This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in on the RFA--I will do everything I can to uphold the policies of this site, and try to make it a better place. All the comments, questions, and in particular the opposes I plan to work on and learn from, so that I can hopefully always do the right thing with the huge trust given to me. rootology ( C)( T) 08:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.-- ragesoss ( talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 21:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message. I generally agree with you about RS, but the anti-Scientology people on the Net promote this idea of "SP Hall" so much and so strongly, and since there is so much anti-Scientology fervor here on WP, I figured it wouldn't be a problem. After all, Wikipedia's Scientology articles are far from balanced or neutral, so why not just put this additional claim about SP Hall since practically everything else claimed on the Net is assumed to be true. Anyway, that the source is not considered to be reliable (and I hope that this is widely held here, and not just by you) is heartening.

I heard about the ArbCom, but I highly doubt it will be able to fix any problems because there is a rampant systemic bias against Scientology throughout Wikipedia and the Net. I've tried to fix problems where I've found them, but dealing with the anti-Scientology crowd is extremely difficult. Laval ( talk) 12:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Apology graciously accepted. I do appreciate the secondary sources you added, but at the same time I still wanted to get some further input on the sourcing matter from other editors. It's good for progress when you have more eyeballs on article. ← Spidern → 13:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I appreciate your input. I didn't think we were going to get anything from the community on RS/N; that's why I had suggested at the bottom of the article talk page perhaps taking it to NOR/N. It occurred to me later that would have been the better place, theoretically, although in practice, that board is a little quiet. Best, Jayen 466 13:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Asking editors to give their input is great, but when you do so please don't influence the response. I just came across your posting to the Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics, and I have to say it was not a neutral statement. See WP:CANVASS for the right way to frame such requests. It's a courtesy to link to such a requests so that other editors will know what's being asked.   Will Beback  talk  05:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at that request and it looked about as neutral as anyone could want. I think you're getting a bit carried away, Will. Rumiton ( talk) 07:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your opinion, Rumiton.   Will Beback  talk  07:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Noted. I did mention at Talk:Prem Rawat that I was going to ask an Indian bureaucrat for advice, and it was he who recommended I post to the Indian board ( User:Nichalp's response above). I'll leave a more explicit courtesy note and link next time. Jayen 466 09:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing my opinion? Oh, I am sorry, I didn't thank you for sharing your opinion above. Most uncivil of me. I thank you now. Rumiton ( talk) 11:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not a neutral statement. It's not even an accurate statement! I noticed this the other day also. Sylviecyn ( talk) 13:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the section I deleted (and you restored) was taken word for word from the book it sourced. It also really didn't belong where it was. Accordingly, I've rewritten it and moved it up to the intro, but no content has been lost. LSD ( talk) 18:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. Cheers, Jayen 466 18:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.-- ragesoss ( talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) at 22:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. We were hoping that you would help us understand the formatting changes you made to Meher Baba. See that article's talk page. All the best. -- nemonoman ( talk) 14:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jayen, comments upon evidence are normally placed on the evidence talk page. [1] Durova ^Charge! 15:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion has resumed on NPOV/FAQ: Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#New_Policy_discussion. If you're interested... :) Dreadstar † 20:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

They keep changing the secion name...<sigh> Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Policy.3F.283.29. Dreadstar † 20:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am reviewing your article for GA purely out of intrigue, and will be entering comments at Talk:Scientology in Germany/GA1. So far I think the article is quite fine and that you have done a good job of NPOV. All I can say so far is ask you to remove the All CAPS in the References. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 02:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Jolly good, will do. :-) Jayen 466 03:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This review will be terminated if the current content dispute cannot be resolved soon. — Mattisse ( Talk) 18:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I may not have much time to devote to the article today, but will see what I can do. Jayen 466 18:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I thought you might want to know that I put up WP:NORDR as a Wikipedia essay. It has changed quite a bit, so feel free to fix or improve it. Hope to hear from you soon. Cheers, Phenylalanine ( talk) 19:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Cheers, Jayen 466 19:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Volume 5, Issue 7

Weekly Delivery

2009-02-16

Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) at 06:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That you very much for your very kind statement about our editing interactions. What you described is indeed what I sought to achieve when I reviewed an article and worked with an editor. Good luck with the article. I think you are a conscientious writer and, especially if the article is allowed to be nurtured in peace and allowed to be kept short and to the point, it will be a fine article. It was already quite fascinating! Although I will no longer be reviewing articles for GAN, if there is anything I can do in the future, please let me know. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 00:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Will do, my pleasure. In the meantime, "Happy editing! – in a more emphatic sense of the words than is usually implied. Best, Jayen 466 00:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

And I'll try to bear in mind what you say about brevity for the article. :-) Jayen 466 00:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If I were you, I would save a copy, in case the article temporarily goes to hell. However, so far the article seems ok and his additions are not fatal. Time is a wonderful thing, and I have out waited editors and restored an article at a later date. Since the GA is not an issue, there is no reason not to go slow, is there? — Mattisse ( Talk) 03:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• You seem to have received some good input for the article and the additional exposure appears to have been of benefit. Hope you feel that way also! — Mattisse ( Talk) 01:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes. The sources are very useful and will help the article mature. Thanks for your help. Jayen 466 09:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have initiated a request for arbitration and named you as a party. [2] You may wish to make a statement there. Durova ^Charge! 08:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for lettimg me know. We've got to stop meeting like this! ;-) Actually, I feel rather like Sylviecyn and MSalt; having spent dozens of hours on the last arbcom, I and others noted that nothing really much changed as a result of it. Jayen 466 10:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a tough call. Arbitration is as much fun as a root canal, but a root canal can be better than letting a problem fester. For a number of reasons I've been disappointed with ArbCom's decision last year to rely so heavily on discretionary sanctions; if you've read the RfC on arbitration enforcement you'll catch my reasons why. Discretionary sanctions can serve a role in small disputes, but when the number of involved parties reaches a critical mass then noticeboard format becomes ineffective. Too unstructured; too much bickering.

What's been happening across a variety of long running disputes is that by the time a noticeboard thread opens, both sides have a backlog of unaddressed policy complaints. So the thread gets flooded, with the unfortunate effect that most admins shy away. So the areas that need the most admin attention actually wind up getting very little of it, except for a few individual admins who eventually end up either drawn into the dispute personally, or getting accused of partisanship by one or both sides.

In the long run I think the best solution is to assemble informal admin task forces--groups of a dozen to 20 uninvolved admins who agree to watchlist a bunch of pages and step forward before things get out of hand. Mostly they'd make suggestions on talk pages, occasionally apply a page protection, and more rarely use the block button. The key thing is to stabilize the area--make sure people on both sides see that site administration is actually paying attention and that policies count for something.

Most people prefer to follow whatever rules are in place, as long as the rules are reasonably fair and reasonably well enforced. Durova ^Charge! 01:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The thing with arbcoms is, they take a lot longer than a root canal, and it seems you never run out of teeth to treat. :-) The potential problem I see with informal admin task forces is that if they self-select – and potentially even if they don't – they will enter a state of group-think and begin to control proceedings, throwing out the square pegs that don't fit in the round holes. This will create peace, but it will be a rather Stalinist sort of peace. Perhaps it is inevitable that Wikipedia will acquire such structures some day ... imagine ChrisO, Cirt and Jehochman as the admin task force on Prem Rawat. To be honest, I'd rather have Momento and Will squabble. They both must like it somewhere, otherwise they would not spend so much time doing it. :^) The short answer is, I dunno, although I do know that the way to hell is paved with good intentions. :-) Best wishes, Jayen 466 02:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The idea with admin task forces is to get away from the current self-selection, where often enough a very small handful of admins are distrusted by one or both sides. Imagine instead 15 sysops with a totally clean slate; no prior intervention in the area. That's enough to form a fair consensus when one is needed. People who have a prior history in Prem Rawat or new religious movements (actual or perceived) would instead go to the disputes where they haven't had a hand. So, for example, I'd head off to Armenia-Azerbaijan or The Troubles and you'd get a fresh set of people (of course I'm not an admin, but those happen to be disputes where I've never intervened). Does that make sense? Durova ^Charge! 02:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

In principle, yes. How would you suggest selection should be handled? You'd have to use almost a jury selection-type process to vet people for prior opinions and loyalties. Can that be done in an anonymous setting like ours? You may (never) discover that 12 of your 15 sysops sent to supervise the PLO article are Jewish. That's why I was wondering about using a random selection process, and have people change every month. (I posted something like that at the RFC on AE a while back.) At least that would result in a neutral panel on average, with just the occasional and temporary mishap. You know one of the basic questions to be answered by a healthy democracy is: How can we get rid of you? Jayen 466 02:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec, replying to first query) Well, the first challenge is to get together enough of them. I'm talking do different people right now in the hope of getting together a threshold task force of about 15. And once we have that we'll select a long-running dispute where no one has baggage as a test case. In the initial stages that screening function would be informal. Basically an honor system, and at the outset we'd introduce ourselves to the editors in the topic and see whether anyone has objections based upon past history. If two or three recusals result, we'd still have a solid dozen. Durova ^Charge! 02:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That is indeed similar to the voir dire in jury selection. Jury selection works on a random selection principle and attorneys of either side can object to individual jurors for a variety of reasons. Retrials have new juries, etc. These are all concepts, and underlying reasonings, that could be usefully transferred to our situation here. One objection to the concept of "AE duty" was that giving admins "duties" would turn people off wanting to become admins. I doubt that. First, no one can make any admin attend to such duty anyway, and secondly, if someone wants added responsibility in the project, they should, well, accept added responsibility. Jayen 466 10:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Btw your idea of a rotating task force sounds interesting. The idea sounds intriguing. Monthly might be too frequent; it takes a bit of time to learn the lay of the land. 3-4 months though might work better (if we could get enough people). Durova ^Charge! 02:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I accept your point about too short a time being perhaps too little to gain insight. Rotation might also help prevent burnout, because of really long-running personal disputes forming between editors that make editing a drag for them. And people do need new topics from time to time, just to remain fresh. Getting late over here, more tomorrow if you like. Best, Jayen 466 03:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, as you may have noticed, I'm currently improving the article and trying to have it ready for a FAC by the end of the month. Would you mind taking a look at it and letting me know if you still have any issues with the page? Also, do you know of any reliable sources that would state when she became a Clear? Before it cited an anti-Scientology website, but I changed that to this: "Celebrity" (248). Church of Scientology. 1991. {{ cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= ( help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored ( help). However, I decided a third party source would be much better and commented the statement out. Do you know of any? Thanks, Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 16:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, Scorpion. I had a look, but was unable to find a better source (I checked questia and newspaperarchive.com). Will try to have a read through. (And well done for finding that old interview on her using her voice.) Best, Jayen 466 00:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it important to note the day she became a clear, or could that be left out? Also, what do you think of the entire article? Thanks, Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 20:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a private thing; no need to mention it. I haven't had time to read through the entire article yet, but will try to get round to it. Cheers, Jayen 466 22:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Please have a look at what is a copyright violation in Wikipedia. I write this in connection with Scientology. It is not even a one-sentence quote. I assume you weren't familiair with this policy. Debresser ( talk) 12:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, MBisanz ^talk 21:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jay - I was glad just now to see your hello message. I changed service providers and it ended up taking much too long. Still, a break is good.... this is my first hit since reconnecting, so chances are I shall be checking in again....

Ah, it's good to hear from you again. Yes, a break can be good ... glad you're back. :-) Jayen 466 16:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

• Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
• An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
• News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
• Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
• Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) at 01:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)