User talk:Riveros11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Riveros11, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Contents

[edit] Cyclical time

There are a couple of Wikipedia policies thay may be applicable to Cyclical time. Wikipedia requires that all content be verifiable and does not allow original research. If you have references that can be used to verify the content of Cyclical time that's great! But otherwise, it may not be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Since you removed the proposed deletion tag on Cyclical time, what I'll do now is wait for a while to see if suitable references can be added. If not, it will be sent to Articles for Deletion where a number of wikipedians can review it and help with suggestions. --Henrik 21:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops. It looks like another editor sent it to AfD. Please explain your reasons why it should be included in Wikipedia here. Henrik 21:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Official BK Discussion Forum Link

Riveros11 aka Avyakt7,

I have found an official BK Discussion Forum [1]for you and others. I have placed it on the BK

Official links. It looks as if Discussions have just started up again on the 19th of August. I hope this helps. PEACE 18:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

All right Riveros11 bud? Looks like you took some stick on the brahmakumaris.info page. Not so sure why you were banned though. 192.82.106.244 on the bkwsu wiki page reckoned it was because you were getting personal, can’t really see it myself though. From what I can see, if anyone was getting personal it was the Ex-l character. So what’s your opinion? How come you got banned and what makes you reckon that it was Ex-l that did the dirty? Also how come you reckon that Ex-l is .244? --searchin man 15:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


Yeah. how come bud. I'd like to know too. 195.82.106.244 02:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

[edit] ad hominem attacks

Riveros11, if you are going to continue to make ad hominem attacks, and you feel they have any relevance to this BKWSU topic, substantiate your allegations. I keep asking.

  • Personally, I'd rather focus on the facts related to this topic starting with the financial structure and status of the BKWSU.

If you are a trusted recruiter, and have some inside access to the management of the cult, are you willing to co-operate in this matter or do you think the cult's interest are best served by trying to attack and discredit me and the brahmakumaris.info website?

We have a good opportunity here to completely and accurately document the cult in a manner that has never been done before. I think you have to agree that the bulk of the topic is according to Shrimat and clearly referenced from the Murlis.

  • So what are your specific corrections and what are your easily referenceable sources or alternative citations?

195.82.106.244 14:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ,
TalkAbout 03:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International Academy of Design & Technology

"She's attacking me ... she attacking me ... ". No one is interested. Actually, it was 216.49.220.27 which is the International Academy of Design & Technology - Tampa [2]. Do you teach there too? I suppose I could write to them with dates and have them confirm BUT the article is about the BKWSU not you, so let's focus. Luis, it is not Brahmin behavior to behave in such a manner and this is becoming silly. When are you BKs going to tire of trying to trying to attack my integrity and just deliver some hard documentation?
BTW, someone else was using the same IP address around the same time to post REALLY CRAZY stuff on the Adolf Hitler page, see [3]. So I hope that was not you. And if it was not, I would have a word with someone at the faculty there to put an end to it.
Thanks. 195.82.106.244 01:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "I have substantial evidence for this. Do you want me to disclose it?" Avyak7

[edit] Please stop the sussing and personal attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ,

Also, it is hard to know if you are Avyak7, Riveros11 or various IPs? I don't want to know how you gained access to someone elses site and I no longer wish/nor want to try to mediate. When someone doesn't agree with you, you quickly turn it personal. I have worked here Peacefully without this sort of Drama and constant complaints.

If you review All the entries you can see that you started the exposing without fully stating that you are part of a big organisation as proven by your very site where you posted anothers private files.

Best Wishes. TalkAbout 03:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


Dear 244,

Here is my second warning to you and thus , I will add the required tag "np3" Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki /WP:NPA#Consequences “Posting a link to an external source that fits the commonly-accepted threshold for a personal attack, in a manner that incorporates the substance of that attack into Wikipedia discussion.” I do not appreciate either that you suggest that I could have written an article about Hitler. I will follow the steps that are stipulated in Wikipedia about this matter.

You have also changed the original title posted by TalkAbout. It was

“UN intervention for Avyakt7 and 244.”


Dear TalkAbout,

Please see my name above in .244 response to “searchin man.” Please see “searchin man” talk page as well. I know you can edit things out whenever you wish.. Do I need to ask you for permission to do the same?

.244 expressed that he didn’t have no affiliation with BKinfo. I am certain that that is not true. I have substantial evidence for this. Do you want me to disclose it? This information is relevant to this wikipedia article, since it demonstrates that .244 is not a “non-biased” editor and thus, 244 is not qualified to write about Brahma Kumaris in an impartial manner. I needed to disclose that information here because is relevant to this article.

On the other hand, .244 discloses my real full name here and in another user talk page, threatens to contact the faculty at USF (my previous employer), searches and publishes about my personal information which is non relevant to this article. See the difference, TalkAbout? Finally.. I am not upset at all. All I want is for this article to be an accurate reflection of Brahma Kumaris, would you let BKs have an input on this article? avyakt7


avyakt7,
Look if you want to continue this, I imagine I can not stop you. As far as to any membership in a forum being a reason for disqualifying him/her from participating in activities on wikipedia I would like to point out the following. No individual is to be singled out...sussed out as a means to discredit his/her participation on a wiki. They could very well be members of the Gay BK forum and it wouldn’t make a grand difference here. Discuss the points here, point by point. Forum issues take to the forum, go to the OZ forum, go to the infogami blog.
  • From my point, I see there is no real open space for discussion in the OZ forum run by the BKs which you are a member of.
  • I don't see your theory up there (OZ forum), nor it being discussed by other members.
  • It appears to me that other active BKs are doing well and good in the BKinfo forum. It serves not only XBKs, but PBKs, active BKs , folks seeking spiritual discussions and NBKs (folks just wanting information, including journalists).
  • So, if they have a wide array of folks, why the problems? I did put in a second request to have you approved, but I will send in another asking it to be withdrawn given your goal, which would be to have individuals banned from wikipedia.
  • I see that the problems on the forum and Here started when you began to pick/squabble with other members on both venues.
  • I see that despite the fact that you bit off more than you can chew, you are still dead set on this (personalising things).
Do you think it would be fair to remove yours but leave his/hers up? Will you refrain from further activities to EXPOSE others. This is going the way of scientology in my view. I don't think threatening exposure, attacking the person rather than the substance/points merits well from a scholarly point of view and it is destructive to the process of communication/participation and good will.
I have the highest respect for people following their spiritual beliefs, having gone down that road myself and this process is to place the facts out there and let the individual decide on the path they are taking or if they want to continue on such path. Is also an information source for people on a global level that seek information on said organization. You shouldn't fear information, you shouldn't be fearful of the tenets being in the open, nor the practices. The higher road would be for example: Yes, we do belief we will be deities and yes we believe X and Y. Rather than trying to hide the sun with your thumb. Suppression of information is not wise nor a scholarly path.
I will ask you these three questions directly:
  • Do you believe you will be a deity?
  • Do you believe you are superior to others here on this planet because you are a Brahmin Soul?
  • Do you believe God speaks/is channeled via Dadi Gulzar in Mt. Abu?
Your reply to these three questions above will be the test of your stated will and intentions towards the others you have issues with here for me. PEACE TalkAbout 15:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

that was a mistake sorry. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 22:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Avyakt7 and BKWSU TEAM acts of intimidation on new contributors

Here is proof: (Reverted page vandalized by IP from Indonesia. Please intorduce yourself in the article talk page before making changes, otherwise your IP may be blocked.) This is a clear violation for allowing people to participate anonymously. Wikipedia improves through not only the hard work of more dedicated members, but also through the often anonymous contributions of many curious newcomers. All of us were newcomers once, even those careful or lucky enough to have avoided common mistakes, and many of us consider ourselves newcomers even after months (or years) of contributing.

New contributors are prospective "members" and are therefore our most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility or elitism. While many newcomers hit the ground running, some lack knowledge about the way we do things.

The Avyakt7(Riveros ET ALL) and BKWSU TEAM are trying to intimidate people from participation by trying to suss out who they are, where they are from (what centre) in an effort to stop participation. What average person has at their disposal a Tech TEAM at the ready to trace, IPs, e-mail headers, and other such activity. They will go to no end to intimidate people. There is a clear pattern developing here. TalkAbout 17:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)



[edit] References


    [edit] References


      [edit] Test 7 day course - splinter

      Wallis when referring to "world service" which was started in 1952, states:[1]"Lekhraj had from the very beginning published numerous pamphlets and written a huge amount of letters to important national and international figures in which he interpreted contemporary events with reference to his revealed knowledge. Rather, this marked an intensification of the process, with seven-lesson courses in the group's teachings being offered to outsiders." An overview of the seven-lesson course can be found here: [4] under "Foundation Course in Raja Yoga Meditation." Also, here: [5] under "Foundation Courses in Meditation."

      I see they miss out the bit about 5,000 years and so it is not authoritative enough. We are wholly expecting the BKWSU to state editing 5,000 years out of the Murlis next. Probably after the old Dadis and Dadas die ... and the End of the World predictions fail yet again.
      I am wondering how far they can string it? We have had;
      40 years to 1976, equally the 100 years from birth of Kirpalani,
      100 years from the incarnation of "Shiva" in 1936 Destruction slipping back from 50 years to 60 years to ...
      a fluid 100 years from the "creation of Brahma" from Kirpalani, whever that might have been?
      what next, 100 years after the death and "perfection" of Kirpalani may be ... that would take us to to 2069 I suppose?
      • But what the birth of Krishna 30 years before the coming Golden Age? Is all that going to be written out as well?
      195.82.106.244 15:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

      [edit] The Advance Party

      Wallis mentions[2] the advent of a movement which may be seen as an internal response to "the University's world ambivalence;" Wallis refers to them as the Advance Party. [6]

      Is this Jesselp again still unable to work out how to sign and date his additions?
      I think Advance Party is confusing because the BKWSU has its own somewhat undefined and mystical understnading of the Advanced Party. Better to stick with PBK. Has BapDada clarfied any more what he means by Advance Party? Has anyone asked them outright what they think of the PBKs?
      We have read about how the BK seniors up in Madhuban actually sit down to watch the PBK's V.V. Dixit's video CD and that there is some support within them for VDD. Why the heck does the BKWSU just not put this one to bed forever, invite him up to Mount Ab to sit and meet with "God Shiva"? There cannot be two God Shivas, so one must be wrong. Beating up PBKs is hardly going to help matters. Suppression always backfires. Remember karma?
      It is, of course, stated clearly in the Murlis that "the children cannot tell if it is Shiv Baba speaking or Brahma Baba speaking" [Sakar Murli 11/02/2003]. Can you? May be the PBKs are right and it is only Lekhraj Kirpalani that is being channelled through Gulzar whereas Shiva is being channelled through VDDixit?
      195.82.106.244 15:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


      [edit] Requests for arbitration

      Luis,

      I have put in a "Requests for arbitration" along the lines of Wikipedia policy. Please see here; [7]. According to policy, I have to ensure that your attention is drawn to this, although out of decency and a wish to neither embarrass you nor create more contention, I will post it here and not on the topic page.

      • Specifically, I am requesting clarification of the use of BKWSU self-published material.

      From my point of view, I see no reason why they should not be allowed where they are key to understanding the BKWSU and "easily verifiiable". Let us see what the admins think.

      Personally, I think what you are doing is incredible but sadly typical of the current BKWSU modus operandi. You are seeking to promote the BKWSU by covering up or denying exactly that which the BKWSU is based upon. I understand that the path of Raja Yoga is a path to perfection and that perfection includes honesty and truthfulness. I am utterly confused at how honesty and truthfulness can be promoted, or exemplified, by denial of objective facts which most individuals, even impure Kali Yugi Shudras (Untouchables) - as you call non-BKs, would call guile or an outright dishonesty. Quote BKWSU; "With love for God in their hearts and truth once again permeating their being, the actors dance their way gradually off the stage"

      I take onboards the Wikipedia's requirement "not for truthfulness but verifiability". This is to your advantage. It allows you not to be truthful if you so chose. But given the narrowness of the topic and lack of expert material, I see no reason why widely available and purchasable self-published material inline with Wikipedia policy is not acceptable. And, naturally, I have to flag up the secrecy of the BKWSU over its contentious beliefs and the limited access to its "Knowledge" it gives both its new students and interested "expert" third parties. However, that is a matter for your own conscience and not the Wiki admins.

      BTW, when I say team, I do not mean IT team, I mean BK Waddy's little helpers; you, BKs Gyantri, Kiran, Gopi and the rest that have been mobilized to ensure that this topic page fits in with the rest of the BKWSU re-write or PR. Am I right or am I wrong?

      See you at Dharamraj. I'll be the one at the back waving and laughing at how you explain away what you and the rest of the team are up to! Now in the meanwhile, as an aside, can you please personally justify to me either the re-writing of the Murlis to remove embarrassing failures, e.g. 1976 "Destruction", the 40 years Confluence Age and 5 Billion population, or the beatings currently being lashed out to the PBKs? Personally, I will be very interested to read the United Nation's response to the latter, would not you be?

      195.82.106.244 15:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

      [edit] In response to your message

      In response to your message on my talk page; the big difference between you and me Luis is that I believe that Truth can only be reach through truth, and not PR spin or aggressive media manipulation.
      I do not see how PR spin can ever be the yogic path that will take the BKWSU or its followers to realising Truth.
      • What kind of God requires us to be dishonest, to enter into denial and hide our truths away?
      So at what point in the Course did they tell you about the 1976 Destruction date, the 40 year Confluence Age or 50:50 years, and how do they explain away the PBK beatings?
      Can you actually ask the seniors about these things, please? What do they say? Put your Values Education into action. 195.82.106.244 06:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
      For the very latest on 244's fine grasp on 'Truth', click here [[8]]
      searchin man 09:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


      Come one searchin man, let's clear the questions first; the 1976 Destruction date, the 40 year Confluence Age or 50:50/ 50 to 60 years, and how do the BKWSU explain away the PBK beatings?
      Have you got the balls to ask the seniors whether those teaching posters are original or not?
      I have nothing to hide. I know that they are.
      195.82.106.244 23:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

      [edit] Comments to arbitrator

      Hi.

      out of decency, I'll cc you directly on this discussion as it is addresses your actions.

      Personally, I'd be careful how you are setting yourself and the BKWSU up for a fall within the public domain by pursuing these issues in an unfair and dishonest manner. In my opinion, matters really ought to be handled in a fair more subtle and delicate manner - and, of course, "taking the task ahead ... in an organized way and as per rules" as BapDada said.

      We still have to address the matter of channelling and mediumship. I am happy to wait until arbitration is over as the sources given are inarguable.

      Thanks. 195.82.106.244 10:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

      [edit] Response to Luis Riveros and Request to Jossi

      Luis, to state that I have never provide a single reliable resource is laughable. Look back through the history of the topic and discussion page and anyone will see that I provide endless citations in balance mostly pro-BKWSU, academic or impartial. Yes, agreed, I mostly built this topic. If you look back at the original article prior to your re-write according to BKWSU PR, it is almost entirely verbatim BKWSU teachings - [9] references; [10], comparison [11] or through the Discussion pages anyone can see my input. You are being utterly dishonest and making prejudicial allegations you cannot support in an attempt to reach your goal.

      Perhaps you could help here Jossi.

      In Wikipedia:Verifiability [12] it states that, "Material from self-published sources may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as:

      • it is relevant to their notability;
      • it is not contentious;
      • it is not unduly self-serving;
      • it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
      • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it."

      Luis has claimed that this only refers to the author(s) themselves using the material. I believe this is entirely wrong.

      Luis has point blankly refused to allow any citation from BKWSU published material which in essence, of course, make fully public their teachings and beliefs even though the very same publications are used by the academics.

      My question here is would such self-published material allow "reasonable" use of BKWSU published material where it is clearly and specifically referenced in a manner that anyone could purchase a book or attend one of their 7,000 centers and request a copy of said materials to check references? For example;

      • specific scriptural references or other publicly available materials and
      • the organization's own websites?

      BK Luis has stated that it is only acceptable if it is easily downloadable but, of course, refuses to accept that if it is downloadable from http://www.brahmakumaris.info even though it is clearly BKWSU produced material, e.g. [13] or [14] where a BK produced teaching aid states End of the World/Destruction in 1976 after 40 years Confluence Age etc.

      It is understandable why the BKWSU might want to bury this information but I believe in the public interest for it to remain.

      Lastly, what group exactly am I meant to be a part of with any other contributor!?!

      Thank you.

      [edit] Response to Jossi

      Response left to your pleading. And who the heck has supporters!?! I had to laugh.

      Reportage is not antagonism, Luis. It may not be good PR but if the BKWSU does not want bad press, it should not go about beating up its splinter groups, cover up child abuse, ex-communicting and re-writing its "End of the World" predictions from 1976 on. The free press and self-published BKWSU sources are all citable. It is as simple as that. Thanks. 195.82.106.244 23:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

      195.82.106.244 23:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


      [edit] Self-published sources

      Dear .244, "The free press and self-published BKWSU sources are all citable. It is as simple as that." Those are not reliable sources. As simple as that. Best Wishes, 72.91.4.91 16:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

      Oh, yes they blatantly are acceptable, as the policy states! The admins said so.


      Note that material from an organization's website and literature, can be used in an article about that organization providing that it is properly attributed, not unduly self-serving, and not defamatory to third parties. For example, a book published by an religious organization if available from stores, or online outlets, can be used to describe the views/beliefs/traditions of that organization (attributed to them and not asserted as fact, of course). Same applies for materials/statements/opinions, etc. described in that organization's website, under the same caveats of notability, of not contentious nature, and not unduly self-serving. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

      Anyway, I put in a RfC so even more folks will be checking the talk pages.

      I always laugh at how people like you go on about "Freedom of Speech" ... until someone else actually attempts to assert their rights to it. So you do not accept the Free Press, or is it just the India press is not as good as American press?

      Please clarify. 195.82.106.244 17:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

      [edit] Baba says, "opposition takes the position ahead"

      User keeps making changes in the Brahma Kumaris page. Last warning.


      195.82.106.244 23:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

      [edit] Bogus vandalism accusations made on the Brahma Kumaris page.

      This is in response to the bogus vandalism accusations made on the Brahma Kumaris page used to remove Talkabout's added citation. [15] in which you stated, Reverted page- Vandalism again by user Maleabroad - placed a last warning tag in his talk page."

      With regards to Maleabroad, Wiki policy is Do not Bite the newcomers.

      You are using nothing but intimidation and personal attacks to attempt to dominate this topic. Personally, I find this tit-for-tat business puerile but I will stand up to you and defend others.

      195.82.106.244 02:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

      [edit] BKWSU; Arbitration or Mediation?

      OK Luis,

      so let us go for Arbitration or Mediation and sort it out. Its your choice which this time.

      Let us put our positions to a third party and let them decide. What could be more fair?

      No more screaming accusation, no more wiki trick to block out or intimidate other users. Just fair and rational process.

      What do you say? Its a better deal than having Wiki Yoga for the rest of your life, isn't it. 195.82.106.244 09:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

      [edit] Arbitration and Mediation

      I am sorry but the light of your refusal to engage in Arbitration and Mediation your warnings are not legitimate.

      You are using these as a tool of personal attact to intimidate other contributors. 195.82.106.244 03:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

      [edit] More bogus vandalism warnings and the boy that cried wolf.

      Hi Luis,

      I see that you have put another bogus vandalism warning on my talk page, User_talk:195.82.106.244 in an attempt to block me out again. You can go report to the admins that I have removed it as I have done from other users that you are trying to intimidate. Please note, calling for bans or blocks of another contributor is considered Uncivil behaviour by wiki standards. Removing uncivil comments is fair.

      • Please note that an edit conflict is not the same as vandalism and wha you are doing is to try and intimidate other users from contributing to the Wiki. This is contrary to policy, and I assure you that like the "boy that cried wolf", as a tactic it will only last for some long until the admins see the pattern of attacks and the users you are attempting to block.

      Can I also point out that refering to whitewash as whitewash is not necessarily defined as uncivil behavior. It might be worth reviewing the Wikipedia's own definition.


      Whitewash is a form of censorship via omission in which errors or misdemeanors are deliberately concealed or downplayed. In politics, whitewash is sometimes used to describe a cover-up or a deliberate downplaying of a problem.



      195.82.106.244 23:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

      [edit] Copied from BKWSU page - work in progress.

      OK,

      so which Admin would like to take up this matter?


      Riveros11 slapped another vandalism tag on me using the IP; 72.91.169.22, [16], here [17]. I removed it. Sockpuppetry and personal attack, or just a cynical and dishonest ploy to block other users to gain control over a topic for his group?


      The user page for 72.91.169.22 is faked up to look like; maleabroad, [18] complete with bad Indian-English speling

      This is an important detail as we wil see later. It says;


      " User:72.91.169.22 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

      How am I vandalising? I was deelteing anti-Hindu propangda trying to create a wedge between BKs and Hindus co-religionists. No racism will be tolerated! "


      If you look at the user contribution for maleabroad, here [19], you will see the same anti-hindu proganda stuff used on the BKWSU page, here [20]

      Revision as of 16:38, 21 November 2006 maleabroad m (deleted anti-Hindu propaganda user trying to create drift between BK brothers and Hindu co-religionists)


      However, looking at the archive of maleabroad, Luis Riveros11 slapped a vandalism tag on maleabroad from the same IP address in Tampa; 72.91.169.22 (72.91.169.22 [ pool-72-91-169-22.tampfl.fios.verizon.net ]), [21] where Luis or Avyakt7 as he likes to call himself says;

      " Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University

      Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 72.91.169.22 03:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC) AVYAKT7 "

      Luis is of course a teacher and recruiter for the BKWSU Raja Yoga center in Tampa. See documentation of his talks, here [22], [23] etc.


      • At 02:42 am 30 November 2006 as Riveros11 he made his usual revision/accusation (rv: vandalism - User 195.82.106.244 changed article without previous discussion as stated in Talk page without obeying policies in talk page - vandalism - version from user Appledell) [24].
      • At 02:49, 30 November 2006 he made a Administrator intervention against vandalism, here [25]. *ipvandal 195.82.106.244 Reported user this morning. Keeps reverting page without discussion and blanks all warnings from talk page.
      • At 02:54, 30 November 2006 [26].
      • At 02.57 am on 30 November 2006 he then used this sockpupet IP address on my talk page [27].


      If we look at the user contribution for 72.91.169.22 [28] we see that he has used it soley to attack me ... and once for maleabroad.

      If we look at his own user page for ... we see that despite making all the edits to BKWSU he has not once used it to make an IP vandalism report [29] and only once a personal attack report.

      If we look at the other IP address is uses 72.91.4.91 [ pool-72-91-4-91.tampfl.fios.verizon.net ] also Tampa Verizon and used for making vandalism attacks on Maleabroad [30]

      If we look at user contributions for Tampa Verizon 72.91.4.91; here, [31], we see they are again solely focused on the BKWSU, maleabroad and myself.

      If we look at user contributions for71.251.88.110 = [ pool-71-251-88-110.tampfl.fios.verizon.net ] is also Tampa Verizon; here, [32], we see they are again solely focused on the BKWSU and myself.


      From 25/26 October 2006 when he first engaged in editing, he has been a one track record [33] Vandalism, Vandalism, Vandalism, Vandalism and whole load of admin tricks to block others ... no wonder he has been to business to actually discuss, mediate or arbitrate. Except on others pages [34]; and similarly hitting other first contributors, e.g. [35].

      I have no doubt that this is not exhaustive but it is exhausting ...

      I would like to point out that the same team are also at work on Google Answers having critical or even independent pieces about the BKWSU removed, e.g. [36] which is now http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=206345, Yahoo and elsewhere. Yes, Wikipedia FOundation will be targetted next if they has not already done so. Scratch me and I will bleed citations.

      195.82.106.244 05:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

      [edit] Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University

      I did not state that Maleabroad is somehow related to |Riveros11.
      I stated that Riveros11 faked a page up TO LOOK AS IF IT WAS MALEABROAD, e.g. bad English, "Hindu Fatherland", from the same IP address that he uses to register persistent IPvandal reports and complaints to block me from contributing.
      Of course, Riveros11 has used a different user/IP from his main Riveros11 account to hide his actions.
      OK, this matters ≈ jossi ≈ because Riveros11 is intimidating others with bogus vandalism warnings and reports to block their contributions.
      Yes, for years I used to teach and recruit for the BKWSU which is why I know what their teachings and modus operandi is, and where the citations are. I have agreed to work within the rules, attempted mediation and arbitration and do not depend on blocking other with bogus IPvandal reports. 195.82.106.244 06:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

      [edit] Resort

      Oh, and BTW, it should be "resorting to personal defamations" not "resourcing to personal defamations".

      Just wait until you see the references and citations we have ... ! 195.82.106.244 06:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

      [edit] Removal of page protection.

      Just to prove that I am willing to work with an open hand, I have put in a request for removal of page protection, here;

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_significant_edits_to_a_protected_page

      And I put a note on Centrx's talk page too;

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Centrx#Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University

      195.82.106.244 06:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

      [edit] Declined

      I dont want to be accused of running around behind your back trying to stitch you up, so ... I added this to the investigation report just because I was amazed at how much effort you were willing to put in to making up a case against me.

      • One final incident, just wanted to add for the sake of completeness a Request for checkuser that Luis did under the 72.91.4.91 user where he refers to himself in the third party, "He also reported user Riveros11 ... Personal attack on Riveros11 ..." etc. [37]. It is worth noting JUST for the amount of effort he puts into this.

      It was Declined. 195.82.106.244 02:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

      [edit] User .244 you asked for arbitration, why are you taking so long to respond?

      Dear .244,

      I wrote in your talk page that I was willing to "negotiate" with you after I received an "invitation" from you.[38] You requested either arbitration or mediation. I answered to you that I was fine with it and selected Arbitration. I told you that I wouldn't revert the page, even though I could and I will unless I hear from you today. I am not willing to play your games anymore and even though I am showing that you have been quite tricky in your dealings with us (are you brahmakumaris.info?) I have been patient enough by following admins advice however, with no support from them when the time comes. I would like to show you this page as well[39] What are you trying to do? You know that you will get some people upset with those comments about BK and Hinduism. Here is your complaint[40] that I have refused arbitration. You know it is not true. Here[41] 'user Thatcher is willing to restore the arbitration petition you made. Lastly, I requested to have the page reverted as it was before your revert.. while we wait for the process. Do not complain again that I am not willing to go the "middle way discussion or involve third parties, e.g. arbitration or mediation." As far as I am concerned it is you who is unwilling to do it. Perhaps you feel that you can continue "free and clear" now? I seriously doubt it.

      Best Wishes, avyakt7 20:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


      • Because I did not see this as it was drowned out in the general crapflood.
      Its weird Luis, there is no user called Thatcher ... the user linked to is Fred-Bauder, above that, the link does not point to my complaint, it points to Dmcdevit's user talk page with no reference. But, OK, I will put it back in again.
      195.82.106.244 10:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

      [edit] Your Requests_for_investigation against me using IP sockpuppet

      • I also just found your request for investigation where AGAIN you use IP address to make the complaint and then refer to yourself "Riveros11" as if it were a third party. I aded the following;


      Listen guys, this is a bit of a joke because 72.91.169.22 is Riveros11 to whom he refers to in this and other complaints as if he is a third party. Please see detailed documentation above. Riveros11 has been using 72.91.169.22 and other IPs to build up a bogus case against me and others in order to block me out from editing the article.
      The background to this case is that Luis [User:Riveros11|Riveros11]] is a teacher and recruiter for this millenarianist group the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University and they have an IT team working on this article to ensure that nothing that contradicts its PR can exist there. Not even links for ex-victims as per The Family, Moonies and Scientology. Ditto, that no materials can be references from their "scriptures" or publications as per other religions. What this is all about is blocking any questions being raise. Ditto, The Family, Moonies and Scientology etc all have critical or opposition sections and links which he has removed from this one.
      The history goes back to when he was suspended from a public discussion forum for making personal attacks on others which he has continued to lay blame on me for. I was the victim of those attacks.
      With references to consistent claim that I accepted to use the sources he provided and have requested discussion of reliable sources, policy is clear; [42]
      Self-published and dubious sources in articles about the author(s)
      * it is relevant to their notability;
      * it is not contentious;
      * it is not unduly self-serving;
      * it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
      * there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.
      I put in for RfC, mediation and arbitration and the guy refused to participate whilst all the time using these alternative IPs to try block me out. I am glad I found all this to understand what is going on.
      195.82.106.244 13:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

      [edit] Personal chat off the topic page please

      Luis,

      please keep the personal chat off the topic page please and I will.

      You gave your word that you would go into arbitration, let us see if you stick to it.

      The only diff I am stating is that you have done so.

      195.82.106.244 02:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

      [edit] Hello

      I looked over a bit of the request for arbitration. There are many ways to avoid this lengthy, time consuming (on the part of both yourselves and arbitors), process that can sometimes get very ugly.

      I'm a member of two (or maybe even three) Seperate WikiProjects that could perhaps provide assistance. In any case, I'm willing to provide you with assitance.

      As a member of a fairly new religious movement myself, I can sympathise with your passion in this matter. I could tell you TONS of stories, but I would rather assist you both in creating the best article you can.

      Please leave a message on my talk page, and I can give you both more information about how I can be of assistance.

      You're certainly free to do whatever you want, but take it from me - it's much better to perhaps see things in a different light and work towards a common goal than go to arbitration. Sincerely, NinaEliza 05:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

      PS: With the current neutrality tag on it, I suggest that few readers are going to give much weight to anything written there, and everyone loses - including the readers.
      Well, heavens - I should have read the talk page of this article before I made my offer. In any event, it still stands. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance.NinaEliza 07:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

      [edit] Hello again

      I am writing to let you know that I unfortunately need to rescind my offer of personal assistance. Currently, there are great demands on my time - both here and in real life. I encourage you to contact the Mediation Cabal, make a Request for Comment to the general community, or simply seek a Third Opinion. You may also consider posting a message on the noticeboards for various WikiProjects that are appropriate to the topic.

      I will reiterate, it is simply best to try to reach consensus with your fellow editors based on the common goal of writing a fair and well-written article. As long as you can at least share this small patch of common ground, there is hope.

      Sincerely, NinaEliza 05:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

      [edit] Arb

      You really should be putting comments only in your own section. Regarding the 195 editor, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/195.82.106.244. He can not be proven by technical means to be the same editor as BK.info, but that doesn't mean he isn't. For example, if all the BK.info edits were done from an internet cafe or a friends house, it would look like two different people. However, checkuser is only a tool, and accounts can be considered sockpuppets by their behavior even without technical proof. Your off-wiki information would be good evidence in the case confirming that BK.info and BW watch are associated with the 195 editor. By the way, traceroute shows that the web site bk.info is hosted in England, which is the same place the 195 editor is coming from, but I can't get more specific than that. Thatcher131 01:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

      [edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris

      Hello,

      An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris/Workshop.

      On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 17:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

      [edit] Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

      The article Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

      If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.

      [edit] Arbitration

      OK, we have Arbitration. Now are you going to stick to your word? 195.82.106.244 07:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

      Dear 244, I already did... Did I forget something? Thanks, avyakt7 16:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


      [edit] My personal background

      I am not an ex nor current Brahma Kumaris. Do you keep a file of people who work on the article? I do not know why I am interested in the article. Andries 16:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

      Dear Andries, Thank you for answering. My response is: No, I don't but perhaps I should. I have observed that there is a "relationship" between you and Jossi. Hope that he is not the reason you are here. Certainly, I look forward to see your contributions to this article, however; it would be hard to do it without the BK, ex-BK background. It seems that you have selected a side on this issue. Best Wishes for you. avyakt7 22:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

      [edit] You are doing yourself a disservice in the abritration case reg. Brahma Kumaris

      I think that your constant reverts of well-sourced material without trying to integrate the material that you think is fine and without discussion of the quality of the edits and the quality of sources will work strongly against you in the arbitration case. I considers your behavior disruptive and I think that the arbcom members will agree at least to some extent with me (though I may be completely mistaken). Please do yourself a favor and start to discuss edits and sources seriously on the talk page. Andries 20:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

      Dear Andries, I noticed that the arbitration case you went through with the article on Sai Baba is very similar to our case here...If arbitrators are consistent... I believe we are in good shape. Thank you for the advice, but I have other thoughts. Best, avyakt7 22:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

      Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/i/v/User_talk%7ERiveros11_487f.html"