Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:33, 14 February 2008

Misplaced Pages ads	file info – show another – #252

To monitor or copy edit the upcoming featured article (FA) that will appear on the Main page, place {{FA-tomorrow}} (including the four curly braces) on your User page. Help Misplaced Pages put its best foot forward.

Comment on article

I was recently mentioned in an on-line article off-wiki.

This is my response

You may also want to read the request for advice I placed at the Village Pump a few weeks ago here ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

At Misplaced Pages:Village pump (assistance)/Archive 5#Request for support and advice you ask for advice. My advice is to stop editing any article or policy that is problematic for Misplaced Pages's reputation or yours. People have already told you which pages those are. Trust their judgement over yours on the issue. The entire point of COI is that the person who has one doesn't see it and therefore needs to avoid editing certain things because they are dead sure they are being neutral when in fact they are not. Don't edit subjects close to you. You thought you were immune from being human? Nope, just like the rest of us, when you open your eyes you see the world from your point of view. You also asked for support. Well, know that I'm glad when I see you involved on a page because I find your contributions to usually be accurate, helpful, balanced, and fair. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, I haven't tried to figure out what this latest episode is about. But you have my support and appreciation for the hard and earnest work you've been doing on Misplaced Pages. If only there was more attention to NPA out there.... Be well and of good cheer. Feel free to contact me by Talk or email. Take care of yourself, as you have by asking for support, b'hatzlakhah, HG | Talk 19:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that Cla68 has a conflict of interest here, as he has been in contact with Metz before, but chose to add Metz's allegations to the "criticism of Misplaced Pages" article; I do not think that any criticism should be added unless it has been identified as a notable criticism by sources independent of the originating publication. But then, Cla68 did not see a conflict in promoting the linking of an interview with him to that article, accusing those who pointed out factual errors in the interview of having a conflict in not wanting it there, so perhaps he's the one whose understanding of COI is off-base. Guy (Help!) 19:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Guy, it is clear that Jossi has a COI regarding some things. Whether Cla68 has a COI regarding a certain newspaper or one of its reporters is another matter. And with regard to a COI on the "Criticism of Misplaced Pages" article; we ALL have a COI there! WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

So is my argeement that there is a COI off-base? I think not. Stop trying to find excuses, folks: If Jossi were KDBuffalo, we'd all be at his throat.

Anyway, if you'll notice, I don't edit the IRS article because in COI cases, perception is 9 points of the "law". •Jim62sch• 21:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The Register article tries to read into a few facts a whole series of unverified conclusions. I have had a number of occasions to observe Jossi's work as an editor and admin over the last 16 months that I have been editing on Misplaced Pages. In all honesty, I have always admired his contributions, and his willingness to go the "extra mile" in helping out people who needed technical advice or assistance in dispute resolutions. Hang in there Jossi, you have many who support you! Arion 3x3 (talk) 04:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hola

Me das lastima ver lo que le esta pasando con Maharaji. Si le puedo ayudar, solo decirmelo. Pues Maharaji no es uno de los malos y las cosas que sele acusan tampoco son buenas. Vaya pues, SqueakBox 01:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Gracias, SqueakBox. Te agradezco tus palabras. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Perspective

This too shall pass. Hang in there. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry about The Register.

I think the article by The Register is largely my fault.

I don't know anything about you or Prem Rawat, and told Cade nothing about that.

However, this all seems to have begun because I e-mailed The Register about the hoax, Brahmanical See, which asserted that Hinduism is organized like Catholicism (basically comparing the Maharaj to the Pope). I thought it would be good for such criticism of Misplaced Pages to be published because it seems to encourage Misplaced Pages to improve.

I spoke with Cade over the phone for a while about it. Today, he sent me a link to the article in question via e-mail and I was surprised to see that it had nothing to do with Brahmanical See, but appeared to just be conspiracy theorism about you.

Now, even though my contact with Mr. Metz had nothing to do with you, it seems true that he would've never been creating these conspiracy theories if I had never e-mailed him to begin with.

I hope nobody bothers you about this.

My suggestion: If you face a persistent amount of harassment, you may be able to seek a legal injunction against The Register or Mr. Metz for harassment, libel, or defamation of character.

For now, I'm somewhat paranoid because he has my real name and contact info. I'm not an admin, but since I'm supporting you here, god knows there's a good chance I will end up in one of his future conspiracy theories. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I honestly feel the Register article is bad editorial, and shows a profound lack of knowledge in how Misplaced Pages actually works, so hopefully it won't be taken as reliable. I think what Zenwhat said above when he called it "conspiracy theorism" hits the nail on the head. --Nealparr 04:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I read the Register article carefully and I think it's well written. The major point it makes - that a few well placed Wikipedians wield inordinate influence - is indeed true. The issue is not if there is a "cult" article being whitewashed, rather it's about the fact that wiki leaders claim tthe wiki is egalitarian, but it's really not. The Reggister likes to tweak hypocrites and in the Wiki, they have found what they feel is a fair target. Wringly or rightly, the Reg is fixated on spotlighted wiki-misteps. We should take a step back and try to truly understand why they are this way. Their views about wiki are a mirror of the wiki. If we don;t like what we see, perhaps we should improve? 66.96.211.167 (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly. This is because after a certain amount of time and a certain amount of edits, editors get reputations. When editors continually do good work, continually show good judgment, continually show dedication to the aims of this project, naturally their word means more to those who know that person than for some random person who comes along. Misplaced Pages is egalitarian in that anyone can contribute and has the right to build a reputation that makes their words listened to. The idea of Misplaced Pages is not that everyone who contributes is equal and anyone who comes along is immediately welcomed with open arms if they engage in behavior that is questionable. That's not "news" to anyone except those who thought that erroneously to begin with. --David Shankbone 19:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous user, you're right. That is true. However, based on Jossi's response, I think it's reasonable.

Also, it turns out my apology is totally unnecessary. I e-mailed Metz and he said he's been working on this story for 2 months. Wow. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And he got paid for writing it (presumably). Double wow. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see my response to community feedback, and thank you all for your comments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Prem

Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=189994816 --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not follow your logic, and see no reason to destroy the hard work of many editors over a period of more than a year. You are most welcome to come and improve the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Re. "You deleted sources, hundreds of copyedits, new material, and the hard work of many editors, including non-involved editors." - The article is better sourced, better NPOV, and restores quite some "destroyed" edits. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not follow your logic, sorry Francis. You cannot dismiss with a wave of the hand thousands of edits to a version you created more than 14 months ago. That is not the way that Misplaced Pages works, and you know that better than me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the editing help. This is my first article. Someone wants to delete it due to neologism/essay/original research. I don't really understand. Do you have any advice for me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gardens for Living (talk • contribs) 20:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Way to fan the flames

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=190068136&oldid=190067433 - - WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with asking that the material be incorporated into the article. That template exist for a reason, don't you think? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The COI policy used to be far clearer than it is now about the possibilities for embarrassing yourself and what you care about. Most people aren't going to read and evaluate each of your edits to see if it is valid. Most people will hear you have an admitted COI and yet refuse to stop influencing and editing the articles you have a COI on. They will claim wikipedia has a double standard. You are not taking appearances into account. You are not following the COI guideline for what is preferred - which is don't edit subjects you are close to. Please stop bringing Misplaced Pages into disrepute. Innocent behavior that has the appearance of criminal behavior can result in going to jail. Appearance is important. Don't make wikipedia appear to not care about admin COI. WAS 4.250 (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I hear you. Perceptions count, no doubt. But that does not mean that we should allow these to drive our project.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between actual bias and apprehended bias. By editing the articles about your guru, and COI policies, it seems that you conduct yourself in such a way that fair-minded observer might reasonably apprehend that you might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the issues. This is not to say that you display any bias at all, but rather, it could be apprehended that you do. In courts, Judges are presumed to be able to judge all issues equally on their merits, and are presumed to be above prejudice in all matters. Never-the-less, where the potential for apprehended bias occurs, they will recuse themselves from cases, or in extreme cases, a higher court will overturn their decisions. This seems like as good advice as any in this situation. It is not that you have necessarily displayed bias towards your guru, it is that an apprehended bias exists, and perhaps recusal is called for. FiveVryl (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. With the Islam image question, we have responded by creating a page that tells people how to make it so they do not see images. I think that's about the best we can do with that. But it is fully in accord with our COI guideline for you to refrain from editing articles that you are close to. Since you are an admin, it would look good if you also refrained from influencing content; but I can see where not being allowed to express an opinion on the talk page could be too much like letting others run our show. But, gee whiz ... can't you back off for a month on the articles and the talk pages ... not to be able to do that makes it look like this is some sort of ... ummm ... uhhh ... job. WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Jossi. I'm sorry you've ended up in the soup on this one; the Register is rarely known to give a subject an even break. Still, I agree with WAS 4.250 here. This is not a question of letting perception drive our project. One of our basic theories is that there are plenty of unbiased people available to work on articles, so that credentialed experts and active participants are not vital for good results. As admins, we are expected to hold ourselves to the highest of standards, and I ask you to do that here by leaving alone the articles where you have a strong personal interest. By my count, you've made over 4,400 edits to pages related to your guru/employer. Let's call that enough for now. William Pietri (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

possibilities

so, i read the article in the register, and i can see it's quite biased against you. however, i think morally, you and others should avoid editing articles that relate to you directly. Religion is a heavy topic, and it brings bias with it; people believe in their religion, and therefore they defend it. i don't think you're doing much wrong, however, i do think that a criticism section should be included. i can see no reason for a lack of inclusion. as the register article itself shows - there's some bias against rawat. that's not my point, however. i'd like you and others to refrain from editing articles that affect you as such, as the bias would cause a conflict of interest for any person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.35.123 (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed your artwork yesterday.

I like it a lot. I am not an expert by any stretch of the imagination but stumbling back upon your user page and examining it closely was a very pleasent experience indeed. Thanks for sharing it with the community. : Albion moonlight (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Tx

I think you've taken a step I know must not have been easy.

Anyway, I'm coming here because someone (named Sylviecyn) is apparently very upset about something here: Talk:Prem Rawat#Declaration of intent. I don't know what it is all about, and the remark doesn't seem really suitable for an article talk page. Is there a way to come to a better understanding with this person? If you think I can help, just give me a word, but I'm about to stop for today. It's getting late this side of the ocean. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If the remark is not suitable for talk page, it can be moved to my talk page or that person's, although I have no interest in engaging with that person for now. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Notification: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Can we do anything about this? --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

archived

That was bold, and, I think, probably the right thing to do. Thanks. Hesperian 03:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I have placed a notice in that user's talk page. Rather than exacerbate the situation, lending a hand in these disputes may be the better approach. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Link

I obtained the L.A Times articles through ProQuest. If you like I can send you PDF files. If you hav access to ProQuest then you can also obtain them directly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I will appreciate the PDF, I will email you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've emailed you a copy of:

"Guru's Heliport Bid Backed as Fire Aid" ROBERT W STEWART, Los Angeles Times; Mar 25, 1982; pg. WS1

It's from the "ProQuest Historical Newspapers Los Angeles Times (1881 - 1986)" special collection. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The Proquest access I have did not bring that article in my search. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Just curious what this is...

"**Comment to closing admin - Maelefique (talk · contribs) second posting to Misplaced Pages was to this discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)" ... Are you suggesting that I've only made one other contribution other than the comments/edit suggestions to this article? I thought you'd be able to tell, but that's not correct. Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying here? And what would the relevance of that comment be? Do I need to cite published academic articles from elsewhere to be taken seriously or something? Point you to other WP articles? I'm just not clear on what your point is, if you could please explain. thanks.<insert little happy face here> :) Maelefique (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

See your contributions list. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have of course seen that, and after looking it over again very carefully, I still did not find answers to the questions I asked you. So if you could, again, just let me know what is the relevance, or point, of that comment you made, to the PR article? Your assertion would seem to be that I've never edited an article here before (again, wrong), and that fact should somehow factor into the weight of my postings or something? Clearly that would be terribly wrong, so I'm hoping there is some other answer. So I would think, at the very least you could explain the comment or retract it. This is the second time I've asked a question and you've seemed to waste my time with an "answer" that does not deal with the question. I try not to do that to you, by asking straight-forward questions, could you try not to do that to me, by simply answering my questions? And if you could, please refrain from pointing me to more links that do not answer the question, (although I do appreciate that this time, the large section of irrelevant text was at least in english, my portuguese is a little rusty so last time it took considerably longer to determine you weren't being helpful) if you could just let me know what you're saying, that would be great. Thanks again for your time. Maelefique (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

In deletion discussions, it is customary to alert the closing admin about new accounts. If you have another account, you could have used it. If you have more than one account, you may want to read voting and other shows of support and inappropriate use of alternative accounts. As for your participation in th PR article, that is most welcome. But note that as I and others have no way to know that you are editing under an alternate account, and your edit history shows a first edit on Feb 9, 2008, don't be surprised if editors provide links to appropriate guidelines and policies when needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see, ok, I followed everything but the part about the "closing admin", how do I determine who that is for any particular article? In the case of the PR article, is that you? I am fully aware of the voting and other shows of support and inappropriate use of alternative accounts, thanks for mentioning them though. I used this account specifically only for this article because I felt this article deserved to have my opinion, not cluttered by other edits in other places, which have nothing to do with anything whatsoever in the fields of politics or religion. I have not, nor do I have any intention to play any kind of *puppet games with this, or any other, article. Have I violated some appropriate guidelines or policies that I'm unaware of? Thanks for clearing the rest of that comment up for me. Maelefique (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris article

Hi Jossi. Hope you are well. As someone who has some familiarity with the article, although I know you haven't been involved with it for a good while, I was hoping you might be able to stop by and have a look at the current discussion on the external links wording in the article. I am in conflict with two other editors - I think we all have POVs about the wording. Hence, I am trying to bring in indepedent editors/admin to give their comments. Your thoughts on the wording, but also the websites that are being linked to (and whether they are appropriate or not) would be of great value. Regards Appledell (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have still content disputes, why don't you pursue dispute resolution? There are many willing editors that I'm sure will be happy to assist editors there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Reorganization of Discussion

The page is out of hand ... I'm trying to bring some order. And it's mostly the fault of your boy momento who keeps adding new threads to things we are already discussing. Onefinalstep (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't. It makes it really difficult to follow. You ca propose a refactoring of the page there, but get agreement first. See Misplaced Pages:TALK#Editing_comments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

how does putting all the threads about the photo next to each other make it "really hard to follow"? Same with the lede, and hunts article, and putting all complaints about you under the same heading? What's wrong with that. The page is out of control.

Just don't. Refactoring pages as you are doing is very confusing as it breaks the chronology of posts. Again, if you want to propose doing this, please ask in talk page first. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)