Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try purging the cache.

1RR

Bainer asked about 1RR here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Workshop#Proposed decision posted.

Re. 1RR: if asked I'd say it's not so much important whether the rule is 1RR or 3RR, included in or separate from article probation: the more important is imho (apart from a good definition of 1RR if it is used) the diligent treatment of enforcement, e.g. that use can be made of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. A lot of the trouble existed because of interpretation of conduct as being yes or no disruptive. The usual noticeboards seldomly came to a conclusion. The last two postings there were almost immediately closed, and referred to arbitration.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement would give it more of a neutral twist. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also think the issue of 1RR vs. 3RR is not really important. It's very important that conversation is kept on track and that any disruption is addressed quickly and decisively. I believe the discretion of the admins keeping some eyes on AE is sufficient to determine if edit warring or disruption is occurring without additional restrictions on the articles and their editors. Vassyana (talk) 06:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been on this page as long as the other parties to the arbitration, so I take my own words with a grain of salt. But in my opinion, none of the 1RR/3RR distinctions matter, because the main cause of disruption is abuse of the exemptions to the revert restrictions -- not only BLP but also Exceptional Claims and even Sockpuppets of Zoe Croydon, which I had never heard of before. Momento could not be more clear that s/he will continue to aggressively edit war under the theory that s/he is exempt from all of these restrictions. Momento even argues on the Evidence page that the two blocks imposed on him or her were wrong, and is disrespectful to those who caution or warn him/her. Obviously, the vast majority of other editors disagree. But the primary administrator on the scene, Jossi, is one of the few supporting Momento, both on the page and in dispute resolution attempts to restrain Momento. Until this dispute is resolved, I don't see how any revert restrictions will help. Msalt (talk) 07:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Msalt, I object to you constant personal attacks.Momento (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the sort of thing I was looking for input on, Francis. It seems the view that this would be better handled at AE is shared by everyone then (or everyone who has commented at least) so perhaps I'll amend the article probation remedy to supersede the 1RR restriction. --bainer (talk) 08:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue differently, Thebainer. The only time that some progress was made over the last weeks, was when the 1RR probation was implemented; Without it, the temptation for rapid-fire editing and subsequent revert wars is way to great. A standard 1RR restriction, will afford editors the time and space to seek help from others and encourage collaboration by discussion and compromise. What editors need is a good environment on which to work together, and given the animosity that has developed, it needs a cool-off period that could be framed around a standard 1RR restriction for a limited period of time, say six months as per the community-enforced probation that was agreed upon before this case.

Furthermore, there was a good reason for the 1RR restriction before this case, and the reason has not gone away. On the contrary: after this case is close, editors will need to overcome the animosity that was generated during proceedings. Without a restriction that will gently force editors to talk to each other (rather than revert each other) and seek common ground, the animosity will escalate further (see Msalt comment abovem for example), resulting in a stressful environment that will not be productive and in which editors will get harmed.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let us ask ourselves, what is the downside of 1RR? I would argue, none. After all, limiting oneself to WP:BRD is but a best practice. Given the long history of the article and the recent history of disruption, gently forcing editors to BRD will be nothing but a great help to avoid escalation and help work toward consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that I agree with AE as the best forum to alert admins for probation disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Another important point is the definition of 1RR. One interpretation is that you can revert as many edits as you like as long as you do so in a single edit/diff. I think this is a problem in this case, for several reasons. First, it makes it hard to follow what is being changed. Clear communication and forthrightness about what one is doing and why are basic to collaboration and seeking consensus. Second, it gives any user with any POV a veto over all changes, and in fact encourages them to wildly and blindly revert, rather than making incremental progress. Why take a chance of violation when you can change everything back to yesterday's version?

I realize that the 3RR policy says "Consecutive reverts by one editor are generally treated as one revert for the purposes of this rule", so one could argue "what's the difference if they make them all in one edit?" I don't know why 3RR says that, though I'm sure there's a good reason (perhaps reflecting the fact that editors often tweak or adjust an edit several times after first making it.) However, in this instance I think it makes the policy ineffective. I can't imagine it was meant to allow an editor to revert 5 separate edit-warring disputes without violating 1RR. A better version of 1RR, in my opinion, would be to allow reversion of one single edit. If the original edit changed 15 things, or was a series of consecutive edits by the same editor, then fine, you can revert it and they all go back. But if 5 editors make changes, or one makes 5 separate edits over a day or weeks, you don't get to revert 5 times just by lumping them together. Msalt (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Msalt, 1RR is a device that has been used very successfully in past disputes. It simply makes edit-warring to be not an option. If an editor reverts another editor's edit, be that one change or multiple changes, that editor needs to wait an entire week before he/she can ever revert another time. This forces editors to (a) ensure that their revert is absolutely necessary; (b) if the editor gets reverted, it forces him/her to discuss and find consensus. It is simply the enforcement of WP:BRD, and designed to assist editors to engage in an orderly debate in which discussion, rather than edit-warring is the modus operandi. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that your comment is about how to revert and stay within the boundaries of 1RR or 3RR. I would invite you to look at this differently: how would your editing and the editing of others look if editors would not consider reversions as a viable option? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the concept of 1RR, but clearly it didn't solve the issue just now. One thing is, I found much confusion over what exactly the rules were -- one revert of the same issue? One revert of anybody? One massive revert of 25 items? Changes that effectively reverted but didn't click the Undo button or say revert in the summary? One week or one day? Etc. The first order is to be crystal clear what is meant, and to emphasize the point that it's an electric fence, not a right to revert.

The other is simply intent. With Momento announcing that s/he feels exempt from any restriction due to BLP and intends to pursue the same aggressive editing approach, I tend to feel we need something more. I'm not sure what you're getting at with your last question. I have consistently sought consensus on the Talk page, and avoided edit warring, but others show great focus on the rules and what they can get away with to further their POV. Msalt (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Msalt, I object to you constant personal attacks.Momento (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the proposed article probation, if an editor feels exempt due to BLP and you disagree, an uninvolved admin can be called upon from WP:AE to assess the situation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of "1RR"

By analogy to WP:3RR, "1RR" would appear to mean that a user may make one revert per day/week/etc. However the text of Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary#One-revert rule says something different:

One-revert rule
Some editors may choose to voluntarily follow a one-revert rule: If someone reverts your change, don't re-revert it, but discuss it with them. See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.

So that definition of 1RR is that once you've been reverted you may not revert the revert. It does not place any time limit on the reverts. I regret that when I proposed a "1RR" restriction on Prem Rawat I was not aware of this discrepancy, and had thought that "1RR" meant a limit of one revert per time period. For the future, we should be careful to distinguish whether we mean the "1RR" defined in "WP:1RR", or if we mean a limit of one revert per time period. They are not the same thing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow, Will. 1RR means just that. An editor cannot revert another editor's edit more than once per period. So if it is 1RR (one revert per day per editor), it is exactly that. There is no ambiguity that I can see. Same as WP:3RR:

An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.

So, for a standard 1RR restriction, this would be:

An editor must not perform more than one revert, in whole or in part, on a single page within a week. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what it would appear to mean. However if you review the text at WP:1RR it says something completely different. The definition has been there a long time. Under that definition, it wouldn't matter how many reverts one makes in a time period, but once something is reverted it may never be restored by anyone without a consensus. If we mean to limit editors to one revert per time period, we should say "one revert per time period" rather "1RR". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. "One revert per time period" it is, then. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

So far as the proposed decision goes it's up to the arbitrators to decide. We've never actually implemented WP:1RR. FWIW, you quoted the text of WP:1RR to another user when accusing them of violating it, so I presume you've been aware of the written definition.[1] That's why it's important to make sure we all know what is meant by these terms. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi also quoted the "WP:1RR" definition again in his evidence, on March 21.[2] Given that he's twice quoted the verbatim language of 1RR, yet now appears to have been unfamiliar with it, it's undoutbtedly important to define exactly what we mean when we refer to "1RR". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My quoting of 1RR was appropriate, and in no manner in contradiction to what we have discussed above. You may have mis-interpreted that wording as if "once reverted never to be reverted" but that is not what the 1RR means, as the timeframe was always there (1RR per day, 1RR per week). In any case, for those that this was not clear, it should be now. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Jossi is encouraged to otherwise contribute to the editorial process, for example by contributing to talk page discussions"

Really? To me this would be fine if he were not an administrator who over-policed the Talk Page (and thus the article itself). As I said on Jimbo Wales page - it is particularly discouraging for former followers (who by rights should be allowed to participate in an even playing field here) to find themselves being bullied by Rawat's very own officials. This simple but crucial unfairness seems to be as yet overlooked in the proposals - unless I'm missing something. PatW (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the whole finding/decision?

Forgive me if I'm being dense, but I don't see any substantive action being taken by the Arbitration committee in this case. The finding/decision reads like a restatement and repetition of current Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but doesn't offer anything specific to guide editors in how to proceed, other than continue with the status quo on the Prem Rawat articles. The only specific item provided is that Jossi has been warned, but he can continue to write on the talk pages, which was shown to be part of the major problem on the Rawat articles. Yet, the ARBcom recommends the status quo. I'm baffled. I've never seen an arbitration case in the real world handled in this manner, so maybe someone could be willing to: 1) Explain to me how these decisions were reached, because the response by the ARBcom on this case appears weak and one-sided in favor of Pro-Rawat editors; 2) Why should any editor in the future, when faced with a Wikipedia Arbitration, bother to work as hard as the involved editors have done on this case, when this is all the Arbcom has come up with as a resolution; and 3) If editors on this discussion page can't even agree on the 1RR policy, how on earth are they going to go back to the articles and work together? Seems like all of this has been an enormous exercise in futility, very similar to trying to edit the Prem Rawat series of articles. Frankly, I'm puzzled by these "finding/decisions." Sylviecyn (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recommended reading: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland#Limitations of Arbitration. Of course, there's more to be said than you can read in that section of a recent ArbCom case, but it maybe gives some insight in the approach. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This type of special pleading, is unnecessary and untimely. The arbitration has not been closed yet. So far, only one arbitrator has submitted a proposed decision, and voting on this (or any further proposals) has not commenced. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was addressing the committee, not participants. Sylviecyn (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a public page, and you can surely expect anyone to respond. My comment about the special pleading, while this case is still not closed, stands. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your objection. May not users comment on the proposed decision? May they not make suggestions for improving it, or point out perceived weaknesses? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not objecting to anything, Will. People can and will write in these pages what they want. I was making the point of the untimeliness of the comment as the case has not closed, as well as asserting that special pleading is really unnecessary. Proposals are usually made in the Workshop page, not in talk, and by some reason most parties have not made any proposals for the ArbCom to consider, choosing rather to complain. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think with a more careful reading of special pleading you will see that her statement above does not fall into that category. Sylviecyn has neither made a spurious argument, introduced details, favorable, or unfavorable, nor has she attempted to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule. You should probably also re-read Red Herring it would seem to apply more to your description of her simple questions, aside from not being very helpful in general. As to your comment about untimeliness, I'm not sure if it was intentionally humourous, but are you proposing she wait until after the case is closed before she asks any questions? What would the point of that be? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 02:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm... I see your point regarding the untimeliness. Just that I would prefer people to be making proposals in the Workshop page that can be discussed, rather than complain about proposals made by others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by past cases, the ArbCom members appear to try to reach a rough consensus in private discussion before they start posting proposed decisions. Since Bainer posted his proposals, no other arbitrators have commented on them, which may mean that the members are still apart to some degree on a plan of action for resolving this case and are engaging in further private discussion. Please be patient. Cla68 (talk) 02:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi, with all due respect, have you considered that your officious tone might be a significant factor in why we are here now? I mean, there's quite a few people have commented that you come across as 'hectoring' and 'prefectorial'. Would you accept that there may be some truth in that? And that may have something to do with you having the position of an administrator?PatW (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good example of how Jossi makes personal attacks, negative judgments, and uses baiting while appearing to sound reasonable and civil. He consistently uses his supposed superior knowledge of Wikipedia policies/guidelines to continously instruct me and others, while knowing full well how much he annoys me when he does that -- because I've asked him many times to stop doing it because it annoys me. He uses a condescending, demanding, and demeaning tone to those he views as his opponents, then states he has no control over how others view him. I'm looking up the fallacy of that argument now and I'll get back to you all. :-) So, Jossi linked to the "Special Pleadings" article in order to charactertize what I wrote above as "spurious," thus avoiding calling my post spurious here. Some would call his behavior passive-aggressive, but I characterize it as old fashioned aggressiveness and I'm sick of it having to put up with it on Wikipedia. My post above isn't spurious, a special pleading, nor a red herring. I was simply asking questions because because I haven't found this ARB process to be user-friendly at all. Please excuse me while I learn. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small Pond

[Proposed decision Small pond]

The Prem Rawat article has existed for nearly four years, and has been edited nearly five thousand times, while its talk page has been edited nearly eleven thousand times. However, only a small number of users have made significant contributions to the article (including Andries, Jossi, Zappaz, Richard G., Gary D and Momento).

How is “Small Pond” to be distinguished from WP:OWN, and tag teaming ? The analysis of ‘significant contributions’ is interesting but more relevant is how many of those ‘significant contributions’ have survived, even for a few days. User:Andries has committed a great deal of time to the Rawat articles but his edits have been frequently removed. “Small Pond” is surely a symptom not a cause of problems, and to merely identify it is to provide a gloss not a resolution. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tasteless remarks from Sam Blacketer reveal how little research he has done

Frankly I give up on this procedure. I don't see that these people have made ANY decent attempt to see the whole picture. Why should anyone else take this article seriously or Wikipedia articles that are similarly afflicted for that matter? Only a court of day-dreamers could stick up for Jossi like they have done so far and their reasoning!? Talk about turning a blind eye!! You know the only conclusion I can reach is that they simply have NOT completely read the evidence. Sam Blacketer's analogy of Jossi being like a conscientious priest of the church and his being all concerned about abuses, is no less than chilling to the bone. I actually feel sickened by this knowing better the truth of the matter. Sam, it is unconscionable of you to protect Jossi with this sort of flippant flattery. All it demonstrates is that you know nothing about Prem Rawat, his past or the way his employees and followers have abused Wikipedia or other followers. And further you have conspicuously done insufficient background research about it to warrant the remarks you have made. If you really want to educate yourself in this matter I will meet you and tell you face to face. Then you can make up your own mind about who is concerned to hold abusive priests responsible for their actions. There are actually children who were sexually abused by Rawat's priests by the way and perhaps you'd care to ask Jossi what how concerned he is to see justice is done about that! You will soon enough see he won't want to elaborate or discuss the grievances of the abused kids, who are now grown up and are NOT happy with the way Rawat handled the affair or the outcome.PatW (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Football Analogy isn't Bad"

It's atrocious! By the far the better football analogy is that Jossi acts as both referee and player and, to make matters worse, he is playing for his team. Unbelievable! How can jpgordon possibly think that? And how far are they going to stretch these unbelievable flimsy notions to try and avoid the truth that all the evidence presents? How ridiculous is it to posit that "Supporters of football clubs are, in my experience, the first to be critical of their own club's performance if they feel it has let the fans down." when plainly Jossi has NO beliefs that his club has let down it's fans.PatW (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My conclusions about this Wikipedia arbitration

What a dog and pony show. And Jossi called me spurious for asking questions too early. The evidence of this arbitration is that these arbitrators don't know how a real arbitration should function. This is how a real arbitration should operate: 1) Parties in dispute request arbitration; 2) Parties present complaints and evidence, and all evidence is available to all parties, i.e., no private or ex parte discussions allowed via email, for example. Additionally, the parties are prohibited from editing on article space and talk page space until the final ARB decision; 3) the evidence phase closes, (for purposes of Wikipedia, the evidence page should be locked); and 5) Arbitrators review and consider the evidence, come up with a decision, and publish it. What this exercise in futility has become isn’t arbitration by any stretch of the imagination.

It's become abundantly clear that the Wikipedia community either doesn’t understand what constitutes a real arbitration or a real conflict of interest or they are just unwilling to understand and implement correct and proper procedures, in order to favor certain editors who are favored by Jimbo Wales. The section in the decision that compares the Catholic Church to Jossi’s involvement with Prem Rawat is so off the mark that it’s difficult to begin to explain the real situation. Jossi isn’t a member of a church for starters. In fact, one of the many contradictions of this NRM/cult is that Prem Rawat states that he doesn’t offer or teach any religion, philosophy, belief-system, or spirituality, while his supporting organization, Elan Vital enjoys tax-free status as an IRS non-profit 501(c)(3) organization in the U.S., registered as a church. In fact, Elan Vital claims it has no members, only contributors. But it’s not uncommon for Jossi and other adherents of this NRM/cult to decry and protest any criticism of their NRM/cult leader, Prem Rawat by stating it is somehow a violation of their freedom of religion. This behavior and attitude is especially true about adherent's views anyone, not just vocal critics of Rawat -- anyone who dares to be critical of Rawat. Yeah, wrap your heads around that one. It’s absolutely true.

Furthermore, the comparisons of Catholics' involvement in writing about the Catholic Church's sex abuse scandal, to Jossi’s involvement in the Rawat articles, along with the sports analogy, are illogical and incorrect. It demonstrates that the arbitrators haven’t comprehensively reviewed the evidence and have little understanding of this matter. Or that the ARBCom is so biased in favor of supporting members of NRMs/cults on Wikipedia, apparently in the name of granting Jossi “freedom of religion,” or to defer to the favoritism shown by Jimbo Wales towards Jossi, that they are unable to overcome their bias in order to render a fair judgment. Don’t forget, this arbitration has been about behavior, not religious affiliation or content – Jossi’s been lecturing this to fellow editors throughout this arbitration process. So, the ARBcom fails to understand the basic underlying problems on the Rawat articles specifically, along with the contentious editing problems of articles about NRM/cults and their leaders in general. It also demonstrates that the ARBCom has no understanding of the differences between mainstream religions and NRMs/cults because of the many problems observed on Wikipedia articles about NRMs/cults and their leaders (living or deceased) has been that a typical adherent is unable and unwilling to consider any criticism of their NRM/cult or leader, and as a result typically object to criticism vehemently. A proper analogy of this arbitration would have been for the ARBcom to compare the Catholic critics of pedophile priests to the critics of Prem Rawat who are former followers.

If the ARBcom had adequately reviewed the evidence, it would have observed that, Jossi, Momento, and Rumiton (all adherents) have exercised control over the contents of the Prem Rawat article, gamed the system, wikilawyered, and otherwise have abused the policies and fellow editors on the Rawat talk pages, in order to avoid and prevent criticism of their NRM/cult leader from appearing in the article. And if the ARBcom were actually interested in solving the Rawat article’s many problems, they would have done their homework about the extent to which users Jossi, Momento, and Rumiton have endeavored to block facts provided by accepted reliable sources, that may be viewed as critical of Rawat, in order to paint him in a glowing light in advertorial fashion. This brings into the glaring light of day Jossi’s conflict of interest, which constitutes the fact that he is being paid by a Rawat-supporting organization while he has edited the article, including control of content on the talk pages.

Therefore, the ARBCom ignored the fact that one of the biggest complaints of the parties has been Jossi’s overbearing and dictatorial behavior on the talk pages. Evidence of this is their promotion of Jossi’s continued involvement on the Rawat talk pages in the decision. Therefore, by ignoring the facts in evidence, the ARBCom hasn’t concluded anything substantial in their decision but to repeat standing policies and guidelines, and to promote the status quo – which brought the parties to ARBcom in the first place, while involved editors on all sides continued to argue amongst themselves on the talk page. This includes pro-Rawat editor’s continued personal attacks on the Prem Rawat talk page against the editors they perceive as opponents. ARBCom also hasn’t come to any decisions concerning editor Momento’s editorial disruption and even his recent behavior on the Rawat talk page, where he refers to the ex-premie.org website as a “hate” site. That website is owned by a fellow editor, John Brauns. I’m not going to provide the diff because it’s obvious the arbitrators in this case don’t read the evidence, despite the hard work of everyone to provide them with it, so I’ve adopted an attitude of “why bother?” The committee hasn’t come to any decision about the use of Wikpedia by pro-Rawat editors to libel and defame fellow editors, i.e., IsabellaW’s rant about critics of Prem Rawat being a hate-group, and Gstaker’s use of his page to link to a known defamation website that repeats the same libel and defamation.

My conclusion is that this arbitration committee hasn’t reached any decisions, doesn’t understand the dynamics of the case, is unable to make unbiased opinions about anything in this case, and that this has been a complete waste of my time. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may not understand or like the way the Wikipedia community deals with dispute resolution, and that is your prerogative. You have the right to think that the ArbCom members have not reviewed the evidence (which would be an unforgivable dereliction in their duties). You also have the right to disagree with ArbCom's findings and comments, and express that disagreement as vociferously as you have done above. But to imply that there were private discussions via email in which evidence was presented that was not presented in these pages, or that Jimbo Wales has any favoritism toward certain editors (with the implication that he would want to penalize others), or that has influenced proceedings, is an outrageous, baseless claim, that only reflects badly on you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec - I see Jossi struck his answer to Sylviecyn, for these reasons given in the edit summary: "on second thoughts, the arbCom does not need my defense of them" - since he didn't withdraw his words for being wrong on several other levels too I continue with the edit-conflicted response I had written:)

Jossi, arbitrators:

Re. "that there were private discussions via email in which evidence was presented that was not presented in these pages" - Sylviecyn was correct, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence#A personal attack by Jossi;
Re. "that Jimbo Wales has any favoritism toward certain editors" - This diff is linked from the /Evidence page (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence#Jimbo Wales' comment). Also the archived discussion following on that edit by Jimbo was linked from the same /Evidence page section: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 33#break 0. In the edit, Jimbo made clear he thought Jossi "a great Wikipedian". On the other hand I was treated with straw man argumentation. No big or small compliment, just straw man argumentation. Whether justifiable or not: this is called favoritism, and it was only one click away from the /Evidence page. Sylviecyn was correct, and it was plain from the evidence presented in this case.
Re. "(with the implication that he would want to penalize others)" - Straw man argumentation by Jossi used against Sylviecyn: Sylviecyn didn't write that, I found nowhere where it could have been implied in her post, and, for completeness: I experienced Jimbo's favoritism towards Jossi over me. Nowhere did I experience "that he would want to penalize (me or any) others". It never crossed my mind. Sylviecyn didn't imply it, it is Jossi's way to downwrite an opponent by straw man argumentation.
Re. "that has influenced proceedings" - unclear what Jossi means: "that [he (= Jimbo)] has influenced proceedings" or "that [this (= the intended or uninteded favoritism)] has influenced proceedings"? The first was not implied by Sylviecyn, and would be a straw man argument; the second eventually is too: Sylviecyn wrote about arbitrators (maybe or maybe not) deferring to the favoritism shown by Jimbo Wales towards Jossi, that they are unable to overcome their bias in order to render a fair judgment. Sylviecyn did not say the favoritism influenced; but surmised that arbitrators maybe deferred to it (they might have equally deferred to press reports, saying that is not the same as saying that Cade Metz influenced the ArbCom outcome - just presenting a comparison to make clear how Jossi distorted Sylviecyn's words).

No, we can't work with this Jossi deforming arguments of others into straw man argumentation anywhere near to the Prem Rawat related articles. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Folks, I recommend pausing and reconsidering all these harsh words. I'm not expert on the process here, but as near as I can tell any point needs 7 votes to pass, and none have that yet. Furthermore Will Beback just began providing evidence. Most importantly, "yelling at the referee" has never worked in recorded history that I know of -- it didn't work for Momento on his/her blocks, and I doubt it will help you here. It might influence the arbitrators who haven't voted yet, though, and probably not in a positive way.

I too find it odd that the weakness of the evidence in a previous COI proceeding for Jossi is discussed at length, but not the evidence provided in this case, but who knows? Maybe it has been discussed in private, maybe it is still being discussed, maybe new proposals are being developed to be voted on based on it, or not. No way to tell, and nobody likes a complainer.

There's still time to make Workshop proposals, which is the best way to influence this discussion. I'm working on some right now. Recommend folks put there energy there, too. Note that a number of these proposals are not being supported, so always room for more. Msalt (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]