of this information. Msalt? It is not enough to say that some editors have contributed more than others? (Maybe, but that is always the case, isn't it?). The question should be one of quality of edits, and the quality of interactions in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

We get it Jossi, 3 times now. To summarize, you object to this information presented in this format. We get it. I'm quite sure the arbiters are capable of drawing their own conclusions as to whether this is useful information or not, like IsabellaW's "evidence", we will just have to wait and see. I do however take exception to your comment that the edits are not cumulative. Of course they are, you've shown a constant direction with this subject, and I know of none of those 400 edits you're referring to that contradict your pattern (that pattern of course is why we are all here right now). Please indicate where I've missed some edits of yours that do.-- Maelefique 05:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

As Jossi said, there is a great disparity between the amounts of time that individual editors have spent editing this article. How to compare 1000 edits made over a period of four years against 150 edits made in the space of a hectic two months? In a way, the ATBE (average time between edits) is a more reliable indicator of editors' involvement (you and I rank very highly in that, with some of the shortest ATBE values in the entire list!). But ATBE obviously varies too depending on how much activity there is in an article -- people who have lived through many quiet months in the article will see their ATBE drop accordingly. Jayen466 00:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Jayen, I liked your comment about the force field analysis. I think sometimes arbCom cases bring too much focus into the conflict aspects of editor's interactions, and in these cases is best to attempt to do BusinessAsUsual ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the help offered before on these statistics. If anyone can point me to a tool that restricts the time frame, I would appreciate it. Note though that 25% - 30% of all activity on this page (over 4 years) took place in just last month and this one, which isn't even over yet. What do you think would be a valid time frame to look at? 2008? The past 6 months? Or do you just oppose looking at edit counts generally? Msalt (talk) 03:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Msalt's evidence...

... is reaching 3,000 2,000 words and 200 diffs, which is a bit excessive, imo. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

By my count, Msalt's entry (including rebuttals) contains 2531 words while Jossi's section contains 3431 words. I haven't counted the diffs. Perhaps everyone can try to go back and remove excess verbiage from their sections. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

:: I was not referring to the replies to other evidence, but to evidence itself, Will. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)</>

I stand corected. My evidence is 2,410 words, and 52 diffs. Msalt' evidence is 1,934 words and 185 diffs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Msalt is a newer editor (and my adoptee) who's working very hard to present his opinions of a complex and highly charged situation in a neutral way. Since you've congratulated him for helping your case, I can't imagine why you'd be concerned with the length, right? How about we focus on how to resolve these issues instead of spending time counting? Shell 04:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, np. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a problem for me. Given the extraordinary verbosity of just about all involved, trying to keep up with the arguments here at night and run a business during the day is proving nearly impossible. Condense, everyone. Please! Rumiton (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Rumi...for all my 'pompous, long-winded rants' it looks (from that chart above) like your 'verbosity' amounts to more than mine! How funny!  :-)

Q for arbitrators: Can people remove evidence after you've replied?

It seems rather underhand of Jossi to remove the evidence he made against me here because it effectively made my link invalid and my entire riposte nonsensical. It's annoying because I don't have enough time to check developments here as it is, and I nearly missed this. Is this permitted? Because it's hard to form arguments against people who move the goal posts.PatW (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget to sign your comments by typing four tildes after it. Looks like maybe you had the wrong number of tildes, since the date is there? You might edit in your user name so we know who said this. Msalt (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Done - sorry. PatW (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Pat, I'm obviously not an arbitrator here, but don't forget that there was a call for some of the very voluminous evidence presented here to be trimmed down a bit or made more concise. Jossi is not the only one revising his evidence, John Brauns and others if I remember correctly announced they would do the same. So these things happen, nothing to get worried about. People who followed events as they happened, or navigate through the page history, will understand what you were referring to at the time. Jayen466 20:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

In case it's not clear, I'm trimming my evidence as well. The chart discussion above has distracted me a bit, but I'll get back to it tonight. Msalt (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this says something about the atmosphere of suspicion that seems to have taken hold. It's tempting for me to think that Jossi moved it deliberately to draw attention away from his misrepresentative quote. Maybe it was a perfectly innocent mistake. Either way, might I suggest that if one removes evidence it would be polite, if not essential, to consider and warn of the effect (on specific responses people have made to that evidence) before deleting it. I don't understand how you can reasonably say that what I was referring to at the time would have been 'clearly understood' without flagging by me as I have now done. As a matter of fact even I thought I may have made a mistake (and owed an apology) when I found the quote was not there. PatW (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, who has called for evidence to be trimmed and where? Seems like a recipe for just more chaos to me.PatW (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There is an expectation that everyone only present 1000 words and 100 diffs, so the call for evidence to be trimmed is implicit. To answer your question more directly, Rumiton was quite explicit in asking that users condense their evidence in the section directly above: #Msalt's evidence....

The evidence page is not intended to be a discussion board: replying to other peoples evidence should be for the purpose of ensuring the evidence presented by others is correct. If they have corrected it, then the reply has served its purpose and can be removed. John Vandenberg (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been asked twice to intervene. see #John Brauns' evidence and #evidence by IsabellaW. In both cases I can see why the posted evidence is bordering on useless, as it contained no diffs, but it does provide background from both "sides" that the arbs may find useful, even if only to appreciate the real world editors a little better. I replied at length to one request on my talk; in short, "evidence" here isnt deemed to be factual, or even appropriate. It will be condensed, improved and/or discarded as it moves through the case, so there is no need for concern that content on the evidence page is going to be utilised by the arbitration committee. The process filters, and the arbs know how to filter. John Vandenberg (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

John, the real world is where reality is. For close on 30 years, Jossi has been a devotee of a man who refered to himself as 'the Lord, All Powerful'. Jossi admits to working for an organisation that promotes Rawat's teachings. He did not, and still has not, declared that he was the webmaster of Rawat's first website in 1999, and other related cult websites. I know Momento's identity and he has been a devotee for over 35 years, and held positions of responsibility in Rawat's organisations. I still assert that Jossi has never reverted a pro-Rawat edit, and my defence of this assertion is not to waste my time searching for diffs that Jossi could individually argue against, but that I have never seen him do this, and to ask Jossi to produce just 5 diffs that disprove my claim, which would be much easier if I am wrong. I also assert, from my long understanding of Rawat cult members' mentality (being one myself), that Jossi's sole purpose in being here is to serve his Master. The ArbCom has an opportunity here to help clean up Misplaced Pages from being abused, and from getting further bad press. To do this it needs to look outside Misplaced Pages. BTW, there isn't a chance in hell that IsabellaW is who she claims to be in her profile. Of course, you are free to believe my contributions here are useless, but fortunately your beliefs have negligible impact on my life. --John Brauns (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

John, you have misunderstood my comment a little. diffs are typically what are presented to back an assertion. Arbcom is primarily concerned with editing behaviour, and your content on the evidence page doesnt conclusively back any assertion because it lacks diffs. As background, your post is useful reading; no doubt about that. All I am saying is that your evidence is unlikely to be picked up and find its way into the final decision, because arbcom only deals with activities on the Wiki. I doubt that this surprises you; you seem to be aware that your post was only going to help paint the backdrop. I do appreciate that you have challenged Jossi to disprove your assertion, and he doesnt appear to have done so - I've not seen your approach work in the past, but it is possible that your observation ends up accepted to be a fact. We'll see. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I would not, and should not respond to the abusive language, baiting, and such disgraceful attitude in these pages as presented by some people. John Brauns does not care about this project, neither about bad press against Misplaced Pages. That is crystal clear for anyone that cares to see the obvious. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I would salute your for not responding to the unnecessary insulting language, except that you did. :( "John Brauns does not care about this project, neither about bad press against Misplaced Pages. That is crystal clear for anyone that cares to see the obvious."

However, not all of is absurd ranting! Amidst the junk, a very real, clear idea is presented: "I still assert that Jossi has never reverted a pro-Rawat edit." Some diffs from you showing that you have challenged or reverted pro-Rawat edits would clear a lot of things up, very quickly.

Not responding to it, will also make clear, a lot of things, very quickly. Hohohahaha (talk) 05:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)