Hi. I have no involvement in this set of articles other than some discussion with Jossi on his involvement. The principle that motivated me then still concerns me, and I'd like to make a request of the Arbitration Committee here.

In my view, Wikipedia is only as valuable as it is trusted. We can only achieve our vision, "a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge," if people believe we are a reliable place to get that knowledge. This case, which seems at first to consist of sensationalist tabloid gripes over a few minor articles, turns on our commitment to that vision.

During our early years, people suspected us because anybody could edit. We and other wikis proved that fear broadly unfounded, and the that-could-never-work criticism of that era now seems quaint. Now, our success brings a bigger challenge. As one of the world's top ten websites, the stakes are much higher. They are higher for us: climbing near a mountain's peak, there is much more room to fall than to rise. They are also much higher for the subjects of articles: we are almost always one of the top Google hits for a subject, well above most newspaper articles.

These heightened stakes require us to become more diligent, more vigilant, more scrupulous. Especially for people who hold positions of power, it is vital that we avoid not just biased edits, not just bias due to an imbalance in involvement, but any appearance of a conflict of interest. Even with the best of intentions, it would be hard for someone whose job and personal life both involve a strong devotion to a topic to create a scrupulously balanced article. Outsiders, however, can never know those intentions, and have no reason to give us the benefit of the doubt. A suspicion of entrenched bias, once it takes root, casts a shadow not over one article or one editor, but every article and every editor on Wikipedia. We must prevent that.

Some will say, correctly, that we allow people with conflicts of interest to edit a great variety of articles. I believe this works well when a) the people with conflicts of interest are casual editors, b) there is sufficient public interest in the topic to provide broad oversight, c) there are active editors on all sides, and d) there are enough editors with no personal involvement to outweigh the activity of those who have a conflict of interest. At least until recently, none of these conditions were met for these articles.

Even if the Prem Rawat articles were shining examples of balance, we would still have the problem of appearance. I have no reason to believe that Jossi isn't entirely well meaning, but he has made over 4,400 edits to pages related to something to which he has devoted much of both his professional and personal lives. Even if he were entirely forthcoming on the nature of his conflict of interest (and so far, he unfortunately hasn't been), an unbiased outsider would have a hard time not suspecting that something is amiss, especially given Jossi's position of power.

The Arbitration Committee has in other cases made clear that we administrators must hew to a higher standard than the average editor, both because of the example we set internally and our heightened public visibility. I ask that the Arbitration Committee reaffirm that principle here by strongly discouraging admins from anything but the most modest participation on articles where even the appearance of a conflict of interest exists.

Thank you for your time. William Pietri (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support this request. A pivotal case in terms of clarifying the current state of play regarding (the appearance of) admin bias. The momentum has been there for years. Avb 11:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very reasoned and reasonable request that is essential to Wikipedia's longevity. Jossi is a good admin, but his services in most capacities are not needed on the Rawat articles due to the appearance of bias. There are a thousand-plus admins that can cover there, and a whole lot of other articles to work on. Lawrence § t/e 15:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...I think you forgot to enclose your excellent summary of the situation within <proverbial nail> and </hit_head> tags :) -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good argument, wrong forum.

1. There is no evidence that I have used my admin privileges in these articles;
2. If Wikipedia needs to evolve its WP:COI guideline, and make it an official policy to impose further restrictions on people with declared or undeclared conflicts, ArbCom is not the place to do so. The community needs to take that on, not ArbCom;
3. Once we get into "managing perceptions" or "appearances" in Wikipedia, as it pertains to external views of the project, ask yourself these questions: How do you do that? Can this be be done in "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit"? Can a community of thousands of people with 2.56 million articles manage public perceptions without imposing restrictions on editing? These are all excellent questions, and should be asked in the appropriate fora. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jossi. I believe this is the correct forum, or at least a correct forum. Some quick answers:

1. I have never suggested that you have misused your admin privileges. You are still an admin, though, and whether you wish it or not, that adds a certain weight to all your actions here.
2. It is true that ArbCom does not make policy, but ArbCom definitely has influence over the community, and I am asking them to use that influence here.
3. The how of managing our reputation is, given our open nature, complicated. But the why is not: we must do it if we are to succeed in our mission. Building an encyclopedia is not enough. An encyclopedia that nobody trusts would be a waste of time.

Really, I hope you don't take all this personally. As far as one can tell from a distance, you mean nothing but good. This particular case isn't a big deal on its own, and only matters because of the deeper issues that it raises. I'm sorry you drew the short straw and ended up the focus of this. William Pietri (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like your writing style, William, it bespeaks a kindly and thoughtful soul (pardon my floridity). You correctly describe the reputation of Wikipedia as "vital", but you might consider that if the principles of truthful reporting that have been evolved with such care have to be flouted merely for some fleeting public approval which will be forgotten in a month's time, then the reputation will be a hollow thing. Look at the diffs carefully and see that preserving these standards is what Jossi has been about. Not perfectly, no doubt, but sincerely. If there are other admins who can step in and do better, please "bring them on". Rumiton (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rumiton. It's certainly true that living biographies are very important to our reputation, and some of our biggest black eyes have come when we fell down on that. However, with millions of articles and a vast army of contributors, I believe that this enterprise does not and cannot depend on any one person's efforts on a particular article. If Jossi were to ask for someone to step in, I'm sure he'd have a surplus of volunteers. I also don't think an admin must be personally and deeply involved in every article that is to succeed; any solid set of editors should be able to keep things to our usual standards, especially given the broad support for careful grooming of BLPs. If Jossi's participation here is truly about his dedication to Wikipedia (something I have no cause to doubt) then we will benefit just as much from his careful attention to some of the 2.5 million articles where he does not have a conflict of interest. William Pietri (talk) 04:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, William. Cla68 (talk) 04:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William, I can only say again, bring it on, this "solid set of editors" from the "surplus of volunteers", and we will learn how the "careful grooming" of this living biography can proceed. The admins who have presented themselves so far have not won the hearts and minds of the disputants. Until the newcomers arrive and prove their worth I think the article will continue to need Jossi's experienced touch. Rumiton (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has Jossi asked for someone to step in to replace him? The first step in getting help is typically the asking.

I think the problem is compounded by the heavy involvement of people with strong conflict of interest. If people continue to fear that the article is improperly influenced, you will inevitably see a more disputatious tone, and the presence of people who feel obligated to counterbalance.

I'd also add that this is not a beauty contest, where admins come by present themselves for your approval. The editors involved in an article are responsible for finding consensus around a great encyclopedia article, and failing that, for seeking out the help they need to make it happen. If series of otherwise uninvolved editors and admins are not meeting some collective standard, it's worth examining that standard. William Pietri (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you meant by "not meeting some collective standard" and "examining that standard." Your point re the "beauty contest" is well taken, though I think a little unfair. The disputes regarding this article have centered on interpreting the Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources, original research and living biographies. If these guidelines are good, and I personally feel they are, they should provide a framework for a neutral article that will be acceptable to all parties. The admins of course, with their greater experience, play a vital role in the process. Maybe an even more experienced admin than Jossi would be helpful, but the publicity surrounding the Register article didn't seem to attract such a paragon of interpretive wisdom, so I don't see how Jossi's calling for help would. Rumiton (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that if, as you suggest, a number of otherwise disinterested, well-meaning, experienced editors and admins have not "won the hearts and minds of the disputants", then yet more people coming by may not produce a different result. It might be instead more effective for the disputants to reexamine their acceptance criteria.

As to Jossi's asking for help, that's kinda how we work. If somebody asks for help, I'm glad to give it. If somebody doesn't, then I am very reluctant to interject myself; helping people who don't want help is generally fruitless. In four years here, I don't think I have ever asked for help and not gotten it. Which is why I am confident that if Jossi were to ask for senior editors without conflicts of interest to step in so that he could retire from these articles, he would have a surfeit of offers. William Pietri (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved here from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence#Analysis of history of editing restrictions. This could go into Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Workshop#Analysis of evidence, but I'm still pondering whether it is strong enough. I would welcome reactions though. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite a wide variety of applied editing restrictions (including a commendable number of self-imposed ones) over the last one and a half month, the result appears to be failing. Can we learn anything? A (thus far incomplete) analysis regarding some points:

1. Community-imposed probation referring to WP:ANI for enforcement seems to be failing in the short run: none of the four discussion sections initiated there after the start of the 1RR probation (1-2-3-4) received a clear answer from the community; after the second the community had already grown tired, and referred to ArbCom when the 3rd and 4th started nearly concurrently a few days later. All in all the first of these WP:ANI initiatives was the most successful: it negotiated a truce between PatW and Jossi, with clear commitments on both sides. However, the concurrent dialog at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 35#Jossi Fresco still 'A Great Wikipedian'? was probably no less instrumental in approaching a middle ground on that point (see above #Kim Bruning's role). The second (and in fact also the fourth) failed on an interpretation of "revert": a confusion which would be unthinkable at WP:AN3, which should have been indicated as the proper forum for "revert rule" disputes in the probation conditions. In general, for this ArbCom case, the point seems to be that proper treatment of "enforcement" (type and methods) seems indicated.
2. Despite a high number of self-imposed restrictions, something seems not to be working:
   • Jossi's self-imposed restrictions go further than anybody else's, yet his actions are still sometimes perceived as policing (see User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 35#Jossi Fresco still 'A Great Wikipedian'?). Jossi's role is ambivalent: exhorting others to be civil, trying to pull strings so that others remove PA's, but lacking some sensitivity as to setting the example himself (see #A personal attack by Jossi);
   • Some who might better apply self-restriction of some kind, do not seem inclined (Momento -blocked twice-, Nik Wright2 -his article editing was instrumental for the Feb 26 protection-, etc);
   • Some are restricting themselves w.r.t. edits to the article, and appear far too talkative on the talk page (PatW, see soapboxing allegations); edits to the article by others are experienced as problematic for a lack of talk page participation (Janice Rowe [1]).
   • Others are generally recognised for their qualitative edits to the article and earnest talk page participation, for whom no specific editing restrictions seem indicated: their background does not seem to hamper them at all (Jayen -clearly pro-Rawat-, Msalt -self-proclaimed webmaster of a gossipy website-, etc).

It seems very hard to draw general conclusions from this very varied 2nd point. Nonetheless attempting: maybe the important point is that appropriate self-disclosure on the talk page (like Msalt's, John Brauns',...) is a better recipe for creating an atmosphere of cooperation than convoluted self-restricted editing. Or put otherwise: let those who can not self-disclose appropriately on the article's talk page (for whatever reason, assuming that these may often be justifiable reasons), stay away from the Prem Rawat related articles, and not try to weigh on the content of these articles by whatever direct or indirect means. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue here is that WP:DR, as it relates to content disputes, has not been explored. The proposed two Mediations (both between Momento and Andries), never got to a start. I would argue that in the current circumstances, mediation (formal or informal), in which a non-involved and experienced editor lends a hand, together with article restrictions may provide the necessary framework to move forward. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, dozens of RFCs have been filed and I filed three mediation requests. Andries (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can call it nonsense, but mediation has never taken place. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:DR#Last resort: Arbitration: "If you have taken all other reasonable steps to resolve the dispute, and the dispute is not over the content of an article, you can request Arbitration":

1. So, Jossi, you're admitting an error now? You took it to RfAr, while you stay adamant (1) you did not take all reasonable steps to resolve the dispute (you didn't take it to mediation first); and (2) the dispute was over the content, not something one should present to ArbCom?
2. ...and you accuse the arbitrators accepting the case of poor judgement for accepting a case that was on content, and for which there was insufficient proof of prior steps in DR?

Maybe some arbitrators, or the clerck can weigh in now... --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm is not very useful, Francis, neither it is putting words in other people's mouths. I proposed mediation which was supported by Will Beback as well (see my evidence), but you and others did not take the offer. I also was instrumental in negotiating a community-enforced 1RR and disruption probation, which failed due to lack of seriousness in abiding by it (check my evidence again). Editors preferred to edit-war instead to a point of earning an indef page protection, and my involvement was questioned by you without me having a chance to properly defend myself. These two aspects compelled me to request this arbitration. Arbitration is designed to address behavioral issues and not content issues, as you probably know. Content issues are dealt with in talk pages, and if that fails, via WP:DR. ArbCom may offer recommendations and/or impose restrictions so that the editing can resume without disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't start mediation, period. Stop distilling accusations directed at others from that. If you didn't start it, while you wanted it to be started you're the only one to blame for not starting it.

There's no sarcasm in my edit above. I had some questions about what you really try to say. Your answer shows you don't mind the contradiction. There's a guideline against such behaviour: Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still asking arbitrators or clerk to weigh in here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't start mediation, period. I proposed it, and Will Beback, made it clear that I should not participate or initiate mediation given I recuse from editing. You keep making overreaching assertions without grounding in reality or on evidence. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My argument stands: you didn't start mediation (for whatever reason), you can't reproach others that they didn't either.

I think you were a bit easy-going: "I actually was not interested in participating in the mediation, Will" (Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 30#Mediation). You were one of those in the center of the tension surrounding the Prem Rawat article at the time: what incentive did you expect others to have if one of the core players found a welcome exit for not participating in the mediation? What result did you expect the mediation to have, if one of the core players wouldn't be participating? Did you expect all others to do the work because you wished them to do so?

You were not interested in participating in mediation, period. Don't distill accusations directed at others from that.

I still request arbitrators or clerk to weigh in here, while "XYZ did not pursue dispute resolution" (like you wrote in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Workshop#Francis Schonken did not pursue dispute resolution) is absurdistan, contradicted by evidence presented in e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Workshop#General reference. There was an absolute willingness by all involved to follow whatever sort of dispute resolution deemed feasible. E.g. I participated in nearly all noticeboard discussion listings (WP:DR#Ask for help at a relevant noticeboard), I focused on content (WP:DR#Focus on content), I participated in various talk page discussions (WP:DR#Discussing with the other party) etc. etc. In fact your "I actually was not interested in participating in the mediation" was rather the exception than the rule for those trying to get the Prem Rawat on track again, including myself. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are missing the reasons for the statement "I actually was not interested in participating in the mediation, Will". I said that because Will BeBack asked me not to participate in the mediation, so that only actively editing editors would. Read the comments preceding mine [2] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What was unclear about (for whatever reason) in the first sentence of my comment above? I read the archived talk page section several times, and by your "I actually was not..." you made it perfectly clear your mind had already been made up before Will replied to your suggestion.

And, whatever, whether your mind was made up before, during, or after Will's comment: You were not interested in participating in mediation (for whatever reason), period. Don't distill accusations directed at others from that.

Again asking arbitrators or clerk to weigh in here, even more urgently than before. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

????? Are you familiar with ArbCom proceedings, Francis? It does not seem so. What weighing in are you asking for? The ArbCom case has been accepted and well in the process, next stage to be played by the ArbCom in assessing evidence, and developing their Proposed decision. If you feel that it is important for ArbCom to know that I accepted Will Beback suggestion not to participate in mediation, by all means add it to your evidence. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitrator and/or clerk input: see User talk:Vassyana#Question --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at it :-) John Vandenberg (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay; I became distracted by a push for WP:DYK. The section /Evidence#Jossi's alleged COI is appropriate for the Evidence page, and is best left there. It does "analyse", however the "Analysis of evidence" section of the Workshop should meld together the different evidence provided by all parties into a more holistic view of the situation. John Vandenberg (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation and clarifying the purpose of the analysis of evidence section. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 02:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I object to Francis reorganization and clerking of this page as he has done here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at it. John Vandenberg (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed one of those diffs, and the follow on comments. I'll be restoring them shortly.. John Vandenberg (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Francis, having looked at it a few times now, the text in that diff was mostly Evidence. I see no purpose in putting it back into the general discussion area, as I dont want this general discussion area to become another unwieldy battleground (the Evidence page is already hard enough to follow). If there is evidence lacking, please add it to the Evidence page, and then refer to it in your reply in that General discussion section. John Vandenberg (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Input would be welcomed, particularly on the utility of the existing 1RR restriction, and whether that should remain or perhaps be absorbed into the article probation. --bainer (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive a question that may seem obvious -- is this the place to offer input? Or the Discussion page of that proposal? Or....? Msalt (talk) 04:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed decision page itself is just for arbitrators, however anyone can comment on its talk page. --bainer (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Msalt, the Proposed decision page and its talk page is for arbitrators only. We can comment in here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the conflicting recommendations given by bainer and jossi, I'd follow the arbitrator this time (Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Proposed decision) --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]