User talk:John Brauns

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

/Archive 1

Hello John Brauns and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Good luck!

Contents

[edit] Hate groups and new religious movements

I trust you'll be interested in this: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Hate groups and new religious movements. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:07, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification needed on "ex-premies"

As you know, I have no first-hand experience with either Prem Rawat or with "ex-premies" except through Wikipedia, but I have a question to make sure that I'm correctly understanding what each side is asserting. It's my understanding that Elan Vital has named certain ex-followers as the members of a hate group called Ex-Premies (I'm fairly clear on what they're alleging, because they're fairly determined to repeat the allegation whenever and wherever possible.) But am I correct in believing that the ex-followers they name as leaders of this group are not only denying that they are a hate group, but that "ex-premies" is a group at all, as opposed to simply a description of the ex-member status of those named? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:37, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Antaeus, former followers of Rawat (ex-premies) have, on occasion, discussed the possibility of forming an organisation but have not yet done so. We communicate in public or in private on issues as they arise, but there really is no identifiable group. I own and manage ex-premie.org with help from Jean-Michel Khan, one of Rawat's former instructors. No one else has access to the site. Mike Finch (another former instructor) has set up his own independent site (www.mikefinch.com), as has 'Drek' (www.drek.us). There are currently disagreements about some of the content on these sites, but there is no disagreement about our freedom to publish this information.
Regarding EV's allegations, they have been careful to only name two ex-premies who have been publicly subject to legal action. Neville Ackland staged a one man protest outside two of EV's events in Australia and unrelatedly was imprisoned for drug offences; and John Macgregor who is subject to ongoing legal action resulting from the leak of some documents from Ivory's Rock Conference Centre. Neither are particularly significant regarding the allegations against Prem Rawat on ex-premie.org. The significant information comes from Mike Dettmers, Mike Donner and Bob Mishler, who EV have made no attempt to discredit. All the other allegations on EV's site specify unnamed ex-premies including myself. --John Brauns 23:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Images

  • Do I remember correctly that you are involved with the site, http://www.ex-premie.org/ ? If so, I am curious as to how you have obtained some of the images used on your site. If some of these images were taken by yourself or others that can assert that they took the pictures themselves (such as the image of the palatial size estate on the mainpage), then you could upload them to Wikimedia Commons, under a appropriate released license to the public and then they could be displayed here on Wikipedia in relevant articles about the subjects. That would only be the case if, for example, you yourself or someone you know that could release the rights, personally took the picture of the image of that palatial estate. Smee 17:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] category:Wikipedians by former religion

I created Category:Wikipedians_who_used_to_follow_Sathya_Sai_Baba You may be interested in creating Category:Wikipedians_who_used_to_follow_Guru_Maharaji Andries 01:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji?

  • I saw you commented on Jossi's talk page about the content of the book itself. Do you know of additional citations not presently in the article, that discuss more of the actual content of the work? Smee 00:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC).
No. but I haven't researched others' opinions of the book, but the book was hardly circulated outside the cult's followers. Anyone who has read the book, as Jossi claims he has, knows that the reason the book was published, and the meaning of the title, was to publicise that Rawat was the current incarnation of God. The back page of the book begins "Why do more than 6 million people around the world claim he is the greatest incarnation of God that ever trod the face of this planet?". Rennie Davis, one of the Chicago 7, says in his introduction to the book, "When a devotee makes the outrageous statement that Guru maharaj Ji is the Lord of the Universe, it's cause enough for a chuckle. But it also happens to be true." I remember at the time of the book's release that Rawat said of the book that it's as close to 'perfect' as it could be, but Wikipedia rules forbid using original sources or testimonies. Jossi and other followers of Rawat use this, and the fact that no unbiased scholar has ever done a serious study of Rawat, to keep the Rawat article the whitewashed advertorial for Rawat that it is. Jossi, having admitted he has read the book, has opened himself to the allegation that he is a liar by denying Rawat allowed and encouraged his followers to believe he was God. --John Brauns 00:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
If you could provide any sourced citations referring to what you just said, that would be most helpful. Smee 01:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC).
No, I don't have any citations, but this is an interesting example of what's wrong with Wikipedia when a cult leader is defended by such loyal cult members. Here we have a book, described as the 'authorised story' of Prem Rawat, copyrighted by Shri Hans Publications (owned by Divine Light Mission), where a prominent person at the time declares that Prem Rawat is the Lord of the Universe, and the back cover declares that 6 million people say he is God, and those quotes cannot be centre stage or even mentioned in the article on Prem Rawat. Because no independent professor of sociology or religion has considered Rawat significant enough to write a properly researched paper on him. And Jossi Fresco has read the book, and knows the truth, and spends significant time ensuring the the truth is not told. --John Brauns 16:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Not necessarily so. If what you say is truly in the book itself, the book can be used as a reputable secondary sourced citation, in other articles on the project. Smee 16:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] You Say

Yes, I'm pretty sure all his income comes from his followers, as he has never had a paying job in his life, nor a successful invention, and any investment income he has comes from the investment of income from his followers. Of course if you have other evidence than I am happy to be corrected. Regarding using attendance at his events as a measure of his success in propagation, he himself asks his followers to attend his speaking engagements on the Keys website, so if people don't come and see him, they are not following his teachings. --John Brauns 14:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"Pretty sure" is very different from "ALL". You should be more careful. And you should read Matthew 25:14-30, the parable of the talents. Well at least Rawat isn't as big a failure as Jesus who said "love thy neighbour".Momento 15:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
You asked me if I was sure that all his income came from his follower. I answered, yes, I am pretty sure all... etc. Notice the word all is still there, but I qualified my answer with 'pretty' to give you a chance to show that I am wrong. So, do you want to take this chance? What success and failure criteria do you want to apply to Rawat? Certainly by the statements he made when he was young he is a failure, but I'll let you define your own criteria. So, over to you.--John Brauns 23:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all you claimed that "All his income comes from his followers", then when challenged you reduce it to "pretty sure all his income comes from his followers". It is not my job to point out your misrepresentations, you should apply a llittle self discipline. If you don't know something for certain, don't make the claim. And as for Rawat, he said he was going to take Knowledge to the world and that's what he's done.Momento 04:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You are splitting hairs. Yes, I am sure that all his income comes from his followers. Do you have anything substantive to contribute about Rawat's source of income or are you only interested in playing games? I am also sure that if you did a randon survey in the street of any city in the world and asked 100 people if they knew who Rawat was, your chance of finding even one person would be small. --John Brauns 07:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You see it as splitting hairs, I see it as black and white. You say "All his income comes from his followers", an absolute, 100% statement. Now you're saying "I'm sure...". The fact is, it is just your unsubstantiated opinion not a fact. I don't need to contribute to this speculation, I'm just demonstrating the difference between your speculation and fact. A difference that is still lost on you. Who cares who knows who Rawat is. It's not a popularity contest. He's doing what he is doing because he wants to, not to be popular.Momento 10:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fact 1 - Rawat has never had a paying job.
Fact 2 - At darshan lines during the 70s and 80s and possibly later, it was made clear to premies that the prefered gift for Rawat was cash, and senior premies stood on either side of the line handing out envelopes for premies could use to donate cash to Rawat.
Fact 3 - Rawat's home address was published to premies so that donations could be made directly to him rather than to Elan Vital.
Fact 4 - Substantial equity stakes in several successful companies have been donated to Rawat by his followers.
Fact 5 - Donations to Elan Vital are used to fund Rawat's transport costs by private jet.
It is stretching the use of the word 'speculation' to use it to describe to logical process from these facts to the conclusion that all Rawat's wealth has come from premies. Regarding Rawat's stated mission to bring Knowledge to the world, if people have never heard of him he has failed. Fact. --John Brauns 10:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Fact 1 - Correct. He has never charged for Knowledge and he has dedicated his life to making it available for free.
Fact 2 - So what. What do you think he would do with 50 toasters, 23 coffee makers and some potted plants.
Why would he so blatantly ask for cash for something that is free?--John Brauns 06:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Because he wasn't asking people for money for Knowledge. He was inviting people who already had Knowledge to support him providing Knowledge for free to others.Momento 05:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Fact 3 - Exactly. Shouldn't people have a choice as to where they spend their own money.
Yes, but he was still encouraging his followers to ask for cash.--John Brauns 06:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Because cash can easily be stored, monitored and used to buy the things that were really needed.Momento 05:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Fact 4 - So what.

This equity is probably the major source of his income - gifts from followers.--John Brauns 06:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Equity doesn't magicly reproduce and grow. It can just as easily be lost. Rawat has greatly increased his original a result of good management.Momento 05:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Fact 5 - Why is this contentious? Since EV was specificically set up to promote Rawat's work it's hardly suprising that it supports his travel.
At a cost that is totally disproportionate to the income of the tax-exempt EV entities.--John Brauns 06:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Rawat and his teachings are the sole point of EV and easier it is for him to do his job the more efficient EV's support is.Momento 05:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
See if you can follow this John. I teach a rich man something and he is so grateful he gives me $500. I buy an old car and start a taxi service. Ten years later I have 20 taxis and I sell my businesss for $250,000 and buy two buses. Six years later I have a bus business that I sell for $2 million and invest it for an income of $300,000 a year. Where does that income come from John? The man who gave me $500 or is it the result of my efforts. Rawat has brought Knowledge out of India and to at least 88 countries around the world. If you consider that anybody with an internet conected can hear his message, he has truely taken Knowledge to every corner of the world. By the way, people who campaign to stop wars and poverty aren't failures because people still fight and starve. And they aren't failures beccause people don't know their names.Momento 04:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
If Rawat had done what you describe in your example I would agree with you but he hasn't, has he? If, as you put it, "he has dedicated his life to making it available for free", then when would he have had the time to build up a business? And if he has, what is the name of this business? What does it manufacture or what services does it provide? And as that is your only defence, and you acknowledge all the facts above, it appears you have no information to challenge my claim. Regarding propagation, anyone can put up an internet site and claim to have made that information available to to whole world. If people haven't heard of him then he has failed in his stated mission. --John Brauns 06:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I can hardly belive what you're saying - "when would he have time to build up a business?" You should read EPO, it's all there. Dettmers exposes Rawat's devilishly clever way to get rich - " I personally oversaw the handling of Maharaji’s legal and financial affairs with the help of some very reputable and expert professional advisors". As for your quaint idea that " If people haven't heard of him then he has failed in his stated mission", you'd be right if his stated mission was that "everyone in the world will have heard of him" but you have already claimed that his stated mission is to "bring Knowledge to the world". You don't seem to be able to keep one thought going for more than a few sentences.Momento 07:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid, Momento that you are dealing with the very thin edge of the ex-premie wedge in this conversation. The serious intellects and smart thinkers of the hate group have long since given up the childish taunts and talk page mind games. Note that he cannot even spell your name right.202.162.99.235 01:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Before some statements get removed by overzealous Wikipedia:BLP enforcers, fact nr. 2 is supported in the book by Jan van der Lans "Followers of the guru"/"Volgelingen van de goeroe". That he got his money from his followers has been written down in his article. Source: Price, The Divine Light Mission as a Social Organization. in Sociological Review, 27, Page 279-296 "Immediately following Maharaj Ji's marriage a struggle for power took place within the Holy Family itself. Maharaj Ji was now sixteen years old. He had the knowledge that his personal following in the West was well established. It is likely that he felt the time had come to take the reins of power from his mother, who still dominated the mission and had a strong hold over most of the mahatmas, all of whom were born and brought up in India. Another factor may well have been the financial independence of Maharaj Ji, which he enjoys through the generosity of his devotees. Note 27: Contributions from premies throughout the world allow Maharaj Ji to follow the life style of an American millionaire. He has a house (in his wife's name), an Aston Martin, a boat, a helicopter, the use of fine houses (divine residences) in most European countries as well as South America, Australia and New Zealand, and an income which allows him to run a household and support his wife and children, his brother, Raja Ji, and his wife, Claudia. In addition, his entourage of family, close officials and mahatmas are all financed on their frequent trips around the globe to attend the mission's festivals."
::Andries 16:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Andries, no one denies Rawat was supported by his followers. The problem is John Brauns' erroneously claim that all his income comes from his followers.Momento 04:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As we appear to have agreed above, the claim is not erroneous.--John Brauns 06:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
A grammar lesson. "Was" refers to the past, "comes" refers to the present. No one denies Rawat was supported by his followers in the early 70s and Rawat was subsidising DLM until Aubrey West and Dettmers got together. They realised to need for Rawat to be independent from the vagaries of his followers and as Dettmer's points out, Rawat used some "very reputable and expert professional advisors" to build his own fortune.Momento 08:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid, Momento that you are dealing with the very thin edge of the ex-premie wedge in this conversation. The serious intellects and smart thinkers of the hate group have long since given up the childish taunts and talk page mind games. Note that he cannot even spell your name right.202.162.99.235 01:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prem Rawat article

My apologies for the mess I stirred at the talk page and thanks for standing up to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galf (talk • contribs) 19:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Galf, I wouldn't say I stood up to you! I just wanted to explain why the wealth of critical evidence available about Rawat wasn't included in the article. One thing you may not be aware of is that Jossi, Memento and Rumiton are followers of Rawat who do their best within Wikipedia guidelines to ensure the article presents as positive a view on Rawat as possible. Jossi has declared that he has accepted a position within one of the organisations that supports Rawat's work, but he will not divulge what that position entails. --John Brauns 23:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
That is an incorrect statement, misleading, and inappropriate. As a committed Wikipedian, I endeavor for neutral and balanced articles in this and all subjects treated. Yes, I am in an WP:COI on this subject, and as such I do not edit the article directly as per the guidelines established in these cases. There is no need for me to divulge anything else besides what I have disclosed here: User:Jossi/Disclosure. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Jossi, you regularly edit the article, usually to undo some previous edit. If you can show me where you have undone an edit that shows Rawat in a positive light, I will reconsider my view. I notice that you hadn't acted to removed the unsupported statements that I removed in my last edit of the article, for instance. There are other such statements in the article now, such as the claim that Rawat encouraged his followers to leave the ashrams, that you could remove if you want the article to be accurate.
Yes, you have no need to disclose details of your position within one of the organisations that supports Rawat's work, but you could if you wanted to, and the fact that you won't cannot help but make others suspicious. --John Brauns 06:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NOT#FORUM

Please note that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum to discuss your personal issues, legal, or otherwise. Please take your conversation off-wiki. Talk pages are for discussion related to improving Wikipedia articles articles and not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Happy to do so, Jossi, but i wrote to Geoffrey at his website address some time ago regarding these issues and he appeared to have ignored my email. How about it, Geoffrey - continue by email? Mine is epowebmaster@yahoo.co.uk. --John Brauns 18:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

OK Jossi, will comply. The discussion has been unrelated to the wiki article, however, I am optimistic that this frank and civil exchange of views may lead to a positive outcome and perhaps some degree of mutual understanding.

John, sorry about your email. I deleted it thinking it was probably a virus laden hoax. Will contact you in the next day or so. --Gstaker 02:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Discussion archived. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You are making a mistake

Repeatedly removing material from articles, in contradiction with arguments presented by uninvolved editors made via dispute resolution steps, only sheds bad light on your motives and intentions. See this as my last warning before reporting your disruptive behavior in the adminstrator's noticeboard. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

And you are making a further mistake by linking to material on your website that violates WP:BLP. Don't. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Jossi, how else can I illustrate that the disputed material is contentious? All I am asking you to do is enforce Wikipedia rules about BLPs and you and I will have no argument here. --John Brauns (talk) 00:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Outside view

I was asked to look at this, as an independent viewpoint, with no prior knowledge of Rawat, his supporters, or others connected to him, in light of the dispute going on.

Wikipedia principles - John, since you possibly aren't as familiar with Wikipedia and how it works editorially, as others, I'm going to explain some things from basics. Wikipedia edits collaboratively, to try and present encyclopedic information. Often that information contains some facts that this group (or person) or that group (or person) would like it not to contain. Wikipedia is not like a court system, where the rules say what is and isn't okay. Here, the rules are more like principles. There is a principle that information should be sourced from places that anyone can verify. Another principle is that sources must be reasonably likely to be reliable in its publishing (for example New Scientist or Archive.org probably do not covertly modify articles hosted on their websites, but a random blog might). There is no principle that says some reliable sources are "fair" to use, and some are "not fair" and can't be used, which is what I think you're trying to say. There is no principle like that, at all. If a source is agreed to be "reliable" as a source of specific facts, or published information, or evidence of what someone once wrote, in the sense we use the word, then that's that: it's a "reliable source" and it is 100% usable in the areas it is considered reliable.

Archive.org - So to cut a long story short - archive.org is considered by long usage, a reliable source for historic removed copies of web information. It is a reliable source for what a website once said, and that at a given point in time, Prem Rawat or his website stated this or that. If Archive.org hosts a list of information about prem, then that is evidence it was indeed on the website at that time. It is exceedingly unlikely anything was on that website without permission. At the least therefore it either is true, or was claimed to be true.

Comments above - Moving on to your comments above. To be honest, Wikipedia doesn't care if you have "information about many current followers that I have refrained from making public". Nor do most of its editors. You can publicize any or no information you hold, and nobody here will lift a finger to stop you. You can publicize what you had for lunch, the names of any intimate partners you have, the bank details of friends if you have them, the list of everyone you know. Nobody here will lift a finger or stop you. Trying to use such actions as a kind of lever, or influence, is merely likely to get you removed from the site, which will mean you wouldn't be able to participate in any way, even via the talk page.

Wikipedia community concern - What we will lift a finger on is editorial conduct problems. Our concern is that we are working to our standards; you need to work to them as well, or else you will be asked kindly, not to prevent others doing so. That is what others like Jossi are saying. Jossi is an administrator himself. A report to the "adminstrator's noticeboard" means that he will ask other highly experienced users, who are not involved at all, to look at the evidence and decide for themselves what is best to do. It may get a few comments, or hundreds - it varies. But it will be a communal decision, and one of our most repsected, if it happens.

Personal opinion - If the matter is passed on for others to look at, then you will have the eyes of the entire community (or those who wish to be involved). Based on my own experience, they will probably say exactly the same: Archive.org is a source we find reliable, and fair to be used, and you must accept that.


That is my advice and outside view; you're welcome (and encouraged) to ask me or anyone else, if you have genuine questions. There are also pages such as WP:RFC or WP:3O which will allow you to seek others' input from throughout the many thousands in the community. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, FT2. I have removed my comment to Jossi and related responses. I accept this forum was an inappropriate place to make that comment and I unreservedly apologise to him. In mitigation, I was frustrated by his inability to discuss the issue of the content from the web archive being contentious and not related to the subject's notability. I will raise an RfC on this as you suggest. When I do I would appreciate your opinion. --John Brauns (talk) 08:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I hope you meant it. At minimum I would expect a public commitment that you would never make these type of comments again. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
(A short note; it might be worth reading the policies on civility (here) and attacks (here). As Jossi has referred to them I thought I'd drop you a link so you could check some of what he's referring to. Of course, it's possible you may be familiar with these already. Broadly speaking, disparaging, insulting, 'ad hominem', and "digs" at people are frowned on; anything constructive can be equally achieved without them - FT2)

Please stop from many further use of "you and I know" or any other type of innuendo in your comments directed at me. I do not know you, I do not share your views, and Wikipedia pages are not the place to advance personal speculations. You can do that in your personal websites, but not here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

John, are you starting to see what an appalling muddle you have got yourself in? And not just here. You have formed some strongly negative opinions about somebody and you have started your own websites to invite others to reinforce and build on your views. They write, "We all know that..." and then they build further on completely unfounded opinions. OK, people do that kind of thing, it's called gossip. But to get so caught up in it that you try and take this stuff out and present it to the world as the "truth" is going to leave you with serious egg on your face. One day you might have to walk away from all of it. Maybe now would be a good place to start? Rumiton (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Rumiton, if you are going to get personal, then I would reply that one day you are going to have to see that your uncritical regard for Rawat is unhealthy for you. Maybe here would be a good place to start. --John Brauns (talk) 08:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

John, can you provide me with evidence for this statement: "Just to add to Jayen's comments, Elan Vital, the organisation that has supported Rawat's work for the past 36 years, is registered as a church in the US. --John Brauns (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)". Thanks. Armeisen (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's own article for Elan Vital states it is recognised as a church by the IRS. --John Brauns (talk) 11:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
In fact, EV was originally incorporated in the USA in 1971 as the Divine Light Mission, as a non-profit corporation. The IRS sees it as a "religious organization" for tax purposes.Momento (talk) 12:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Divine Light Mission Articles of Incorporation

Here is the opening paragraph from the 'Objectives and Purposes' of Divine Light Mission when incorporated as a Not For Profit Corporation in Colorado in 1971.

To provide and operate an institution dedicated to the uplifting of humanity from the sufferings of ignorance by giving the Knowledge of God as revealed by the Perfect Master, Balyogeshwar Param Hans Sat Gurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj (known as Guru Maharaj), the purpose or purposes of said organisation being exclusively spiritual, religious, charitable, educational and scientific.

This was amended in 1973 to:-

1. To operate as a church exclusively for religious, charitable, humanitarian and educational purposes.
2. ...... to propate and teach the true Knowledge of God as revealed by Guru maharaj Ji .....

This was further amended in 1980 to:-

1. To operate exclusively for religious, charitable, humanitarian and educational purposes.
2. To promote the pursuit of the realization of life's purpose (goal) through the teaching and practice of the Knowledge of God as revealed by Guru Maharaj Ji ....

The name of the Corporation was changed to 'Elan Vital' in 1983, with no corresponding change in the Articles of Incorporation.

The next change was not until 2005:-

:The purpose for which the Corporation is organized are to perform religious, charitable and educational activities within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Code, and Section 39-3-106 of the Colorado statutes.

No mention of Prem Rawat or Guru Maharaji Ji, but it still includes the word 'religious'. The source for this information is the Colorado Secretary of State Business Center website [1] (search for Divine Light Mission).--John Brauns (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] jossi link

Where's the link to a page published by the PR foundation or somesuch containing a press release issued by jossi? Need it it for a journalist by Monday. 147.114.226.173 (talk) 18:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is one [2]. Just check who is behind that. It is my name, but it is not me. Someone else with a certain agenda? Anyone can publish "press releases" under any name they want on these free sites. Ask John Brauns, for more info of who this "drek" person is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Drek is the web name of an ex-premie who runs two websites [3] and [4]. He used to post on the ex-premie forums but I have had no contact with him for some time. Anyone familiar with the ex-premie online history will know that we are not close friends! I have no knowledge of the site Jossi has linked to, and if Jossi states that someone is impersonating him, then I believe him. Anyway, it is equally possible that someone could be impersonating the Drek person, as the free email address given is not one he uses on either of his websites. Surely someone who wanted to impersonate Jossi would use a free email address with his name? Here is another link that is a little more believable, but again, a free email address is used for the Prem Rawat Foundation which is suspicious - [5]. However, this service requires a minimum payment of $49 per release, so the impersonator would have had to provide payment details to the site. Anyway, Jossi, you could help clarify this murky situation by disclosing the capacity in which you are employed by the Rawat related organisation, and the name of that organisation. As long as you refuse to do so you invite this suspicion. --John Brauns (talk) 21:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prem Rawat 1RR probation

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Prem Rawat 1RR parole proposal, the articles now in category:Prem Rawat are on special 1RR and disruption probation. A notice describing the probation is at talk:Prem Rawat. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Arbitration

You have been named as a party at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Prem Rawat ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding [6]: it's usually considered good manners on that page to keep one's comments in one's own section, so better to add "@ Momento <followed by your comment>" in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Statement by User:John Brauns, webmaster of sites critical of Prem Rawat, than adding comments in other sections.
Anyway, these comments are, in this stage (the acceptance of the case by ArbCom members, which appears nearly materialised) not necessary, you'll have plenty of time to substantiate such remarks once the case has started --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat

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/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/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Please consider revising your evidence, so that it is primarily making assertions that are backed by diffs. e.g. "I have asked him to show me such a revert and he was unable or unwilling to do so." Provide a diff. Also, as the onus is on you to demonstrate that jossi doesnt "revert a pro-Rawat edit, regardless of the quality of the source", you would need to somehow find a way to prove jossi deliberately doesnt revert bad edits that are pro-Rawat, and you would need to indicate which diffs you feel he should have reverted, and why. We need diffs. John Vandenberg (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence#Jossi reverting pro-Rawat edits. Please consider responding to this, revising your evidence, or striking though the part of your Evidence that related to Jossi never reverting pro-Rawat. John Vandenberg (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] request for information

I would like to know more about claims you feeel are missing from Wikipedia due to Jossi et. al. that are backed by reliable published sources (preferably online or with online copies). Perhaps a top ten list of claims with a link to such a source and the wikipedia article you feel the claim should be in? Just fill in the blanks: WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

  1. ____ claims "____".[1] should be in article ____
  2. ____ claims "____".[2] should be in article ____
  3. ____ claims "____".[3] should be in article ____
  4. ____ claims "____".[4] should be in article ____
  5. ____ claims "____".[5] should be in article ____
  6. ____ claims "____".[6] should be in article ____
  7. ____ claims "____".[7] should be in article ____
  8. ____ claims "____".[8] should be in article ____
  9. ____ claims "____".[9] should be in article ____
  10. ____ claims "____".[10] should be in article ____

[edit] Sources and notes

  1. ^ ____
  2. ^ ____
  3. ^ ____
  4. ^ ____
  5. ^ ____
  6. ^ ____
  7. ^ ____
  8. ^ ____
  9. ^ ____
  10. ^ ____

[edit] Another request for information

You say, "I have never seen him revert a pro-Rawat edit, regardless of the quality of the source. I have asked him to show me such a revert and he was unable or unwilling to do so. I have been asked to produce diffs to support this allegation."

I think this would be much more convincing if you produced the diffs, which would show a lack of reply. Hohohahaha (talk) 02:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Evidence presented did not disclose a history of problematic editing, in terms of basic content policy, by Jossi, and the Committee commended Jossi's self-imposed restriction to edit only talk pages for Prem Rawat related articles. Due to a history of incivility and personal attacks surrounding articles related to the Prem Rawat movement, the preexisting community enforced one-revert rule on Prem Rawat and related articles that commenced March 4, 2008, has been superceeded by Arbitration Committee enforced article probation. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request

I do not have any interest whatsoever in communication with you besides discussions related specifically to edits in articles in Wikipedia. Any comments in my talk that are unrelated will be mercilessly deleted. Comments and/or questions in article talk page that are not 100% related to he discussion about edits, will be summarily ignored. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)