Wikipedia update

A tortuously prolonged process of embarrassment for Prem Rawat, which began in February 2008 with the expose by Cade Metz in The Register has culminated in two of Prem Rawat’s ardent followers being banned from editing Wikipedia articles about Rawat. [1]

Wikipedia has for a number of years been a battleground where ‘premies’ (Rawat’s followers) have sought to control what is written about Rawat, this control is called  ‘ownership’ in Wikipedia jargon.  The chief architect of this exercise of control seems to have been  Jossi Fresco and it was his activities as revealed by The Register that exposed the dubious morality of the Rawat cult in its activities on Wikipedia.  [2] 

Now for the second time in a single year Wikipedia’s ‘supreme court’,  the Arbitration Committee ,  has investigated conduct on the editing of articles dealing with Prem Rawat and organisations connected to him; the Committee has concluded that the behaviour of two editors, Momento  and Rumiton has been so biased that they have been banned from editing any articles related to Prem Rawat.  In addition the Committee also noted that  Jossi Fresco has retired from Wikipedia, but that in the light of unaddressed concerns Fresco, should he ever wish to return, would have to seek the Committee’s permission before editing any article connected to Prem Rawat. A similar statement about Fresco and his administrator status seems likely to be included in the Committee’s final decision on a case concerning articles about Scientology[3]

Momento  may be an alias for one of the Australian authors of a pro Rawat section of book about Radical Alternatives [4], Rumiton acknowledges he is Australian, though like Momento he avoids revealing a full real world identity.

Whether the action by the Arbitration Committee will see progress on improving the Wikipedia articles remains to be seen, as they stand there is much, even within the limitations imposed by Wikipedia rules that remains to be addressed.

• Click here for the full Arbitration Committee decision.

•  Evidence Page.

---

[1] Wikipedia Arbitration report 

[2] Wikipedia Distortion

[3] Wikipedia Scientology decision

[4] The Divine Light Mission in Australia, article by Derek Harper & Michael McDonald

---

 

 

 

Conspiracy Theory – will the real Jossi Fresco please stand up.

On 15^th February 2008,  PRC received an email from Jossi Fresco claiming that documents published on the Internet, which carry both the TPRF contact details and the name Jossi Fresco, are in fact products of impersonation. In the light of Jossi Fresco’s claim, PRC has looked closely at various sources that link Jossi Fresco and TPRF. As noted by The Register , Fresco’s name has been publicly associated with TPRF’s  website ownership since 2002, while as recently as August 2007, a ‘paid for distribution’ Press Release from TPRF carried the name Jossi Fresco.

PRC replied to Jossi Fresco on the 18^th February 2008. The following points were put to Jossi Fresco, however he has declined, so far, to provide any response.

 

To:     Jossi Fresco

In respect of your email. Subject Misleading information

The web source you quote as evidence of impersonation has never been linked or in anyway connected to PRC. Could you explain why you believe it is relevant for us to consider ?

Even were this web source to be evidence of the impersonation you claim has taken place there can be no certainty that the impersonator is the owner of the email address given, in fact it seems highly unlikely that an impersonator would readily reveal their identity. In any event [name removed] has no connection with PRC and if you have concerns regarding the [name removed] websites or their operator, you should contact him directly.

There are two web sources quoted in the PRC article as evidence that [the person named] Jossi Fresco is connected with TPRF:

The first of these is:

 
http://www.1888pressrelease.com/city-of-london-honours-prem-rawat-and-the-prem-rawat-foundat-pr-11s02ck9j.html
 

Is it your claim that this is also an example of impersonation ?
 

The second links to three articles on PageQuest:

http://www.pagequest.co.uk/myarticles/Jossi-Fresco/1903

Again is it your contention that these three articles have been brought to the PageQuest service on the basis of someone impersonating you ?

Further is it your contention that you have no contractual, either paid or voluntary, relationship with TPRF, either currently or in the past ? This is a relevant question because it seems most surprising that someone would nefariously use your name to post facsimile copies of TPRF press releases.

If you have other evidence, such as documentation from the quoted websites acknowledging that the TPRF releases have been published using a false name,  we would be interested to see it and on such a basis may consider an amendment to an article that currently appears entirely accurate.

PRC takes actual and claimed Internet abuse seriously, including claimed attempts at impersonation. Jossi Fresco has provided PRC with no evidence that impersonation has actually taken place. The links given in the article Conflict and Duplicity, are to documents which carry the name Jossi Fresco and which exactly reproduce text published on the TPRF website.  In case there is any doubt regarding Jossi Fresco’s connection with TPRF, two further links have been added to the Conflict and Duplicity article:

 

 http://groups.google.com/group/news.admin.net-abuse.sightings/browse_thread/thread/959fb897d847714a/2ee3f6e1af0079d5   Which clearly shows the name Jossi Fresco listed as the contact for TPRF’s website administration, and which dates from 2002.

 

http://www.prleap.com/pr/88186/   This is an official TPRF press release listed on a paid for service. The name Jossi Fresco is clearly listed as the sole contact.
 

The article Conflict and Duplicity will remain unchanged until such time as PRC receives clear evidence that Jossi Fresco is the subject of a bizarre impersonation campaign, and Jossi Fresco makes an unequivocal statement that he has no contractual relationships with organizations which promote Prem Rawat or  contractual relationships with third parties which receive payment from  organizations which promote Prem Rawat.