Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Statement by Thatcher131

Fools rush in, etc. If this case is accepted I will recuse as clerk.

This dispute centers on editing of the article Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University, which could be described as a new religion arising out of Hinduism, or a cult. It is likely that a full arbitration case would result in the banning of one or more editors from the article, although I'm not prepared after a limited review to predict whom.

The article was started in November 2005 by IP editor User:195.82.106.244 who has maintained a stable IP address to this day. Based on whois and traceroute data, it is likely that this editor is associated with the website [BrahmaKumaris.info] and User:Brahmakumaris.info. The 195 editor also posted to Wikipedia an e-mail that BrahmaKumaris.info sent to Riveros11 informing him that he was banned from their online forum, suggesting a close relationship (although I can't find the diff now). User:TalkAbout may be a sockpuppet or at least another ex-BK member. His interests are more diverse, however. (TalkAbout is on a different continent than the 195 editor. This does not preclude the possibility that they are both ex-members of BKWS and could be communicating via one of the ex-BK member forums.

The main opponent is User:Riveros11 (signs as Avaykt7). User:72.91.169.22, a Tampa Verizon IP, signs as Avaykt7 here, so it is likely that several other Tampa IP addresses associated with this case are all Riveros11. User:Appledell is a new single purpose account backing up Riveros11; another suspected sock puppet is Searchin man (talk • contribs). A checkuser request is pending. Appledell and Searchin man are from different hemispheres than Riveros11. They certainly could be fellow members of the organization coordinating their activities, but they are not sockpuppets in the usual sense.

The main editors in this case are all single purpose accounts editing Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University. The 195 editor claims that he is a former member and recruiter for the group and that Riveros11 is a current member and recruiter. He also claims that BKWS has a project in their IT department to keep negative information out of the article. The 195 editor has tried to insert negative material [1] alleging that BKWS is a cult, that it operates a number of "front" organizations, and that it tolerates or ignores child abuse within its ranks, among other things. When (and if) these allegations have sources, they generally do not meet the reliable source policy. The 195 editor has also repeatedly inserted links to copyrighted BKWS material hosted at third party web sites in likely violation of the copyright provisions of the external links policy. He has also repeatedly inserted a description of BKWS' 7 day course. He complains that its removal is in violation of policy since the sources are BKWS documents and are allowed under the self-published sources rules. This is in fact the basis of his complaint above, although the problems with the article go much deeper. He likens his contributions to using Scientology documents as sources in Scientology articles. Probably most of his contributions in this area constitute original research as a former member, or original synthesis of primary sources, as he does not cite (that I can find) secondary sources. However, there may be an element of obstructionism on the part of Riveros11 in not wanting accurate descriptions of the groups' beliefs to be published. The 195 editor has also attempted to reveal personal information about Riveros11 [2] [3]

Riveros11 is also a contentious editor. He has apparently filed multiple reports of vandalism, personal attacks, and so on while logged out, so they do not appear in the contribution history of his named account. These reports are seen as attempted intimidation by the 195 editor.

  • He apparently filed this request for investigation [4] while logged out, giving the impression that he was a third party
  • posts to intervention against vandalism [5], not blocked
  • same vandal report filed the next day [6], rejected as content dispute [7]
  • Contributions of 72.91.169.22 (talk • contribs) (through November) are solely directed at filing complaints against the 195 editor, including a checkuser case that was declined and a personal attack report that was a duplicate of his RFI [8].
  • 71.251.88.110 (talk • contribs) and 71.251.88.110 (talk • contribs), if they are Riveros11, violate 3RR on 25 October.
  • Two other accounts that revert to each other's versions, Appledell (talk • contribs) and Searchin man (talk • contribs); sock or meat puppets? Checkuser indicates they are on different continents.

Ultimately it is impossible to know how Riveros11 would react to attempts by other editors to introduce properly sourced and relevant negative information into the article since the only editors for the time being are the 195 editor and TalkAbout, who edit in the same manner.

Update I have gone through the article's history and identified a number of additional single-purpose accounts and listed them as parties. Although checkuser did not confirm any sockpuppets by technical means, I suspect sock and/or meat puppetry in at least some of these accounts, as they have (sometimes) performed the same sterile reversions as the main protagonists. In the event they are independent editors, they should still be listed as parties and informed of the opportunity to present evidence, and their conduct may need to be examined. Thatcher131 22:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Second update Good grief. The problems here are more pervasive than I imagined. Thatcher131 00:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Jossi (talk • contribs)

I have attempted to assist warring parties by offering advise related to application of policy. Despite my requests that editors make efforts to research secondary sources on the subject,pro and con parties prefer to editwar and accuse each other of policy violations and/or vandalism. Due to the constant editwarring, the lack of material based on secondary sources, and poor copyedit, the article is a mess, providing little useful information for readers.

I would ask the ArbCom to take the case only if there is evidence of sockpupetry. If there isn't, this should remain as a content dispute. One possible remedy, that could implemented by an administrator, would be to stubify the article, protect it, and encourage involved editors to do some research on secondary sources before resuming editing (I checked three online databases that I have access to, and found good secondary sources on the subject that could be used, so there is no lack of material.)

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Durova (talk • contribs)

I semi-protected the page in response to a noticeboard request. Had the participants consulted my advice further I would have recommended WP:RFC. Both sides are acting rather strangely. I recently received an angry request for unprotection by an involved IP - my response was why not register? DurovaCharge! 14:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request by TalkAbout

RE: Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University Arbitration

Parties involved:avyakt7 & 195.82.106.244

I recently started another article Brahma Kumaris Info once all information about ExBKs was removed and I frankly was not allowed to edit by avyakt7 AKA Riveros11 et Al (and the IT Team of which Bksimonb is the Official Representative [9]) and feeling that the Admins did not see that avyakt7 was merely intimidating/harassing me despite having offered the citations with the edits. Since the new article has been set for deletion and Admin Jossi states I am part of this arbitration [10] I will be submitting a statement within a day. Please allow me this time to prepare my statement. I do believe for the sake of time that it would be wise to bring in Bksimonb and have him be part of these proceedings as he is in charge of the TEAM.

PEACETalkAbout 23:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy to involved as required. In fact, I would appreciate an opportunity to comment. Regards Bksimonb 10:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Threaded comments from the acceptance section

Has any attempt been made to get admins involved in this dispute? There is a sockpuppetry claim made above: has any request for CheckUser been filed? This is apparently still a content dispute, if aggravated, and is not obviously in good shape for Arbitration. Charles Matthews 10:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is here [11]. No action taken as yet. 195.82.106.244 10:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
If there is abusive sockpuppet activity around this page, CheckUser should reveal this, and there can be a stronger basis for acceptance. Charles Matthews 10:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
None found. The BKWS and ex-BK members could be coordinating their efforts but they are not traditional sockpuppets. Thatcher131 01:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parties removed?

These parties were removed by user:195.82.106.244 the day before case was moved to the evidence phase. I would suggest these are added back as parties:


≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Honorable Committee,
  • Jesselp needs to be added to the arbitration case as he stated that he was blanking his talk page and no longer involved but has since returned to the article. I am not sure how to go about adding him, but I do think he did a bit of a trick there. Please see his talk page.PEACETalkAbout 21:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Of the last 500 edits to the article, JesseIp only made 10, most recently more than a month ago. Since this case is ultimately going to look at potentially disruptive behavior by editors, there doesn't seem to be a reason to include him. If you wish to present evidince against him, you can, and if the arbitrators think the evidence is serious enough to bring him into the case, they will. Thatcher131 02:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timescales

Hi, I'm happy to be in the above list of parties. I just have a question regarding timescales. What are the deadlines for submitting evidence and comments etc.? This is obviously something we need to devote some serious time and effort to. Thanks & regards Bksimonb 20:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for the delay (bit busy in RL). There is no deadline per se for submitting evidence The official grace period for submitting evidence is one week, however this is often extended to 2-3 weeks if there is a steady flow of evidence being submitted and proposals on its basis are still being made. None of these time limits are followed rigidly however you would do well to submit whatever evidence you have as early as possible so the arbitrators can consider it for making proposals. You may also make a statement explaining your position and arguments in the case however this is completely optional (evidence in lieu of this is sufficient). If you have any more questions regarding the process please feel free to ask here. --Srikeit 05:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you so much for responding. This is most helpful. Regards Bksimonb 08:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection [12]

I would like to raise the following concerns,

  • The problem extends to other articles where there seems to be a campaign to make sure the Brahma Kumaris get associated with any page related to cults [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18].
  • Posts on the discussion page are often verbose, full of aggressive-looking bold text, off-topic and raise contentious issues as flame-bait. I find it intimidating and it drowns out more focused, reasoned discussion. Can we please address this issue too?

Also, would it be possible for the article to be stubbified? That way we start with a non-contentious article that no one can still have a problem with. Bksimonb 22:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for checkuser

A suspicious edit was made to the article by Some People in which a sensational story from a UK tabloid newspaper was used as a reference [19]. This edit was made after user 195.82.106.244 vigoursly promoted the newspaper article though it is not clear if he/she intended to use it as a source [20]. The sig used Some_People used was interesting on the discussion page given the context; "Some People Believe". This user has been editing since 18th December (two days after the temporary edit-ban injunction) and until now has only made minor corrections to a random smattering of articles. The sudden interest and POV-push into an NRM article is a departure from his/her previous editing pattern.

Thanks & regards Bksimonb 19:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for clarification regarding Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University edit bombing

This concerns an article under probabion in accordance with an arb com ruling of 12 Jan 2007 [21].

Some intense editing took place between 28 January 2007 and 29 January 2007. Most of the edits were made by user Some_people (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) who has now been banned on the grounds of being most likely a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of user banned 195.82.106.244 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). During these 11 hours a total of about 50 edits took place about 28 of which were by user Some People. Up until that time some of us had been reverting edits by Some_People since we were quite sure that this was a sockpuppet due to the highly distinctive disruptive style, POV and bias, frequency and taunting edit comments.

During this burst of activity another editor, known to have similar views to 244, joined in the editing although perhaps not intentionally to cause trouble, TalkAbout (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), also Andries (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and one other editor who seems to be just spellchecking, Chris_the_speller (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). User Riveros11 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) reverted the article 00:24 [22] and 01:06 [23]. Unfortunately, at this time more than Some People's contribution got reverted. The result of this was a stern warning by Thatcher131 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) that this was unacceptable [24]. The outcome of the thread is what I would like some clarification on [25]. If I am reading what Thatcher131 is saying correctly then this is how it seems to me,

  • An editor may revert edits made by a sockpuppet of a banned editor,
  • A valid edit by a non-banned editor may not be reverted even if it is on top of disruptive edits from a banned user,
  • A non-banned editor can include content from the banned editor if it meets Wikipedia's content requirements etc.

To me, this exposes a serious loophole. It seems that it is now possible for a banned user to hijack an article overnight by making a bunch of edits through an anonymous proxy and if another editor drops by and adds to it then it is signed, sealed and there is not a darn thing any other editor can do to revert it any more. This is particularly a problem given the nature of 244's edits that Thatcher131 has accurately described in the thread linked to above. I am seriously concerned that we will see the same pattern of behaviour again unless there is some way we can prevent it. Suffice to say, the events of the last 24 hours have caused some grave concern amongst the "pro" editors. We are now looking at a seriously unbalanced article and to try and separate out the valid editor's contributions from Some People's is going to be a mammoth task, if that is what we are expected to do.

I suggest that it sends a bad signal if what appears to be a banned user showing complete indifference to the arb com ruling is allowed to "get away with it" in such a blatent way. I await some clear advice on how to deal with this problem should it arise in future.

Thanks and regards, Bksimonb 20:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to bring to your attention this link as well [26] and the fact that the current article is a version of user "Some people" plus TalkAbout. User Andries had a minor participation in it. I have requested the article to be reverted to 17:30 Jan 28 2007 by Riveros11. I made this request to the current admin, Thatcher131 who so far is the only one who appers to handle/postpone our requests. Best, avyakt7 21:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not on, or anywhere near, the ArbCom, but a couple of observations. First of all, what's stopping you from going through the new edits and deciding what to keep and what to toss on the merits of the individual edits? Which exact words may or may not have originated from a banned user is clearly secondary to this. Secondly, if you have good reason to believe that an article-banned user is in fact orchestrating all this, then all legalism aside they're behaving badly and can be treated accordingly; if you need a hand, go to WP:AN/I or WP:AE depending on the seriousness of the problem and call in an admin. Following policy to the letter is not what's important. It's worth pointing out in connection with this that gaming the system - i.e. not quite violating a Wikipedia policy as written, or generally using the letter of the rules to subvert their spirit - is itself a violation of Wikipedia policy. PurplePlatypus 09:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest and pointing out the more appropriate places to post. I had a feeling I may have been posting in the wrong place but couldn't at the time find anywhere better. I thought at the time it was a "clarification" issue rather than a "noticeboard" issue since an admin was at the scene. I just couldn't at the time make sense of how things were panning out.
Not sure if the bit about "Wikilawyering" was directed at me or Avyakt7 but I appologise if I caused that impression. This was not intentional.
Please understand that an individual incident by itself may appear trivial when in fact it is just a tip of the iceberg to a long-running issue that may not be immediately obvious to those outside. Editors do get banned for good reason.
Since my original post above Thatcher131 has clarified things further on the article Talk page and I am now reasonably satisfied we know what to do the next time such an incident takes place, as it certainly will if recent events are anything to go by.
Thanks & regards Bksimonb 20:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Brahma_Kumaris_35c9.html"