From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 12:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

You may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification.

Contents 1 Involved parties 2 Statement by 195.82.106.244 3 Statement by avyakt7 4 Preliminary decisions 4.1 Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0) 4.2 Temporary injunction (none) 5 Final decision (none yet) 5.1 Principles 5.2 Findings of Fact 5.3 Remedies 5.4 Enforcement 5.5 Log of blocks and bans

[edit] Involved parties

• 195.82.106.244 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
• Riveros11 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log), signs as avyakt7 and uses:

• 72.91.169.22 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
• 72.91.4.91 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
• 71.251.88.110 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
• 70.119.13.124 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)

• Maleabroad (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
• Appledell (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
• TalkAbout (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
• Bksimonb (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
• Green108 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
• Searchin man (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
• Karunabk (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
• Duality Rules (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
• Brahmakumaris.info (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
• Jossi (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
• Sethie (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)

[edit] Statement by 195.82.106.244

"My request is simple. In Wikipedia:Verifiability, it is stated that the use of self-published or otherwise "dubious sources" in articles about the author(s) of such material is permitted within certain limited grounds, [1]."

An NPOV has occured, firstly, due to avyakt7 interpretation that this policy only allows the self-publishing author themselves to use such material. This is so clearly wrong that I chose to ignore. But, secondly, due to his utter refusal to allow any input whatsoever of self-published material, even when it fits the above state limitations. He has gone extensively out of his way to block me from editing including using secondary IPs listed above to hide his identity and file IPvandal cases against me and others to lock the page. [2].

• Avoiding all extraneous contention, could I simply please have an official clarification of the limits of such use? This is not about content dispute.

The BKWSU has been referred to as both a New Religious Movement and a Cult. User avyakt7 is a recruiter for the group and engaging with a team of BK followers to re-edit the article in its favour. At core, BKWSU beliefs are based on the spiritual possession of its founder and channelled messages from spiritual beings, which they claim to be both "God" and "Adam" [as in “Adam and Eve”] respectively through various mediums, at first the founder and currently an old Indian lady at their headquarters. Latterly, seeking status by association with governmental and UN agencies, the BKWSU has sought to hide these references although they are clearly documented by academic experts and referred to as channelling and mediums by the organization in English and Hindi terms.

My questions regard "easily verifiable", does this allow for the use of BKWSU self-published materials? Specifically;

a) reference to material from BKWSU published & purchasable books, teaching aids or widely used posters etc

b) reference to BKWSU published websites

c) reference to BKWSU scriptures called "Murlis"

With respect to the latter, although I appreciate that the Wiki is not a place for scriptural debate, given that it has over 7000 centers worldwide and that their scriptures are clearly identified, dated and many published; I would consider that any reference to a specific Murli would classify as "easily verifiable" by any individual by attending a centers and requesting it by date. Especially when the scriptural reference is a defining contradiction to the organization's PR, e.g. Avyakt Murli 25/10/69, "The final Destruction of the whole World takes place within 6 years. Those who tell it to be 7 years have their position reduced", Avyakt Murli 05/11/70 :"From this journey, it is 5 years for Destruction" [“Destruction” being the “end of the world”] or clearly referenced teaching posters, e.g. [3] [4] where it shows Atomic War via Russia and America and “Confluence Age 40 years” respectively, references BKWSU proponents have removed.

If we look at two similar topics, e.g. Scientology and Christianity, I see that reference to self-published or scriptural material, e.g. "Dianetics" or "The Bible", is wholly acceptable and I refute avyakt7 refusal to allow such in this topic just because it does not fit in with the organization's current PR or recruitment tactics.

• Lastly, given the nature of claims, is it safe or “weasel word” to state “allegedly God" when referring to this possessing spirit? Contrary to avyakt7 my thought is that it is safer to do so.

This user has gone to extensive efforts using several IP to raise complaint and complaint blocking me - whilst refering to himself as the user account he uses to make edits (Riveros11) as a third party. It took me a while to work out these hidden attacks.

[edit] Statement by avyakt7

Dear Charles, Please check user 195.82.106.244 as sockpuppet of user brahmakumaris.info. Thank you, avyakt7 14:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Ps: Also user "bkwatch" is a sockpuppet for the same IP (195.82.106.244) avyakt7 14:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

An admin moved my comments which were a response to Charles here... while I compose my statement, please take a look at this as well[5] Thank you. avyakt7 19:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam,

Background: The article located on Brahma Kumaris has been initiated by user 195.82.106.244 . This user has been an ex-member of the institution which I belong to. My involvement in this article has been prompted due to the following:
1)Back in March of 2006 I was able to see this page in Wikipedia containing extremely biased opinions against Brahma Kumaris. I have attempted to exchange views with user 195.82.106.244 since then with no avail. This page was also being mirrored to other sites as well such as "reference.com." User 195.82.106.244 “owned” this BK article in WIkipedia at that time. Please see archives of March and April 2006.
2)User 195.82.106.244 (aka ".244" from now on)is the owner of this site: http://www.brahmakumaris.info This site is strongly antagonistic towards Brahma Kumaris.
3)As a current teacher of Brahma Kumaris , this article has come to my attention by potential students who were willing to explore Raja Yoga meditation. Due to the biased and detrimental editions made by user .244, these students and the public in general had a negative view of the organization which I belong to.
I must make it clear that I am not representing Brahma Kumaris in any official way. I am just a Brahma Kumar who would like to see a neutral, encyclopedic article of the institution which I belong to rather than biased propaganda.

User 195.82.106.244 has been defaming Brahma Kumaris and using the power of the internet and the visibility of Wikipedia to do this. User .244 is not interested in contributing with a non bias, neutral article containing reliable sources as suggested by Wikipedia rules.

I have provided several reliable sources in the article itself under “references.” I have contacted university professors and received their permission to quote them in the article. I must say that we had several admins coming and going to the BK site. A sample:

Actually, the best solution would be to find a reliable reference (not BK or former BK) that talks about BKWSU and quote them. We could also mention how BK's refer to themselves, with an appropriate reference.–RHolton≡– 23:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)”

That is not totally correct. Only these sites that are considered reliable sources can be used in articles. Personal websites, blogs, anonymous websites and the like are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I may have misunderstood what you said. But in reviewing the site in question, I doubt it meets the standards required. If there is material in that site that has been published by a reliable source, editors could link/cite these sources. All other commentary and OR, unless described on secondary/reliable sources, has no place in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, user .244 has not provided a single reliable source to this day. I wonder why is he allowed to edit? Why the rules are not enforced with him?

The following will be about user .244. I believe it is needed to make my case. His character shows his attitude and his intentions. User .244 has engaged himself in several tactics. Lying about his affiliation to the brahmakumaris.info site is one of them. I presented tangible proof of that here: [6] I have also presented several differentials about his tactics. For instance, Trying to avoid mediation/arbitration when convenient for him[7] Disparaging comments about editors :He has threatened me to contact my employers about using Wikipedia. He has published my personal information as well. [8] Direct insults to persons.[9] User 195.82.106.244 was recently blocked and still he has modified article and blanked his talk page: [10] Disparaging and provocative POV presented as fact in discussion (trolling)[11] Bogus personal attack report and deletion of comment...[12], [13] He also reported me (riveros11) on a personal attack intervention board with a very attacking diatribe... [14] Someone answered. [15] 244 obviously didn't like the comment so he deleted it! [16] Personal attack on Riveros11... [17] Bad faith edit comments.... [18] [19] [20] [21] Personal information and false allegation of sockpuppet... [22] Intimidation... [23] Taunting... [24] [25] [26] Removing NPOV... [27] Removing page protection (probably to be able to post again as 244, evidence of sock puppet)... [28] Changing others' discussion and offensive edit comment.... [29] [30] Shifting of burden of proof onto those questioning the article... [31] Forest fire... [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]

Due to the above mentioned evidence, I have resorted to use my IP rather than my user name to post these claims because user .244 has been known for deleting previous users posts or “lying his way out” before an admin could take a full look at the case. It is worhtwhile to note again that user .244 has been blocked one time; nevertheless, he has blanked his page even though admin Jossi warned him not to delete the admin tag. He was also adviced by admin Rholton to obtain a user id to post. However, he has not listened.
It is in his advantage that user .244 is a full time editor of the Brahma Kumaris page unlike other part timers like myself. This is his life.

In short: I need to emphasize that user .244 is using Wikipedia for his own purposes. He has a strong animosity towards the BK movement and is using Wikipedia to show that. His motive is NOT to inform the public about this fine institution but on the contrary, to defame it.. One more time and to make sure that my point gets across. This issue is about content neutral content, with reliable sources. Thank you. Best Wishes, avyakt7 16:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add the following evidence of sockpuppet of user .244 :

Please take a look at this link[40] and this [41] If this is not considered to be a strong proof of user 195.82.106.244 sockpuppet with brahmakumaris.info and bkwsuwatch.. It will really surprise me that the obvious cannot be seen. BTW, If you have the chance to read all of his writings in the above mentioned post, you shall see that the root of the problem is content alone. That kind of content is just wrong for an on-line encyclopedia.

Here [42] you will see the comments below the video in Spanish. Take a look at "bkwsuwatch" endorsing brahmakumaris.info site... Curious to know how this will be handled... Please let us know if user .244 and brahmakumaris.info are coming from the same place. Admin Jossi below requested to check on this as well. Best, avyakt7 01:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Preliminary decisions

[edit] Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

• Accept, then. Charles Matthews 11:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Borderline, but there has been another full month of strife since we rejected this the first time. - SimonP 22:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary injunction (none)

[edit] Final decision (none yet)

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

[edit] Principles

[edit] Findings of Fact

[edit] Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

[edit] Enforcement

[edit] Log of blocks and bans

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.