Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence

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 Wikipedia. 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-l[[Image:At sign.svg|15px|@]]lists.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 RS), 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: "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:
 * 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)


 * I think otherwise, and as I read it, Wikipedia policy on conflict of interest seems to agree with me. There is no requirement for an editor to publically reveal details of his/her private life. They are no one else's business. It is up to the editor to examine their involvement with a subject and decide if there are grounds to decline from actively editing a subject-related article. On the whole, Jossi has complied with these requirements meticulously. Rumiton (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * He also made some contributions to the COI policy which could possibly be in favor of his POV rewrote the COI policy so that his editing would be possible! Here is Jossi's first edit to it: [], where he starts right in on "religious leaders." His first edit to the page is to tone down the COI requirements for teacher/student relationships for editors!


 * If this link doesn't raise concerns for you: [], I guess we just see things differently. Hohohahaha (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hohoha etc. I am becoming concerned about your neutrality. Reading that link carefully I find he did in no way "tone down" the injunction contained there. He condensed it and if anything, gave it more impact! Apart from that, I am sure you know that no single editor/admin can "rewrite" a Wikipedia policy. Please compose your views with more moderation. The link you produce no doubt is relevant to Jossi's COI. We don't have to "prove" he has one, he tells us so. Rumiton (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for you concern, I partially share it.... partially. After reflection on what I wrote, my wording felt way too harsh and "certain" as if I could know for sure his motives.


 * As per that link- Jossi tells us that he is a proud student... I am missing the part where he says he works in/with the capacity of PR for Prem Rawat. If I am wrong about that, I would love to be corrected. I am also not hearing from you whether the link I provided raises any concerns for you about Jossi's involvement with the article? Hohohahaha (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thoughtful response. No, the link just seems to support the idea that Jossi does have a COI, which is what he has been saying all along. The question is whether his article edits (which have been very few) and his talk page participation (which is much greater) are in line with Wikipedia policies. I believe they have been. The article would be in far worse shape and more bitterly fought over if he had not been there to present the moderating influence of those well developed Wikipedia policies. Rumiton (talk) 14:21, 2 April 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 Wikipedia (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 Wikipedia, it is expected that these are put aside by contributing to bettering articles. If one attempts to use Wikipedia to further one's views, that is what is not accepted. If one tries to (mis)use Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia biography of a living person, not whether apostates can edit Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia policies or their spirit, or disrupted Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia in diverse areas). What is not accepted is to pursue an activist agenda or to further external conflicts related to their activism in Wikipedia: Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)


 * My approach to the issue is a bit simpler:"elanvital.org is a hate website"The evidence for this can be found on this page: http://www.elanvital.org/faq/faq_opposition_h.htm - not so much for "exposing" John Brauns as a webmaster of ex-premie websites, but for elanvital.org's presentation of material related to John Macgregor:
 * (in point 2): "[...] former hate group members have admitted in court affadavits that their real motivation is to defame, libel, and harass Maharaji and his students"
 * This is followed by a link to affidavit by John Macgregor, containing quite vile language against former followers: no less than inviting to hatred.
 * Further, in point 8 on the same page John Macgregor is presented as a thoroughly unreliable figure, presenting false facts to courts etc...
 * So the affidavit of a person who is described as thoroughly unreliable by elanvital.org, is used by that same website to propagate hate speech. Anyway, whether or not elanvital.org describes the source they use as unreliable, they use the source to propagate hate against former members.
 * This appreciation has nothing to do with whether or not the allegations elanvital.org spreads about former members are true or not. Elanvital.org spreads hatred towards former adherents.
 * The relevance for Wikipedia is that elanvital.org can not be used as a reliable source, except under the conditions described in WP:V. In that context I think the use of the elanvital.org website in the Divine Light Mission article is more than a bit questionable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * PS, the other relevant point for Wikipedia is to know in how far (or... how close) user:Jossi has been involved in publishing such flimsily composed hate propaganda (heavily relying on guilt by association) on the internet. On this precise point Jossi does not want to self-disclose (see above ), which I defend as his good right (again, I've written such language in his defense before!) - but in the end the Wikipedia community can decide (by now via consultation of arbitrators) how this reflects on Jossi as a direct or indirect contributor of content on Prem Rawat in Wikipedia context. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Totally ridiculous, and an example of the worst case of argumentation in all these pages. First you make the assessment that a website is a hate site, which is obviously not. Then you make the assertion that an affidavit contains hate speech, when is not. Then with you have the chutzpah to make veiled accusations. Outrageous! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Totally good point actually Francis, and an example of the most refreshing piece of frank, clear thinking on the matter for a long time. At least someone has the decency to say what everyone else is tiptoeing around as if it were unspeakable to even think such a thought. PatW (talk) 20:20, 31 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 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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. Jayen  466  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. Jayen  466  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. Jayen  466  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). Jayen  466  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.) Jayen  466  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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Jayen  466  00:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Because there's nothing positive about being called a hate-group member, no matter how you want to spin it. Whenever I've made edits to the article, Jossi tweaked or removed them and arguments went on ad infinitum.  I have a life; this isn't my full-time job.  Also, it's been demeaning to have been told that my edits couldn't stand because they represented the POV of a teeny, weeny, tiny, small, or insignifiact minority (hate) group. Over and over. So, my edits were reverted on that basis.  I've made grammar and punctuation edits.  But it's even stressful and tedious to do that, because every little word, comma, and period came under scrutiny for any significant changes in meaning.  I had decided to stop all involvement in the article once Francis, Msalt and others started bringing some sanity there, but I came back once Momento, Rumiton, and Jossi went to work purposely feeding them  misinformation about the facts surrounding the subject.  :-)  Sylviecyn (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. Jayen466. I just want to add that I don't agree with your statement that Jossi, Rumiton, or Momento have a greater familiarity with NPOV, BLP, or any other Wikipedia policy.  That's an insultingly absurd assertion. Most people don't feel the need to shove policies in the faces of others as Jossi & Co. do but that doesn't mean we don't understand the policies.  I consider myself bright enough to figure out the Wiki policies despite what you or other premies have to say.  Having said that, I also think that the fact Jossi had an intense involvement in the rewriting of the BLP, NPA (no off wiki attacks policy), NPOV, and COI policies, doesn't work in his favor in this arbitration because I believe he had less than pure motives in doing so, given his COI.  Furthermore, it puzzles me why Wikipedia has a COI policy that has different standards from the real world.    Sylviecyn (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sorry you took offence at my suggestion; perhaps I haven't been around this article long enough to get an accurate feel for everyone. It was just my impression from what I observed over the last couple of months; plus the fact that all the editors you mention have a lot more, and more wide-ranging, editing experience in Wikipedia. Also, note that I am not, and never have been, a premie. If you are interested, the figures that have most impacted me personally are, in chronological order, Osho, P. D. Ouspensky, Gurdjieff, Maurice Nicoll and Idries Shah. And no one can individually rewrite a major policy like the ones you mention (try it!) without expressing the consensus of the community. Jayen  466  21:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoops! My apologies, Jayen466.  I shouldn't have assumed you're Rawat student.  I think I have a decent grasp of the policies and guidelines, and because of that it has gotten really annoying when they've been repeated to me ad nausaeum over the years on that article talk page.  That's what I have found insulting, not anything you've said.  Sylviecyn (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Tx.
 * From the three policies you list above, one is a guideline, not a policy (WP:TALK). There's only one non-negotiable policy: WP:NPOV (except for 10 minutes yesterday, thanks to Jossi )
 * Momento's broad misunderstanding of guidelines and policies is, according to my understanding, more of a problem than those that follow policy largely intuitively. The real policy wonks would have less problems with someone not exactly knowing what is in the policies, and try to explain when needed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * How long are you going to keep bending the facts, Francis? My comments in talk page at WT:NPOV clearly speak differently. I would argue that you are creating a chasm between us that will make our editing in the future to be most difficult. Consider taking a  break from all the mudslinging, please! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Jossi, I see no mudslinging from Francis in that quote -- more of a puckish or teasing exception that proves the rule. "Bending the facts" and "mudslinging" and "creating a chasm" are themselves closer to mudslinging, from my perspective.  I think anyone who is starting to take edits personally or feels like they are personally necessary to keep Wikipedia safe or honest or whatever, should consider taking a wikibreak.  The conflict on these pages is addictive, and not in a good way. Msalt (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If you care to refer to what I wrote above, you'll see that I said Wikipedia policies and guidelines like WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:TALK. At the time of writing, NPOV and BLP are policies, TALK is a guideline. Sylviecyn referred to BLP, NPA (no off wiki attacks policy), NPOV, and COI policies. I thought it beside the point to inform her at this juncture that COI is in fact only a guideline. After all she had correctly identified three of the four, and for the purposes of the above discussion the difference surely did not weigh too heavily. Non-negotiable meant, to me and in the above, that users should conform in their behaviour to the policy version currently in force; any "negotiation" has to happen on the policy page, not in article and talk pages. I appreciate that WP:NPOV is said to be non-negotiable in a somewhat wider sense, i.e. it's a principle that can't be abolished. Hope that clarifies things. Jayen  466  23:51, 30 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.-- Mael e fique (t a lk) 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. Jayen  466  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)

I hope I wasn't too bold... Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Workshop --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I updated the numbers to reflect Will BeBack's 2 accounts, mentioned by Francis on the Workshop page, and updated all numbers to as of 5 minutes ago. There were a handful more Talk edits. Msalt (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Correction of orthography of Sylviecyn's name. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What is the point of this statistical approach? We are talking about ideas and understandings. It is the value of a contributor's edits that is meaningful, not the number of times they pressed "Save page". Rumiton (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The three tables appear to represent, roughly, "PR followers, "Ex-PR followers", and "others". If that is the breakdown then I think that user:Zappaz and user:64.81.88.140 belong in the first table. I'm not sure that all of the edits for user:User2004 are included in my row, as they should be. I don't think that minor edits should be omitted. From my experience across WP, editors use the "minor edit" check box almost randomly. Some users prefer to make many small edits while others make fewer, larger edits, and mere edit counts don't capture that difference. It's just one metric.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I repeat my very strong objection about grouping editors in this manner, and formally request the clerk to remove these groupings. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand that these groupings can be divisive, but they are not arbitrary, as the tables on the workshop are clearly breaking down the editing using "self-confirmed" groupings. If the groupings are not correct, objections to the method should be raised so that it can be either improved on, or so that the arbs can discount the analysis if the objections hold water in their evaluation.  Ultimately, these tables are trying to distill a few years of editing down to some raw aggregated data, which can yield some interesting perspectives, and may be of use in writing a summary of the articles history.  Removing these groupings is not going to suddenly make the two groups work harmoniously together; it is the arbcom remedies that will make that happen, and that will happen with or without these tables. John Vandenberg (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * While we may wish that all contributors to Wikipedia edit so neutrally that they have no apparent affiliation or biases, the facts are different. I suggest that if folks don't like being grouped then the best way is to "edit for the enemy". As a further improvement to the tables, I suggest adding the statistics from the draft articles which replaced the previous versions: Prem Rawat/temp1 and Talk:Prem Rawat/Bio proposal. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand your point, and still object to the groupings. In any case, I am sure that ArbCom will take these raw numbers in the necessary context. After all, each editor has the right to agree and/or disagree with any other editor regardless of declared or undeclared affiliation and/or bias. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your objections to the groupings. Do you feel that you've been placed in the wrong group? Do you think that these de facto groups don't exist? What, exactly, is your problem with the groupings? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is obvious, isn't it? Grouping editors by perceived or declared affiliation is antithetical to how Wikipedia works. From WP:NPA: Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. Editors are to be judged by their contributions, and nothing else. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Basically, there is nothing in the edit count evidence that will suffer from removing the "combined" totals, and removing the groupings. I do not necessarily share the views of Rumiton, Momento, or others. And I do not think that you share the views of Msalt, Jaen, or others. So what is the point of these groupings besides more divisiveness and polarization? Nothing that I can see.≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
 * The tables show, among other things, that the followers of Prem Rawat have made the largest share of edits. The polarization exists regardless of the tables, deleting the tables won't delete the polarization. If editors edited so neutrally that their biases were't visible then this tables would be unnecessary. Unfortunately that doesn't always happen. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd also point out that Arbitration is one of the few occasions when it's entirely appropriate and necessary to discuss editors directly. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course we discuss editor's behavior in ArbCom cases. What I am objecting is to the grouping of editors, as I do not share many of the views and behaviors of others, regardless of affiliation. This lumping together of editors by affiliation, is simply not useful. In any case, I think we have argued this enough now. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The perception is that you do share views and behaviors with other followers. I believe you've been asked to point out differences. I haven't seen any serious differences between the views of the various followers. If there are differences it would help to point them out. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See the evidence presented by Vassyanna, as an example. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you mean this line?:
 * Interestingly, the diffs provided include several instances of Jossi adding or restoring criticism to the article.
 * I'm struggling to find that material (with the exception of Schnabel) in the current article. Do you think that the material should be in the article? Do you support re-including it? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As I have already told you in article talk pages over the last two days: let's discuss edits and best ways to incorporate material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So you added that material to the article back in 2007. Do you still support its inclusion in the article? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This divisive grouping is certainly counterproductive. We need to work together, not form competing teams. Inviting the members of so-called factions to explore their individual differences further is going in 100% the wrong direction. Rumiton (talk) 02:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Only 3 editors are objecting to this grouping: Momento, Rumiton and Jossi, who denies sharing the views of Momento and Rumiton. I think that kind of says it all. (Actually, to be fair, Jayen466 -- who is not a devotee of Rawat's, and edits fairly but generally in a pro-Rawat direction -- has also expressed an objection.)


 * As soon as I get some time, I will update the numbers per the suggestions of Will, and anyone else with good ideas (as I did with Jayen466's suggestions earlier.) Msalt (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Rumiton, since you object to showing your differences with other followers, can you show times when you've supported the edits of ex-followers? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * May I ask you, Will, if you do not mind, to please not polarize the situation more than it is already? After the arbCom case closes, editors will still have to work together, and reinforcing the followers vs. ex-followers dichotomy is simply not useful. I hope you make an effort in the direction of helping reducing polarization rather than adding it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Jossi, do you think that my comments here, or the tables, are the source of polarizatoin in this topic? Have you never referred to "ex-premies" as a group? Have you not sought to have them listed as a hate group? After spending years in vigorous disputes you deny there are two separate camps who are opposed to each other's viewpoints? I wish it were so, but you're ignoring the reality that you helped create. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * May I ask Will where I have "objected" to what "grouping". I think your comment "kind of says it all". Perhaps you should rephrase it "only anti-Rawat editors support it".Momento (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're attributing Msalt's comment to me. And I support the using tables of this type to analyze contributions even though I'm not an "anti-Rawat editor". ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed Will, it is Msalt I meant. I'd like to characterize the groups as "pro-BLP policy" and "anti-BLP policy".Momento (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sure you would like to characterize it that way, but calling your opponetns outlaws is not helpful. Your interpretation of BLP has been called into question repeatedly. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Outlaws"? Did I really say that?Momento (talk) 01:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Pro-BLP and Anti-BLP? That's ridiculous, embarrassing, and shows an overly-simplistic view of this situation. Also, it's simply untrue, but you already knew that. Or are you also fine with pro-cult and anti-cult? Now you're just wasting everyone's time, which I suspect is one of the techniques you're deliberately using in the article and in this proceeding, just grind everyone down until they get tired of dealing with you. One problem with zealots is they will always outwait/outlast you... -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 03:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you happy to be labelled "anti-Rawat" Mael?Momento (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. Can we stop wasting time now? -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 03:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I updated the table on the Workshop page to fit Will Beback's suggestions -- adding User2004 to his total, including minor edits, and including 2 others in the Rawat group. I also added Rainer P. who is an acknowledged devotee. I left the table here unchanged, in case anyone wants to see the data without minor edits. I updated Will's totals to add the third user though.Msalt (talk) 06:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Table of edits
I've created a fresh table showing edits to main space articles and talk pages by parties to this arbitration. Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence. Rather than grouping people I've simply sorted the names by number of relevant edits to 22 Prem Rawat-related articles and their talk pages, and also included the total number of Wikipedia edits to show it as a percentage. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Jossi has responded:
 * The table of edits can be improved for a better representation: to weight the percentages over the years that editors have contributed to the article or to display last 12 month edits.
 * It's not clear how that could be done practically, nor why it would be desirable. Most of the parties to this case have been contributing to this topic for longer than 12 months. If Jossi can find a way to do so then he might like to prepare a table of his own. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see a table of edits from 6th Feb until now.Momento (talk) 23:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see the relevance of that date, but you're welcome to compile one and add it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to do it but the relevance is the editing pattern following The Register article.Momento (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see what point would be made about edits before or after Feb. 9, but perhaps you can make it without a table. So far as I'm aware you'd have to do create such a table by hand as none of the statistical tools seem to allow date restrictions. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:28, 5 April 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)

≈ 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    babelfish 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! :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatW (talk • contribs)


 * Ah, but the machine failed to do a word count, Pat. If it had, I am sure that in the PL-WR category, you would still be without equal. Rumiton (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to think we could build some mutual respect here. How about you accept that I am at least just a well-meaning pompous ranter and I'll accept you are a truly well-meaning protector of your most precious beliefs. :-)  PatW (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

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. Jayen  466  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:.
 * 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 and. 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 Wikipedia from being abused, and from getting further bad press.  To do this it needs to look outside Wikipedia.  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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. 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)
 * Having not found any evidence of disruption, are you now asking me to find such evidence? Well, you better find another way. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I hate to put it bluntly Jossi, but we are not the ones on trial here. It would greatly behoove your position if you came up with some exculpatory evidence showing your neutrality regarding pro-Rawat edits. However, I think I, as well as others here, completely understand why you haven't. Please try and keep the purpose of our discussions here in focus, and context if you can, thanks. Also, it's not that we haven't found any evidence of disruption, in fact, we haven't been able to find any evidence of non-disruption, that's what you are being asked to produce.
 * On an unrelated note, aside from not seeing the "disgraceful attitude" you refer to in these proceedings,I am quite certain you know how to edit out a comment without striking it out, you either want people to read it, or you don't. Don't be coy about it. It's at least a little hypocritical, and at worst, a little dishonest looking particularly when the statement in question directly contradicts your intent in not removing it completely. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 06:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not a trial, and Jossi is most definitely not responsible for proving that he is free of all guilt. Arbcom is here to fix a problem.  They will only fix problems occurring onwiki that are described factually with evidence.  They may take it upon themselves to look into vague accusations, but as I said above, that approach is unlikely to work. John Vandenberg (talk) 06:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not a trial, and Jossi is not responsible for proving he is free of all guilt. Having said that, you cannot deny that if he would produce some evidence (that helps no one's case but his own) showing what we're asking for, it would certainly go a long way towards his credibility on this issue, can you?-- Mael e fique (t a lk) 07:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't a trial. Jossi has made certain claims and thus far has not backed them up with anything tangible:

"During the same time I engaged in vigorous debates in talk page, providing sources when requested, and assisted editors on ways to improve the article, while encouraging them to be respectful to each other and avoid misusing the talk page for off-topic comments, soapboxing and other obvious disruption."

"Despite unsubstantiated claims, I have never used or misused my admin privileges or exerted "administrator influence" (whatever that means) in this or any other related or unrelated articles."


 * I am asking Jossi to demonstrate the truth of these statements, by showing that he treated the critics of Rawat the same as you did those editors who were "Pro-Rawat." He asserts these these things, but thus far has not demonstrated any truth to them, while others have well documented the untruth of these statements. Can he show where he helped critics of Rawat with sources? Can he show a reversion of a pro-Rawat statement? Can he show places where he as vigorously warned Pro-Rawat editors as critics? If his role was in fact neutral, this should be a simple enough task.Hohohahaha (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat/Evidence Jayen  466  01:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Jayen. I am becoming increasingly irritated by the appellation "pro-Rawat editor." I have definitely found Prem Rawat to be a force for good in my life, and hope others get the same opportunity. But I think it is clear from my edits, sans the spin that some have tried to place on them, that I have tried to arrive at a balanced and neutral article. I think it is also clear that the majority of mischievous edits have been made by people with a strong, negative agenda. In fact, this article has been plagued by people who cannot understand the difference between constructive criticisms and knee-jerk, religiously motivated insults. If there is a trend towards admin censure, perhaps it is understandable it will go in that direction. With cooperation I am still confident that an intelligent, informative, encyclopedic article can be written. Rumiton (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes thank you Jayen...you truly do have a good heart...I can tell you know....I'm sure you'll sympathise with my position.PatW (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it any wonder that there is suspicion that followers of Rawat get ahead in Wikipedia by constant fawning attempts to ingratiate themselves with others whilst demonising opponents of their POV?PatW (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

A few observations
Some general points in response to some of the issues raised above: --bainer (talk) 06:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The recommended limitations on evidence are really for the benefit of parties submitting evidence. The more concise. direct and clear your evidence is, the more likely that arbitrators will understand and appreciate the arguments that you are making. It's not necessarily a problem that evidence may be longer than the recommended length if it is concisely and clearly presented, likewise evidence shorter than the recommended length can still present problems if it is unclear.
 * Re John Brauns' point above, if you want to make an argument then you need to back it up by referring to evidence; except for certain situations that are not applicable here, it is not incumbent on anyone to be disproving your assertions.
 * Making an argument based on omissions rather than actions is going to be extremely difficult and is going to require some extremely strong levels of evidence.
 * Re PatW's point above, this is a wiki, so if you want to make comment on something in an old revision of this page, then give a link to the old revision, or preferably a relevant diff.

(edit conflict. And similar thoughts...) FT2 (Talk 06:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) (To PatW) -- Evidence alteration happens as people see the need to update their sections. If you feel a party has done so inappropriately it's always possible to add to yours something like "This was in response to a statement by USER [DIFF]. After I responded, USER removed this statement from their evidence". The point is that arbitration takes everything into account that's presented. Deletion of text does not prevent it being considered as evidence. It may for example be that due to the reply Jossie simply felt it had less value or could otherwise be cut out.
 * 2) (To John Brauns/Hohohahaha/Jossi) -- If jossi can show diffs and wants to, then this might be useful evidence to consider. But if he doesn't, so be it. The aim of /Evidence is to get good evidence of the matter ("was there biased editing or not"). In essence, this is arbitration not litigation; whatever evidence users choose to present or Arbitrators consider, or its lack, is taken into account. Jossi (like any user) is not under any obligation to do more than present such evidence as he sees fit to, others' calls notwithstanding. It's possible that it is worth noting he hasn't done so, but remember he's not under any obligation to do so. His choice to present or not present, and claims made or not made, and evidence of either, will simply be facts to be taken into account.
 * I have now edited my evidence to add two diffs of edits I made removing poorly sourced or unsourced claims that show Rawat in a positive light. Both are minor but illustrate the attempts by pro-Rawat editors to make the article, as far as they can, an advertisement for Rawat.  When the text was first inserted Jossi did not correct it.  Now I accept it can be argued Jossi can't police every edit (although it appears he does police every critical edit), so these two examples prove nothing.  As I have repeatedly stated, if my allegation is false, then all Jossi has to do is give examples where he has, unprompted, reverted poorly sourced pro-Rawat edits.  I have provided two diffs where he didn't, so I think it is only reasonable to ask him to provide two diffs where he did.--John Brauns (talk) 10:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You use the words "poorly sourced" as if the description is something beyond opinion, like "written in Chinese" or Iambic pentameter or something. This is largely a matter of opinion. Where a living biography is concerned, the subject of the biography gets the benefit of the doubt. Not difficult to accept when you give it a moment's thought. Rumiton (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect use of the qualification "reply"
I object to the section title of Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence. Momento is free to present evidence on me, but he should not present it as a "reply" to something I didn't say. I didn't present any evidence regarding Momento on the /Evidence page thus far; nor does Momento's so-called reply refer to anything else I contended on the /Evidence page.

I'm only speaking for myself here, but it has to be noted that the notion "reply" has been abused several times in this sense on the /Evidence page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The section headings really don't matter much in the grand scheme of things. The Arbitrators are some of our best and brightest -- I think its safe to assume they can make their own judgments about the evidence.  Shell    babelfish 13:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Francis has a point and I'll change my headings.Momento (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Missing Sources for Rawat Articles
I've added a list of sources I believe should be used in the Rawat articles with some background information to my evidence.--John Brauns (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Times Newspaper coverage
Has anyone noticed the reference to all this tucked away in todays Times (here in the UK) 'Wikipedia tackles cult infiltrators' It goes on...'The reliability of internet encyclopedia Wikipedia  is again drawn into question this week as bosses  scratch their  heads over how to deal with conflicts of interest. Wikipedia 'administrator' Jossi Fresco, accused of inveigling his way into Wikipedia hierarchy to promote his  guru, now faces Wikipedia's analogue of a courtroom drama....etc  PatW (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent article, Pat. Well found and certainly well-timed! --John Brauns (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm ... I take it this is an April Fool's joke and I don't need to run to the Coop, right? Jayen  466  12:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably not an April fooler, Jayen, but excellent article? Biased nonsense without relevance to what this process is about. Seems to me both editors hate the guidelines of Wikipedia as much as they hate the subject of this article. Rumiton (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ... which only puts some people's empty rhetoric about caring about this project, in a very particular light. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey Rumiton- when you're done with the crystal ball, pass it over here. Poor me, I am stuck here not being able to pass judgment on the article till I seen it! Hohohahaha (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I was commenting on the lurid journalese excerpt provided by PatW and John Brauns' joyful response. Perhaps the rest of the article might prove more sensible. Rumiton (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Touche, I misunderstood. :) Hohohahaha (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Jossi and Ruminton, you liberally accuse me of 'abusing the Talk pages' and 'hating Wikipedia guidelines' and 'not caring about the project'. You might want to consider that 'caring about this project' can include actively opposing the misuse of Wikipedia: Your casting opponents of your POV as 'enemies of Wikipedia' smacks of a siege mentality which I sincerely hope is not shared by Arbcom members. My intentions are to help improve Wikipedia by drawing attention to some wrongs. In short, trying to get the ground rules established so there can be a better atmosphere amongst editors IS ultimately caring even if it causes some antagonism in the process. Your idea of Wikipedia seems to reflect your polar views of people. EG. Not all people who criticise Prem Rawat 'hate him 'or seek to destroy him or his mission. Some simply want to straighten a few things out so his religion is not so dysfunctional or harmful. Some simply want to make the article more accurate for personal reasons. Similarly, not all people who criticise Wikipedia administrators (or indeed Wikipedia policies) hate the project. Far from it, we just want to help the project improve and be more accurate. It is an evolving thing right? There is room for improvement and perhaps things aren't quite so black and white as you see them.PatW (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To further the agenda of one's employer in an unbalanced and unreasonable way.
 * To use one's admin position to hector opponents with an air of authoritative condescension, frustrate them and make them tire of editing in the toxic atmosphere that ensues.
 * To support one's employers characterisation of opponents as activists of a 'Hate Group' and seek to tar other editors with that brush.
 * To exert influence on many tangential articles such as Hate Groups to help paint that picture.
 * To remove criticism from the article despite lack of consensus.
 * To use ones admin position to reprimand opponent editors more than others.

Oh...and the rest of the article is equally lurid I'm afraid.PatW (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And what would be the page number, please? Jayen  466  22:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see you did make that trip to the Coop Jayen... for this I must apologise. If I get the opportunity I will refund the price of the Times! Indeed it was an April Fools. Not as messy as that played on me by my kids who covered the loo seats with cling film! Sorry everybody :-) PatW (talk) 08:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It took me about 30 seconds to appreciate that PatW's post was an April Fool's joke, but it seems a sense of humour is lacking in some of the editors here. This raises a serious point - Wikipedia only has a future as a serious source of information if the real world respects it.  As I have said, I do not trust the information in any Wikipedia article because the Rawat article is so inaccurate.  I know there are many people who share my view.  (I will say that Wikipedia is great for trivia.)  The fact that Rumiton refers to what he honestly believed was an article in one of the most serious newspapers in the world as 'biased nonsense' and 'lurid journalese', and that Jossi backed up Rumiton's post is evidence, if evidence were needed, of how out of touch some Wikipedia editors are.  If Rumiton and Jossi care about this project, then they should care about what the serious mainstream media think, and Jossi should do what he can to ensure there is not even an appearance of conflict of interest in his contributions here.  --John Brauns (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you believe appearances are more important than reality, then go ahead and make proposals at WT:COI. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Jossi, I am not the one here who has invested thousands of hours in Wikipedia. I am just an intelligent observer offering advice which you and the other Wikipedians here can take or leave.  If I want reliable information on a subject there are many good sources.  BTW, you do care what mainstream media think, don't you?  --John Brauns (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For the purpose of this discussion you are a participant. You submitted evidence, which was requested by the clerk in your talk page that you refactor given other evidence that negates it . If you want a good article, participate in discussions as any other editor. Now, if all you want is to pass judgment on articles and Wikipedia as you have done in your comment, that is OK, but don't expect that complaining will make any difference. Articles are owned by the community, and it is by communal effort that articles get written. There is no magic bullet. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, Jossi, you suggested I go beyond contributing to this discussion and try to change WP:COI. My reply was a response to your suggestion.  I am happy to continue to contribute to this discussion as much as time allows, and I did respond to the request for evidence, and I also responded to Jayen's comments.  --John Brauns (talk) 07:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Jossi, I believe that I and several others have either indirectly or directly asked you to step off of the Rawat articles because you are damaging Wikipedia's credibility by being involved with them. It has been picked up by the press already.  I don't edit the articles of the religion that I belong to or of my employer.  I don't think that's too high an ethical standard for you, should you finally choose to accept it. Cla68 (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have already responded to this same argument in the Workshop page, your proposals section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It could just be me, but did you give the wrong link there jossi? I don't see where you responded to that argument.-- Mael e fique (t a lk) 02:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, you got me. Pat's typically clumsy and pretentious use of words like "analogue" should have put me on alert. In my defense it was very late at night over here. And John...he got you, too. You know...the truth and all that. Rumiton (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Rumiton, if you notice I reinforced the joke by claiming it was an excellent article. The 30 seconds was to check the online edition on The Times, before I realised the date.  That's not to say I can't be fooled (I was for 25 years), but not this time. --John Brauns (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No one has commented on Jossi's original COI
In my evidence I point out that Jossi was working for Rawat and related companies well before he first edited on Wikipedia. Not only did he not declare this COI when first editing, but he didn't declare it when he announced his COI. Instead he gave the impression that the position he had taken up was the first for a Rawat related organisation. I am surprised no one, especially Jossi himself, has commented.--John Brauns (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Knowing that Jossi is a follower of the Prem Rawat movement is enough to establish that Jossi has a strong conflict of interest with respect to any article on the Prem Rawat movement. Unless new information would disclose a conflict of interest with respect to any other articles, there's not really any need for it. The important question is which articles are the subject of the conflict of interest. --bainer (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The proposed decision says:
 * An editor will have a conflict of interest with respect to an article if, for example, they stand to benefit financially from editing the article, or if the article is about them or about a business or organisation that they represent.
 * It does not include being a follower. If editing with respect to an organization that is represented or financial benefit are the main criteria, then the employment of an editor by an entity related to the subject is indeed relevant. I would contend that a broader defitintion is more appropriate: any time that a user puts another interest ahead of Wikipedia while editing there is a conflict. That would include being a follower (or ex-follower) if they are pursuing an agenda. Using the broader definition would mean that most of the involved editors have a conflict of interest. As for which articles are involved, obviously all the articles in Category:Prem Rawat are part of this dispute, even though some have not been fought over (yet). The "Hate group" article was part of the dispute between these users at one time, but I don't think it's been active for over a year.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My contributions to that article during 2007 was unrelated to this dispute. My last related edit to that article was in in May 2006. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So are you saying that you did not have a conflict of interest in 2006 and prior? That's what Brauns is asking about. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a problem understanding COI. COI means you have two (or more) interests that are in conflict. I don't want to go to work but I need the money is a COI. The only issue here is has Jossi, or any other editor, but their POV before Wiki policy and guidelines.Momento (talk) 05:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In 2006 Jossi decided to disclose a COI by declaring that he had accepted a position in a Prem Rawat related organisation. The simple question Jossi needs to answer is why did he not declare his earlier employment for Rawat and related organisations, either when first posting in 2004, or at least when making his discosure? --John Brauns (talk) 09:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No doubt Jossi didn't consider what he had a COI.Momento (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My impression (from the exchange I had with Kim Bruning on Wales' Talk page) is that people with COI are welcomed to comment on the Talk Page  "Because that's the actual location we use for people with (potential) COI, so that they can participate too." (Kim Bruning). As I understand it, at present if your COI extends to working for a related organisation you are expected to 'politely decline' from actual editing, as Jossi has done. It does not seem that followers or ex-followers fall into the category of not being welcome to edit or participate in Talk pages.
 * So, Will and Bainer: Do you accept that a further important factor to consider is whether any one of these people is also an Administrator? It seems obvious to me that a playing field comprised of 2 sides of people with strong POV or COI is tolerably balanced, but add one with the authority of an administrator and the balance is thrown out of whack. When someone with COI is also acting as an administrator doesn't that elevate their COI to something more threatening to the status quo? It seems you don't give due consideration to this crucial issue that Jossi is singularly acting as both player and referee. I would like to ask you why that is.PatW (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

All admins "act as both player and referee." It's the name of the game. The question is how well they succeed in putting Wikipedia (WP:NPOV) first. Rumiton (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. You've completely missed the crucial point which is that, in this case,  the referee is playing for one particular side. Get it now?PatW (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And rubbish back to you with bells upon it. No human editor is completely without a side. The admin needs to put Wikipedia first. As Jossi has done. Get it now? Rumiton (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do get it completely unlike you apparently. There is some extremely simple logic here Rumi that is clearly escaping you. Do you see Jossi 'playing for the opposing team'? ...'Ever'? Also if this were a football game how crazy would it be to have a referee who a) was a known supporter of one of sides club b) engaged in the actual game play?? PatW (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Simply knowing the article scope is hardly enough if the COI is compounded by other behaviours likely to inhibit good editing. It has been proposed by several involved editors that Jossi has been active in terms of WP:OWN and that his editing, administration and talk page contributions have been unsatisfactory because of both WP:COI and WP:OWN. User:IsabellaW introduced evidence related to Jossi’s editing in 2006; to date no one has ruled that material out of contention. I have responded to that material here [] and here [].


 * Confinement to a talkpage does nothing to resolve WP:OWN where the COI affected editor already has investment in an article that he/she is determined to defend – the simple expedient of “not agreeing” with any proposed change causes the the whole editing process to snarl up because the COI/OWN editor can claim “no consensus”. If the arbitrators are to support progress on the Rawat articles, some level of injunction, at least temporary, on both editing and talkpage participation where COI/OWN is in play, is essential.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 13:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Not done yet
I appreciate the committee's patience. I have more evidence and opinion to post shortly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)