User:Jossi and the Rawat cult articles, Bias and content control Options

[Anaheim Flash]

Article previously discussed at:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=13346&st=40

That's Jossi Fresco, press contact and spokesman for The Prem Rawat Foundation, and OWNer of several WP articles relating to his spiritual leader.

The articles over which Jossi exerts ownership include:-

* Prem Rawat

* Teachings of Prem Rawat

* Hans Ji Maharaj

* Divine Light Mission

* Elan Vital

* TPRF

* Ron Geaves

The most egregious bias in these articles relates to the use of academic references where only a very limited number of academics are permitted as ‘approved’ sources while others are wholly excluded. In effect a single ‘school’ of ‘religious scholars’ forms 90% of all the references allowed by Jossi and/or his two ‘team Rawat’ editors Rumiton and Momento. These scholars include Ron Geaves who has been a follower of Rawat for over 30 years – for a criticism of Geaves’ writing about Rawat see: : http://www.prem-rawat-critique.org/geaves.htm. That same website carries a detailed criticism of Jossi’s works - http://www.prem-rawat-critique.org/wp_rebu..._distortion.htm

The Wikipedia articles on Prem Rawat, his father, their supporting organisations and teachings are sourced on a very limited range of academics, with the bulk of references being made to authors who have links to the cult apologist organisation CESNUR[1], [2] Much of the Wikipedia material about Prem Rawat is based on an unreferenced biography published by Prem Rawat’s followers and heavily promoted on followers’ web-sites

There’s a thorough deconstruction of Wikipedia’s treatment of the Rawat cult at http://www.mikefinch.com/mj/art/md.htm

Jossi finally acknowledge he had a conflict of interest in 2007, though he doesn’t say what that conflict actually is i.e which part of the Rawat empire actually pays his salary or issues his contract. And although Jossi no longer edits the main article, he still actively admins anything he doesn’t agree with.

Although the wikidashboard shows critical editors have contributed to the Rawat article, assessment of the talk pages – endlessly archived – shows almost every contribution not from Jossi, Momento, Rumiton and from the now ‘deceased’ Zappaz, was challenged by those four editors, often on the most spurious grounds.

Jossi also promotes Rawat associates Linda and Alvarro Pascotto, writing them up at Article Hub http://www.articlehub.com/authors/Jossi-Fresco.html.

[Yehudi]

Welcome Anaheim Flash. This looks like a good example of ownership and conflict of interest.

[Kato]

Lets just simplify things a little for the benefit of readers new to the case:

ADMINISTRATOR: JOSSI

Well connected figure on Wikipedia, 50,000 edits,
and known for his associations with some of Wikipedia's most influencial administrators

(lets be honest, a dyed-in-the-wool *cabalist* to be clear)

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Jossif.png)

"OWNS" THE RANGE OF ARTICLES ABOUT RELIGIOUS "GURU" PREM RAWAT

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Maharaji_Forum_of_cultures.jpg)

AND HERE

IS A LIST OF CRITICAL SCHOLARLY SOURCES

"SYSTEMATICALLY EXCLUDED

OR ONLY PARTIALLY REFERENCED"

BY JOSSI IN THESE ARTICLES

TO PROTECT RAWAT'S REPUTATION

-------------------

THE ORIGINAL POSTER BELIEVES THAT JOSSI

MAY BE RECEIVING A SALARY

(IMG:http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Money-Print-C10055084.jpeg)

FROM THE PREM RAWAT ORGANIZATION

(IMG:http://www.torinoeventi.org/images/maharaji_podio.jpg)

DUE TO A PREVIOUS BUT VAGUE CONFESSION BY

JOSSI OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST

UPDATE: Jossi Fresco writes articles on behalf of the Prem Rawat Foundation outside Wikipedia such as The Prem Rawat Foundation Helps Earthquake Victims in Peru, and Prem Rawat Brings Message of Hope to Prisoners to New Delhi, India. Obviously stoking the claims that Jossi is a paid representative of the Prem Rawat organization. His Wikipedia edits to Prem Rawat pages amount to many 1000s.

[Kato]

Despite the very plausible claims made here that Jossi Fresco has a serious conflict of interest in his activities on wikipedia, Jossi has seen fit to define the policy of WP:Conflict of Interest throughout the site.

Here are some edits Jossi has made to the Conflict of Interest policy page. Including one edit beyond the limits of irony which adds a request to contact administrators if an editor feels there is a conflict of interest taking place! Have a browse at a few...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=136159823

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135156880

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135157157

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=109821402

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=104271006

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=101182863

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=99553349

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=96424347
"A noticeboard for reporting and discussing incidents that require editors' intervention related to the application of conflict of interest guidelines is available at [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard]]."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=88586627

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=87213909

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=86449604

In fact, Jossi has made 201 edits to the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy page. (Other notable contributors to the policy are those bastions of neutrality, those disinterested parties themselves, SlimVirgin and Jayjg)

So to sum up: Jossi Fresco, someone who may have one of the most outrageous conflicts of interest on the whole site, is the second most prolific contributor to the WP:Conflict of interest policy, defining it to his liking.

Isn't that like... a conflict of interest?

[Moulton]

It's like being both a referee and a player.

[Kato]

Jossi has long been identified as one of Jayjg's Nazgûl. He was also a prominent supporter of the BADSITES policy to expunge critical websites -- and a denouncer of the Register for their investigations. This was probably due to a Conflict of Interest over what critical websites would have to say about his Conflict of Interest on the Conflict of Interest page, where he showed a Conflict of Interest by amending the text to allow for his Conflict of Interest on the Rawat articles?

This much Conflict of Interest swirling around like a bad aura can be easier defined in three words : Self Serving Corruption.

$$$$$KERCHING$$$$$

[guy]

It's like being both a referee and a player.

All admins are both referees and players. Some manage it better than others.

[Moulton]

It's a recipe for corruption, and few can resist the temptation.

[EternalIdealist]

From what I can find it seems that Jossi declared the conflict of interest openly in 2006 when he took some administrative position in a "related organization". There seems to be some repeated discussion of the conflict of interest in the history his talk page and on the Prem Rawat talk page. It looks like people have demanded a strict level of referencing but that is not automatically a bad thing. If more articles demanded such strict referencing Wikipedia would have more decent articles. He is a faithful follower of that guru and quite open about it so it is not like he is hiding some agenda or working with some conspiracy to whitewash the article. The situation does not seem any different than a devout Christian administrator participating heavily in Christian articles and demanding a high degree of reliability in sourcing. [Think of that sort of person as opposed to the one who insists bible verses and his personal beliefs reflect true Christianity.] Many of the critical editors appear to be involved with a very disreputable group that filed flippant lawsuits and otherwise harassed members of Rawat's cult. Many of them also seem insistent on using unreliable and barely reliable sources to push the worst view possible of Rawat.

I think that Rawat and gurus like him are flakes, nuts, and scam artists. My personal view of their worthlessness and negative value does not matter for shit on Wikipedia and it should not matter. If good sources speak poorly of him then people should use those good sources and add the information to the article. In an ideal world neither his devout worshippers nor his disaffected detractors would be participating in the article and the article would purely reflect what solid references say about him.

A lot of bad things can be said about Jossi and his cabal associations. This is not one of those cases. This is a good example of why it is a bad idea to openly declare conflicts of interest on Wikipedia. Being honest gets translated into some evil plan to dominate or pollute Wikipedia instead of being treated like a civilized disclosure of bias.

[Kato]

Many of the critical editors appear to be involved with a very disreputable group that filed flippant lawsuits and otherwise harassed members of Rawat's cult. Many of them also seem insistent on using unreliable and barely reliable sources to push the worst view possible of Rawat.

Do you have evidence of this?

[EternalIdealist]

Many of the critical editors appear to be involved with a very disreputable group that filed flippant lawsuits and otherwise harassed members of Rawat's cult. Many of them also seem insistent on using unreliable and barely reliable sources to push the worst view possible of Rawat.

Do you have evidence of this?

I will admit I am lazy and do not feel like digging up everything again to provide links. If you take some time to review the Rawat article's talk history and do a little web searching it is not difficult to find out but it is time consuming. If I find the time and motivation I will repeat my digging and post some of evidence but I am not promising I will.

[Jonny Cache]

Article previously discussed at:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=13346&st=40

That's Jossi Fresco, press contact and spokesman for The Prem Rawat Foundation, and OWNer of several WP articles relating to his spiritual leader.

The articles over which Jossi exerts ownership include:

• Prem Rawat
• Teachings of Prem Rawat
• Hans Ji Maharaj
• Divine Light Mission
• Elan Vital
• TPRF
• Ron Geaves

And don't forget the Incredibly Ridiculous Essay, Wikipedia Is In The Real World, with its Indescribabbly Bogus And Sacrilegious Subessay, Wikipedia Keeps An Akashic Record.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

[Derktar]

And don't forget the Incredibly Ridiculous Essay, Wikipedia Is In The Real World, with its Indescribabbly Bogus And Sacrilegious Subessay, Wikipedia Keeps An Akashic Record.

Jonny B)

Well, I like some of the images displayed on the page.

[Jonny Cache]

flippant lawsuits

Suits'R'Us!

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[Moulton]

Motto of the Cabal of Trial Lawyers: "First we shake you up. Then we shake you down."

[Kato]

This thread forms the basis of a piece that appeared in the Register today

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/06/th...t_of_wikipedia/

[thekohser]

This thread forms the basis of a piece that appeared in the Register today

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/06/th...t_of_wikipedia/

Which underscores the importance of laying out these "stories" in clear, narrative form -- illustrative pictures are a bonus.

Greg

[LamontStormstar]

This thread forms the basis of a piece that appeared in the Register today

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/06/th...t_of_wikipedia/

So many administrators have conflicts of interest. Then there's non-admin editors like Gary Weiss.

[Kato]

Looking at the Prem Rawat talk page, back in December, Jossi was going about refactoring people's comments and ring-fencing whole sections of the talk page so no one could add further comment.

This is highly irregular for even an unrelated administrator to do on an article talk page. When the administrator doing it has spent the last few years being the article subject's press officer, it is pure comedy!

How long has he been getting away with this?

[Anaheim Flash]

Many of the critical editors appear to be involved with a very disreputable group that filed flippant lawsuits and otherwise harassed members of Rawat's cult.

Perhaps you would like to provide some evidence, or otherwise acknowledge that what you have suggested is baseless - a brief use of Google gives the following:


http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/not...gi?NoticeID=650

http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/copyright1.htm

http://www.prem-rawat-critique.org/free_speech.htm

http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/cgi-bin/any...530&v=2&gV=1&p=

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=9542

all of which suggests that it is Rawat's cult that is using legal harrassment and SLAPP suits as well engaging in defamation, rather than it's being a victim.

Jossi Fresco, (who was apparently a named party in a defamation action brought by Rawat critic who has no obvious connection with Wikipedia), has administered the Rawat articles in a way that has prevented any acknowledgment that reasoned criticism of Rawat has ever existed, or that anyone has found disatisfaction with what Rawat teaches. All of which is based on highly dubious and selective referencing.

From the narrow perspective of the Rawat articles the point is that Fresco's conflict of interest appears to underwrite partiality in the permissabilty of sources that are used for articles in about subjects in which Fresco has both a financial and 'belief' investments.

From the wider perspective how on earth can anyone trust someone who has both a financial and a belief investment in seeing certain articles POVed, set the policies of Wikipedia ?

AF

This post has been edited by Anaheim Flash:

[Kato]

There's a discussion on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard about this, started by Cla68.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COI..._and_Prem_Rawat

...responses beggar belief!

This is an issue that has been examined over and over again. Jossi is periodically reported for a conflict of interest, leading to his actions being repeatedly put under scrutiny. I think if this were an actual issue of concern, something would have come of it by now.

Yeap, like a full 6 page expose in The Register perhaps?

Jossi has made 1000s of edits to the biography of Prem Rawat. He has been paid by Rawat's people to promote Prem Rawat on the internet. He was controlling the talk pages of Prem's biography pretty much until this thread began. His activities have drawn such concern that they are covered over 6 pages in a Tech Magazine. But in Jimboland "we don't have a problem with that"?

You've got whole Wikipedia articles on a guru who is considered by his tight knit clan of followers to be "Lord of the Universe" which makes no use of the word "cult". Elsewhere, you have Chip Berlet all over the place writing articles on his enemy, the political oddity Lyndon LaRouche, which state the word in the opening paragraphs -- sourced to Berlet himself!

(IMG:http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb311/Kato90125/banner3.jpg)

[Kato]

It just gets worse...

Here's Jossi on User:Sparkzilla last year.

::I saw some disruptive activity by Sparkzilla and warned him. You can simply close the RFC by providing diffs to other RFC-type discussions such as the BLP noticeboard and others. If Sparkzilla persists in disruption by opening further RFCs, he can be stopped by blocking for disruption. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 18:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What was Sparkzilla eventually blocked for? (by SlimVirgin and then JzG)

"Conflict of Interest."

Here's Sparkzilla's (Publisher Mark Devlin's) version of events:

http://www.markdevlin.com/Wikipedia/default.htm

So if you're Jossi Fresco, you can have so many conflicts of interest you have a conflict of interest making your morning coffee, and no one minds? If you're Chip Berlet, you can participate in a conflict of interest irony spiral that reads like something out of Being John Malkovich, and no one has a problem with that? As you have befriended Wiki-Guru SlimVirgin, and swapped favors on her talk page, you can just go about your business untroubled?

If you're Mark Devlin (Sparkzilla), and you are perceived by the same SlimVirgin to have a "Conflict of Interest". You get banned and humiliated.

[Jonny Cache]

Look, Dudes et Dudatrixes, I think it's pretty pointless to go looking for any kind of rationality behind the rationalizations that the Cabal gives for banning people. There is really only one reason for banning, to wit, or not, opposing the Will of the Cabal. Once the suspicion is raised that you are Not Of The Body (NOTB), the ritual excoriation that ends with their reaching into their Bag Of Acronyms (BOA) for a random sequence of scarlet letters to pin on your chest is a mere formality.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

[Kato]

Oh and I might as well point out on this thread that Jossi, now the Patron Saint of Conflict-Of-Interest, removed the Conflict of Interest template from WPs Wikia article this week.

This is despite the fact that the article had become such an invitation to COI cronies that it was described as reading "like a news release", and earlier this week the chair of Wikimedia UK AlisonW was using it to "help us raise money to keep Wikipedia going [...] to the benefit of this and the other WMF projects"!

[Kato]

Jossi responds to Cade Metz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jossi/Response

...where he says of the Register article :

it contains many assertions that are not only false, but demonstrate a lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works.

Jossi demonstrates an extraordinary lack of understanding of How The World Works. Third party publishers attempting to create a neutral overview of a subject are not normally overseen by the subject's press officer. And if it is discovered that the article has received 1000s of contributions from that press officer, yet is still claiming to be "neutral", that is perceived to be a conflict of interest and a scandal. That is how the world works.

Jossi confessed to his PR work for Prem Rawat back in 2006, and admitted a Conflict of Interest. Yet he was still adding sources to the article and removing critical links in January 2008. That will be perceived to be a Conflict of Interest and a scandal. That is how the world works.

[Jonny Cache]

Yes, but let's face it, Wikipedia is nothing like a responsible publishing house — it's more like the media arm of the WhiteWashHouse, where lobbyists do edit and censor Executive WhiteWash Papers on everything from global warming to stem cell research.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

[Kato]

Cade Metz hit the nail firmly on the head – and those looming ghouls defending Jossi on WPs talk pages are living in cuckoo land.

The bottom line is this:

If the guy who created the conflict of interest noticeboard, and who dispenses edicts to others on the matter, is so oblivious to the implications of his own conflict of interest, it merely illustrates the sheer lunatic scale of the problems that beset Wikipedia.

The second link I added above was to an exchange on the COI noticeboard where Jossi dismissed Sci-Fi writer Kathryn Cramer, telling her that due to her attitude, she will not “earn points 'round these frontiers”. Jossi of course had already “earned his points” by smoothing up to powerful admins. Kathryn went on to become a Wikipedia critic in her own right.

I like Kathryn because she praised one of my literary efforts on this site, and paraphrased it on her own blog (though pssst, I did plagiarize it myself from Kelly Martin, don't tell...)
(IMG:http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb311/Kato90125/Katosmileysmile.jpg)

[the fieryangel]

Someone brought this up on Jimbo's page....

but, strangely enough, this person has just been banned for a week because he's been blowing the whistle on WMF's audit over at Village Pump....

Jimbo's come to his rescue in a very milque-toastey way....

But this all stinks, doesn't it???

[Sarcasticidealist]

Someone brought this up on Jimbo's page....

but, strangely enough, this person has just been banned for a week because he's been blowing the whistle on WMF's audit over at Village Pump....

Jimbo's come to his rescue in a very milque-toastey way....

But this all stinks, doesn't it???

Actually, he was blocked for a week for general allegedly disruptive weirdness. He posted at the Village Pump after he was unblock (the community felt that the block was unwarranted - I agreed). He subsequently attempted to delete his posts from the village pump, but they were restored by another user.

[the fieryangel]

Actually, he was blocked for a week for general allegedly disruptive weirdness. He posted at the Village Pump after he was unblock (the community felt that the block was unwarranted - I agreed). He subsequently attempted to delete his posts from the village pump, but they were restored by another user.

Au contraire, his post over at the Village pump about WMF financial impropriety seems to make quite a lot of sense to me...and he's right about a Hindu cult controlling this particular WP article....so, no weirdness here at all, as far as I can see....

[Sarcasticidealist]

Au contraire, his post over at the Village pump about WMF financial impropriety seems to make quite a lot of sense to me...and he's right about a Hindu cult controlling this particular WP article....so, no weirdness here at all, as far as I can see....

With respect, I'm not sure you know what au contraire means. Unless you can find something in your post that contradicts something in mine, that is.

Edit:Ah, here's the problem - we're talking about different one week blocks. He's received two in the last twenty-four hours. Both were unjustified. My apologies for assuming you were talking about the first block.

This post has been edited by sarcasticidealist:

[the fieryangel]

Au contraire, his post over at the Village pump about WMF financial impropriety seems to make quite a lot of sense to me...and he's right about a Hindu cult controlling this particular WP article....so, no weirdness here at all, as far as I can see....

With respect, I'm not sure you know what au contraire means. Unless you can find something in your post that contradicts something in mine, that is.

Edit:Ah, here's the problem - we're talking about different one week blocks. He's received two in the last twenty-four hours. Both were unjustified. My apologies for assuming you were talking about the first block.

Of course, I know what au contraire means. Je parle plus souvent de français ce dernier temps qu'anglais. Je parlais de votre idée que ces commentaires était preuve d'une comportement étrange: il m'a semblé (et il me semble) que cela relève plutôt d'un bon sens absolu, étant donné l'ambience contradictoire qui semble regner autour de WP et ses adminstrateurs/administrés en générale.

Regardless of which week's block we're speaking of, this editor had every reason to blow his whistle very loudly and repeatedly. I do not see anything strange at all in his behavior. The only strange thing I see is that it's all being swept under the carpet..but this is hardly strange for Wikipedia and Der Koenig Jimbo.

[BobbyBombastic]

I do not see anything strange at all in his behavior. The only strange thing I see is that it's all being swept under the carpet..but this is hardly strange for Wikipedia and Der Koenig Jimbo.

He (Zenwhat) reminded me a bit of DennyColt, except less focused. Zenwhat is all over the place on what he comments on, and throws in a little Buddhist philosophy and political ideology! I came across him in early January or so and figured he would get on some controversial issue or another and leave in a fit or get banned.

I also assumed I'd be seeing him (eventually) either 1) ranting about WR on Wikipedia or 2) posting here. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) He's not posting here yet, as far as I know, and let's hope he doesn't jump on board with the BADSITErs.

So yeah, he seems like a smart guy and good for him that he doesn't take Wikipedia at face value and wants to critisize it, but he's really just a babe in the woods right now. I think some required reading here at WR and other places is in order, to help him focus. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

[Proabivouac]

I'm not certain who wrote these particular passages, but this is to my eye incredibly biased writing (from the "teachings" section):

Prem Rawat teaches a process of self-discovery using four meditation techniques to which only he has the keys.[55]He claims that with regular practice, these techniques lead to peace, joy and contentment,[56][46][57] that they can take "all your senses that have been going outside all your life, turn them around and put them inside to feel and to actually experience you."[58] Prem Rawat's early western discourses were based largely on references from Indian mythology. After his marriage in 1974 he began to draw more on his growing personal experiences as a teacher, parent and international traveller, and colored his talks with stories and allegories in which the listener could find their own understanding.[31] According to several scholars, his teachings began in the traditions of the North Indian Sants, who dismiss ritual and dogma and focus on direct inner experience. In accordance with Sant precepts he has never developed a systematic doctrine, and the core of his teaching has remained the process of self-discovery, summed up by his statement, "That which you are looking for is within you."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prem_Rawat#Teachings
(note: version may change)

Biased, and vacuous.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

[Piperdown]

Mark Devlin not only cannot edit articles on Metropolis Magazine, or any topics that magazine wrote pieces on, but he got banned by Slummy for COI even after agreeing to just edit talk pages.

Yet Jossi, the Press Sec for Premalot, is the Guardian of WP:COI and Premalot articles?

Um, yeah, that's fair.

To use a direct and hot button example, that would be like allowing Judd Bagley to not only edit Overstock.com/Byrne articles, but also have the final say in what goes in them, after he was hired by Overstock in August (September?) 2006. Something that did not occur, contrary to any lies that a someone that only started wearing bicycle helmets after the impact took its toll.

Or allowing Chip Berlet to control his BLP, and articles that use him as a soiurce......oh yeah, WP does do that.

Let's compile a list of COI Hypocrisy on WP, somewhere. What do you all think?

Alllowed COI:

Premalot's Press Secretary
GW
Chip Berlet
heatedissuepuppet
SlimVirgin (Pierre Salinger, John Cooley, Lockerbie, Patrick Byrne)
R. Foster Winans

Disallowed COI:
Sparkzilla/Devlin



I'm sure old school W-R'ers have many more examples, and Metz could have used more too. But that would have taken his Premalot article past 6 pages, and the El Regs cant hold their attention spans past 2 pages.

Somebody put Ritalin in the water supplies (and fluoride for our UK friends) asap.

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

[Piperdown]

.....and it's Jimbofficial. He doesn't have a problem with one of the most blatant COI's to ever grace WP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=190035392

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=190110417



Oh, Mr Patrick Byrne, wikipediian in good standing, maybe you should add editing WP:OVERSTOCK to your weekend hobbies? According to Jimbo, if you edit well, he has no problem with COI.


Byrne, who is a Wikipediian under his real name, has been personally attacked by BADSITE sites. Sites that are used as reliable sources, like a autoibiographical blog, on articles like "Gary Weiss".

Yet no Wikipedians have come to the aid of another Wikipedian being "attacked". Mark Cuban is another wikipedian. Same deal, although not recently.

I guesss some Wikipedians are more equal than others. Where oh where has Denny Colt gone?

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

[tarantino]

jossi has a firmer grasp on Rawat related articles over at Citizendium, where he's the subject matter expert. He originally copied Prem Rawat from WP and pasted it to CZ after a clean up, then in May 2007, he completely rewrote it.

There's also an interesting exchange with Larry Sanger on jossi's talk page.

[Piperdown]

The Two Year Timeout Factor (precedent: The SweetBlueWater-SlimVirgin incident) has now been lowered to a 1 month Timeout Threshold.

Go file a user RFC if and only if you have evidence of recent - i.e. no more than a month old - disruptive editing by Jossi. There's nothing we can do until you provide such evidence. MER-C 09:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Never mind that Prem's Press Secretary's full time job is making sure his WP article is 100% favourable to his boss.
Unless he quit his job in the past month, then that is just insane. Go crazy, MER-C.

Did Slim learn from Jossi, or vice-versa, to always pre-empt your own transgressions by changing the rules yourself?

WP is run with a desperate "we'll do anything to retain full-time volunteer godking lackey editors" mindset. This isn't 2003. There are a lot of people who don't work for Premalot that would be happy to ensure NPOV is done. There are also people that are happy to spot trains and write endless articles on power rangers.

[Proabivouac]

jossi has a firmer grasp on Rawat related articles over at Citizendium, where he's the subject matter expert. He originally copied Prem Rawat from WP and pasted it to CZ after a clean up, then in May 2007, he completely rewrote it.

There's also an interesting exchange with Larry Sanger on jossi's talk page.

And that article is even worse:

Prem Rawat's teachings have been described by scholars of religion and other authors in a variety of terms and contexts, from Rawat's beginnings as an Indian Satguru at the age of 8, through the various evolutions he undertook to make his message more universally appealing. [62] Nevertheless the core of his teaching has remained the same: the process of self-discovery through the techniques of Knowledge, the four meditation techniques that he claims allow the practitioner to experience calmness, peace, and contentment.[63][64][65] Prem Rawat describes practising the Knowledge techniques as a way "to take all your senses that have been going outside all your life, turn them around and put them inside to feel and to actually experience you."[66]
The Sant tradition

Scholars have asserted that Rawat's teachings began in the traditions of the Indian Sants, who dismissed religious ritual and praised the "Divine Name" for its power to save. They emphasized honor for the guru or "Perfect Master" as an embodiment of god on Earth, and surrender to God "who dwells in the heart."[67][68] Other scholars refer to affinities with medieval traditions of Nirguna Bhakti (Sanskrit="formless devotion"), which emphasizes direct experience of the divine and criticizes religious dogma and ritual. [69] Rawat claims that the techniques of Knowledge he teaches, with the help and guidance of the Guru, will enable the practitioner to experience the divinity within.[70][71]

According to several scholars, and in accordance with Sant precepts, Prem Rawat has never developed a doctrine or systematic set of teachings, rather he has placed the emphasis on direct inner experience.[72][73][74] His early discourses were described by some Western religious scholars as lacking in substance, or as stressing experience over intellect.[75][76] In this context, Rawat often referred to the negative influence of the "mind" or "conceptual thinking" as the main enemy of direct religious experience. To some scholars in the days of the Divine Light Mission, this reference to "mind" appeared to mean either "the alienating influences that made man stray from his true nature," or a "state of consciousness characterized by everything but passive, nonrational confidence and trust".[77][78][79]

According to George D. Chryssides, the Knowledge was based on self-understanding, providing the practitioner with calmness, peace, and contentment, as the inner-self is identical with the divine, and that Maharaji emphasizes that Knowledge is universal, not Indian, in nature.[80]

Stephen J. Hunt describes Rawat's major focus as being on stillness, peace and contentment within the individual, and his 'Knowledge' consists of the techniques to obtain them. Knowledge, roughly translated, means the happiness of the true self-understanding. Each individual should seek to comprehend his or her true self. In turn, this brings a sense of well-being, joy, and harmony as one comes in contact with one's "own nature." The Knowledge includes four secret meditation procedures and the process of reaching the true self within can only be achieved by the individual, but with the guidance and help of a teacher. Hence, the movement seems to embrace aspects of world-rejection and world-affirmation. The tens of thousands of followers in the West do not see themselves as members of a religion, but the adherents of a system of teachings that extol the goal of enjoying life to the full. They claim that Rawat's authority comes from the nature of his teachings and their benefit to the individual.[72]
http://en.citizendium.org:8080/wiki/Prem_Rawat

What insufferable nonsense.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

[Anaheim Flash]

What insufferable nonsense.

Insufferable yes, but the process of legitimization is interesting. First start with a tame academic, in this case Professor Geaves, who was one the Guru's first western devotees but never admits it in his writtings about the Guru. Then all you have to do is quote other academics who agree with what Geaves writes about his guru, like George D. Chryssides who just happens to have co-authored works with Geaves. If any difficult editor comes along and wants to add a criticism then just shout 'exceptional claims' and say no academic can be referenced unless every other academic has also stated the same point.

Mad but true. Anyway its worked for Jossi who's been able to use WP and now Citizendium to get free on message advertising for his client sorry 'teacher' for the last four years.

AF

[Proabivouac]

Insufferable yes, but the process of legitimization is interesting. First start with a tame academic, in this case Professor Geaves, who was one the Guru's first western devotees but never admits it in his writtings about the Guru. Then all you have to do is quote other academics who agree with what Geaves writes about his guru, like George D. Chryssides who just happens to have co-authored works with Geaves. If any difficult editor comes along and wants to add a criticism then just shout 'exceptional claims' and say no academic can be referenced unless every other academic has also stated the same point.

Mad but true. Anyway its worked for Jossi who's been able to use WP and now Citizendium to get free on message advertising for his client sorry 'teacher' for the last four years.

This shopworn technique rests upon the fallacy that the attributional clause "according to ...," abrogates any requirement for the rest of the sentence to maintain a neutral, scholarly and informative tone. Sometimes this is even extended for several sentences - after all, the earlier attribution makes it clear that the following statements reflect only that opinion, right?

What you wind up with is the Wikipedia equivalent of the asterisk to the fine print, not real scholarship at all, but only aping its minimal requirements.

Then all you have to do is quote other academics who agree with what Geaves writes about his guru, like George D. Chryssides who just happens to have co-authored works with Geaves.

That's your original research…

The details of this paper trail are interesting. They demonstrate, perhaps, how Wikipedia policies are too malleable to adequately check conflicts of interest. "Judge my edits, not my COI" doesn't work if that judgment is based in these overly vague policies, and is formally content neutral. The most obvious point about these passages isn't that they violate policy, but that they are vacuous and ridiculous. But of course that's a "content dispute." Don't distract us from the mission!

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

[tarantino]

jossi has a firmer grasp on Rawat related articles over at Citizendium, where he's the subject matter expert. He originally copied Prem Rawat from WP and pasted it to CZ after a clean up, then in May 2007, he completely rewrote it.

There's also an interesting exchange with Larry Sanger on jossi's talk page.

And that article is even worse:

{text removed}

http://en.citizendium.org:8080/wiki/Prem_Rawat

What insufferable nonsense.

Less than a hour after jossi's CZ contributions were pointed to here, Was 4,250 suggests on Jimbo's talk page:

This might provide a good rough first guess on articles Jossi should not be over-influential on at wikipedia. Let him do his thing at Citizendium, where being too close to something is not a big deal. The contrast between what gets created there and here will help both sites in dealing with the issues. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, Was.

[Anaheim Flash]

More revelations about "unbiased" sources and Jossi's connections:

http://prem-rawat-critique.org/prem_rawat_...ers_exposed.htm

A primary source quoted in the Wikipedia articles about Prem Rawat is a biography called Peace is Possible[11], the presentation by Jossi Fresco and other pro Rawat editors is that this book is independently published and authored. This presentation is wholly false, the book is in effect an ‘authorised’ biography procured by Rawat’s followers.

..........
..........

In Summary:

James Levin is the CEO of the self described family business (Mighty River Press) i.e. Levin is the owner or is a co-owner of Mighty River Press. MRP is the publisher of the Rawat biography. Therefore Levin is, via the unregistered Mighty River Press, the publisher of Rawat’s biography.

James Levin has been the business partner of Scott Mazo for twenty years, they have more than thirty business listings in which they share partnerships.

Scott Mazo is the Treasurer of The Prem Rawat Foundation.

The relationship between Levin and Mazo undermines any suggestion that Peace is Possible has been published independently of Prem Rawat or his promoters. Its use as a reference for an encyclopedia is dubious, not because it is in effect an ‘authorised’ biography but because the ‘authorisation’ has been deliberately disguised. Further as an active editor and administrator of the Rawat Wikipedia articles, and as a person with clear links to The Prem Rawat Foundation, Jossi Fresco must reasonably be presumed to be fully cognisant of the obfuscation of the relationship between the publisher of Peace is Possible and the Treasurer of The Prem Rawat Foundation.

[Piperdown]

Has someone alerted the ever-vigilante Slimmy about this use of a self-published book(s) as use for references?

That's one of her pet peeves. When it can be used in her favour.....

She insists on books that are published by reputable houses, not inside jobs, and so do I, because she's always right and honourable. Get Crum, um Slim, on that, folks!

[Kato]

An arbcom case has been brought over tendentious editing surrounding the Prem Ruwat articles. It was brought by......

drum roll......

Jossi Fresco!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...tion#Prem_Rawat

carrying on where he left off. Unabashed and shameless! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[bluevictim]

Despite the very plausible claims made here that Jossi Fresco has a serious conflict of interest in his activities on wikipedia, Jossi has seen fit to define the policy of WP:Conflict of Interest throughout the site.

Here are some edits Jossi has made to the Conflict of Interest policy page. Including one edit beyond the limits of irony which adds a request to contact administrators if an editor feels there is a conflict of interest taking place! Have a browse at a few...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=136159823

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135156880

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135157157

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=109821402

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=104271006

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=101182863

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=99553349

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=96424347
"A noticeboard for reporting and discussing incidents that require editors' intervention related to the application of conflict of interest guidelines is available at [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard]]."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=88586627

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=87213909

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=86449604

In fact, Jossi has made 201 edits to the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy page. (Other notable contributors to the policy are those bastions of neutrality, those disinterested parties themselves, SlimVirgin and Jayjg)

So to sum up: Jossi Fresco, someone who may have one of the most outrageous conflicts of interest on the whole site, is the second most prolific contributor to the WP:Conflict of interest policy, defining it to his liking.

Isn't that like... a conflict of interest?

It's actually a MCOI: Meta Comflict Of Interest, much like Eliot Spitzer.

[Jonny Cache]

An arbcom case has been brought over tendentious editing surrounding the Prem Ruwat articles. It was brought by……

drum roll……

Jossi Fresco!

WP:REFARB MADNESS#Prem Rawat

carrying on where he left off. Unabashed and shameless! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Uh, could I have a Mountain Dew instead?

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

[Kato]

This guy gets it. A good post below from the ARBCOM "workshop". I maintain that anyone who doesn't get this is plainly an idiot who shouldn't be anywhere near a reference work. Needless to say, Jimbo Wales didn't get it and had "no problem" with Jossi's editing behavior. Informed, sensible people think otherwise.

A vital question of reputation

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)

[Somey]

Jossi advised

2) Given the general difficulty of managing a conflict of interest, compounded in this case by the independent controversy over the relevant articles, Jossi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is strongly advised to maintain his commitment not to edit any articles related to the Prem Rawat movement, but is encouraged to otherwise contribute to the editorial process, for example by contributing to talk page discussions.

Business as usual!

Move along folks... nothing to see here...

[Kato]

Yes. When the Wikipedia gets me really down, when the fools mock yet another effort to establish some criteria for the place to stop libeling people, or when hideous goons come out to defend child porn or some other Wiki nonsense, I can always go back to the Prem Rawat articles for a good old laugh. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

On the talk page, Jossi is still the traffic cop as ever. Gesticulating and signaling who can pass and who can't, deciding who is naughty and who is nice. Staunchly defending his position in the face of over whelming mockery from on site and the media. Dragging WPs reputation even lower and lower for our amusement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat

His latest spats are given an additional fizz, as they have pitted him in a fight to the death with another preposterous POV pusher, Will Beback. According to Jossi, who is trying to avoid any criticism of his cult guru --

I think it is premature to ask for unprotection....

Bring one source at the time, and let's discuss it...

What is the purpose of all these discussions here...

Your last edit to that article needs to be removed, for reasons I will explain there....

If only there were a 100 Jossis and we'd have the place tied up by Xmas. Damn I love this thread like an old friend. No complications, just raw, naked, unabashed misuse of the Wiki so crystal clear you can't help almost admire it.

[tarantino]

After nearly a month of inactivity, they're closing the arbcom case. They've reviewed private evidence. and decided to do nothing.

[Piperdown]

why is this editor, Jossi, as freshly done below, allowed to edit the BLP of his boss (not only his boss, but his spiritual macdaddy)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=243059866
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=243071975

There may be a disclaimer on his sub-page (that any other editors of that article might not know about), and his edit may or may not be in the right, but why is he even allowed to do so?

Let him voice on the talk page. Let others edit the article page.

This concept has worked so well and so fairly on other ongoing COI avoidance measures on WP. Byrne for example. Would you have allowed an User:JuddBagley (theoretical here, folks, I know he wasn't able to do that for other reasons) to edit "Patrick M. Byrne" from the period (Sept 2006-??early 2008?) when he was directly and provably employed by that BLP subj, since he was somewhat equivalent in job/coi functions to PB as jossi is to Rawat?

Is it really so hard to keep Jossi to the talk pages, where his points can be discussed and if consensus of other editors who don't (or, um, haven't disclosed it lol) work for the BLP subject?

Isn't there some Wikimandate that he doesn't directly edit the article already?

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

[Sarcasticidealist]

There may be a disclaimer on his sub-page (that any other editors of that article might not know about), and his edit may or may not be in the right, but why is he even allowed to do so?

Because there's no prohibition on editing under a conflict-of-interest.

[Milton Roe]

why is this editor, Jossi, as freshly done below, allowed to edit the BLP of his boss (not only his boss, but his spiritual macdaddy)?

I've got an even better question: Why is Prem Rawat considered to be less crazy, on a global scale of philosophy, than Lyndon LaRouche?

Is this another "pissed-off-the-Jews; wups" thing? I'm just asking.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

[Anonymous editor]

speaking of this, an article on the Prem Rawat Foundation recently got deleted after a prolonged AfD. Jossi was naturally vehemently arguing for its continued inclusion.

This post has been edited by Anonymous editor:

[Piperdown]

There may be a disclaimer on his sub-page (that any other editors of that article might not know about), and his edit may or may not be in the right, but why is he even allowed to do so?

Because there's no prohibition on editing under a conflict-of-interest.

Cool.

Yo Wordbomb, if you see this.....tell User:PatrickByrne he can edit "Naked Short Selling" and "Overstock.com" all he wants.

He's a WP editor in good standing and already outed his identity and therefore conflicts of interest. Although like Jossi, he's not an Admin, so he'll have a lot less chances of abusing WP:COI...which apparently like REG SHO, is a just an idea and not a practice. And jehochman thinks he wasted his wikilife on all those COI investigations.

Mark Devlin? Tell User:Sparkzilla he can come back and edit Metropolis Magazine. SlimVirgin was wrong about WP:COI apparently.

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

[Cla68]

There may be a disclaimer on his sub-page (that any other editors of that article might not know about), and his edit may or may not be in the right, but why is he even allowed to do so?

Because there's no prohibition on editing under a conflict-of-interest.

Cool.

Yo Wordbomb, if you see this.....tell User:PatrickByrne he can edit "Naked Short Selling" and "Overstock.com" all he wants.

He's a WP editor in good standing and already outed his identity and therefore conflicts of interest. Although like Jossi, he's not an Admin, so he'll have a lot less chances of abusing WP:COI...which apparently like REG SHO, is a just an idea and not a practice. And jehochman thinks he wasted his wikilife on all those COI investigations.

Mark Devlin? Tell User:Sparkzilla he can come back and edit Metropolis Magazine. SlimVirgin was wrong about WP:COI apparently.

The COI policy is vague and doesn't specifically prohibit much COI, especially if its declared, and that is, apparently, why Jossi was not sanctioned for his heavy involvement in regulating the Rawat articles, or Chip Berlet with LaRouche. Of course, that means that others, like Devlin and Byrne, have been treated unfairly since they weren't treated the same way. Either Wikipedia needs to rework it's COI policy, or its admins need to start applying it evenly, fairly, and consistently.

[Piperdown]

quote name='tarantino' post='55640' date='Sat 20th October 2007, 3:09pm'
That's Jossi Fresco, press contact and spokesman for The Prem Rawat Foundation, and OWNer of several WP articles relating to his spiritual leader.

The articles over which Jossi exerts ownership include:-

* Prem Rawat

* Teachings of Prem Rawat

* Hans Ji Maharaj

* Divine Light Mission

* Elan Vital

* TPRF

* Ron Geaves

Some things never change.

here, today, a WP admin edits a reference from his own organisation, on an article that arbcom cited his abstinence from in letting him continue to admin WP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=250199900

nope, no COI there. nothing to see here. move along.

next, Wikipedia is going to promote Karl Rove to Arbcom and allow him to control the George W Bush BLP.

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

[Piperdown]

check out Jossi Fresco, PR shill for Prem Rawat, and his WP activity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jossi

Isn't it about time someone told this King of COI to fuck off?

[Piperdown]

Top 25 mainspace article edits

1. Prem_Rawat - 1085 edits
2. Guru - 397 edits
3. Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat - 260 edits
10. Divine_Light_Mission - 170 edits
11. Hans_Ji_Maharaj - 148 edits
17. APA_Task_Force_on_Deceptive_and_Indirect_Techniques_of_Persuasion_and_Control - 134 edits
18. Quackwatch - 133 edits
19. Techniques_of_Knowledge - 133 edits
20. Lord_of_the_Universe - 130 edits
21. Cult_apologist - 119 edits
24. Past_teachings_of_Prem_Rawat - 104 edits


---

Jossi Fresco: Punking Wikipedia for 4 years for his boss, Prem Rawat.

Report for User:Jossi
Deleted edits: 3213

wonder what those were...