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

Case Closed on 17:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 18:23, 17 July 2020 (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.

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

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

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

"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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)”[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I am a writer, more than ten years removed from my experiences following the BKWSU, and a contributor to the article under arbitration. This article has been the primary focus of my Wikipedia contributions.

Having spent several months at the BKWSU headquarters over the years and several years as the head teacher at a local branch center of the group, I also have firsthand knowledge of the organization.

My interest is that the article include material that is relevant to understanding the group, whether originating from the organization's own members and publications, academic publications, splinter groups, or associations of ex-members and family members of the group's followers.

Ideally, cooperative editors should contribute in areas of their expertise.

In the past couple of months Avyakt7 and a group of likeminded editors have wholly excised material that is not to their liking, including numerous external links relevant to the group.

In numerical terms, the article's length has been cut by nearly half since October 10, 2006. (By a simple word count on text-only versions, the article has dropped from 5,887 words on October 10 to 3,284 words today.)

In editorial terms, virtually none of earlier material--representing nearly a year of collaborative editing--remains.

It may be that these editors do not want the general public to be aware of the detailed beliefs and practices of the group, such as ritual washing after bowel movements, or of or of the group's belief and experience of direct access to the Supreme Being through an aged medium, or of dietary requirements so strict that members may not readily share food (even vegetarian food) cooked by their own families, or of an unusual cosmology that might strike the naive reader as paradoxical if not absurd.

Perhaps Avyakt7 et. al do not want readers to know that that there is a large community of ex-members, including a repository of more than 3,000 articles posted by members and ex-members, with numerous accounts of depression on leaving the group, several reports of suicides, and a lengthy report on child abuse.

The justification given by Avyakt7 et. al for many of the changes they have made since October is that these assertions are not properly documented.

Publishing has changed with the arrival of the web, and continues to change. There is a gray area in what may be considered a legitimate source. Many authoritative publications exist on the web that cannot be found in printed books or refereed journals. Ignoring this reality, Avyakt7 et. al, have been overzealous in excluding material they find disagreeable. I have found them inaccessible to reasoned discussion, although I have done my best to engage them on several occasions.

In my opinion, a repository of 3,000 articles by current and former members of the group is a legitimate resource. A dictionary that explains the group's unique terminology and its reinterpretations of classical Hindu concepts is a legimate resource.

The report on child abuse and child protection policies within the organization was prepared over a period of five years, and provides exhaustive detail. A number of cult-related sites list the Brahma Kumaris as a religious organization having cultlike characteristics, reporting a number of questionable practices.

While the validity of such resources as these and the websites of ex-members (as myself) may be debated, they cannot be debated without inclusion as sources. Even if such sources were not considered sufficiently authoritative for supporting assertions in body text of the article (although I believe they are), such resources certainly have a legitimate place in the article's external links section.

Rather than build on existing contributions, Avyakt7 et. al have elected to replace them with material more general, diffuse and thoroughly uncontroversial, while unwilling to compromise or negotiate. I therefore conclude this statement with a request for relief.

Duality Rules 00:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC) Honorable Committee Members,[reply]

First, I would like to thank you for taking on the task of hearing this case. Secondly, I have tried to make the information as concise as I noted in the instructions that time is of the essence.

I will hereby enter my wiki testimony:

I would like to state that I did try and seek help early on when Riveros11 was complaining about his identity being made public, but in reviewing things I see it was all for not as one day he posted the contents of a private e-mail with an author that disclosed his full name including his middle name. So, that having been said I think I have tried as best I can to be civil.

You may look up my record of edits and see that I don’t bully editors, nor give them deadlines, stop signs so as to intimidate them, suss them (try to reveal editors identity) or demand that they state why they are present editing the article. I try to work with all editors as best I can and having other interests did not appreciate the taunts as I did not want to risk being banned. This I am afraid allowed them full court to remove all the informative edits and currently the article is a promotional Brahma Kumaris mess.

I have deliberately stopped editing the article as I see there is no point in the “discussions” as they are a tactics to remove edits and due to all the personal attacks (making assertion about one’s mental status, gender status...etc). I see no point in doing edits until there is some level of decorum and civility.

As to the term “Cult” and the Brahma Kumaris I can only say I did not place the words in the books, nor the organizations that list them as such. I merely find the information and do my edits.

In closing I would like to state that these are but a few of the books I have at my disposal (noted in the evidence) and that I would hope that since I have placed such a high regard in obtaining the material that I be given a fair hearing in being allowed to proceed with validating the work that was removed from the article under the pretext that it did not have the citation number directly next to the sentence and add other worthy edits.

I may seem a bit obsessed but I have never encountered a “Deity” spiritual organization before and my concern/motive is to document it, as they are an organization that places themselves in policy making committees within governmental bodies which affects the population at large. It is my belief than anyone that is involved with governmental bodies should/must be transparent and accountable and not partake in policy making bodies with a hidden agenda.

Thank you for your time and consideration with regards to this most important and sensitive matter. PEACETalkAbout 03:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All items to be found in the Evidence section:

• Exhibit A

Proof of an official effort by BK IT TEAM

• Exhibit B

I am asking that the work of Jagdish Chander be allowed to be cited as I have provided several academic books that cite said works. I have several of Chander’s books and will be happy to list them if need be. Jagdish Chander was the “Official” scribe of the of the Brahma Kumaris and mentioned in the murlis. Please note that academic books have cited the murlis as seen in Devotional Literature in South Asia.

• Exhibit C

• Use of New Beginnings by Ken O’Donnell…with a clear view of the beginner’s course.

• Exhibit D

• I would like to use these sources, which are confirmed by an academic report. Life Positive is a reputable magazine and the journalist was given access to their facilities and interviewed the Administrative Head Dadi Kamarka. So, we now have two sources, one a journalist and one an academic, both of whom discovered the “Hidden Doctrine”.

• Exhibit E

• Heidi Fittkau-Garthe, citations are importance now that the “Hidden Doctrine” is confirmed by an academic and the Heidi Fittakau-Garthe incident clearly shows what the report was indicating as a danger.
• With the new information and other reports I would like to make an independent article on Heidi Fittakau-Garthe as I do believe there is now enough material. I think articles by Time and the BBC should be found citable.

• Exhibit F

• I would ask that all material by Mike George, Ken O’Donnell, Liz Hodgkinson, Rob Shubow and material used by the BKWSU to be allowed for citation purposes and Brahma-Kumari Radhe, Om Mandli & the Om Nivas and their suppression.

• Exhibit G

• Journalist books that actively document NRMs/Cults/Sects. This will be a resource to assist to reinforce the academic findings and to make the article more reader friendly.

• Exhibit H

Claim by Avyakt et. Al that I am an Ex-BK

To set the record straight let me explain what this mysterious "team" actually is. When I first became aware of the Wikipedia article I alerted those within the organisation whom I thought really needed to know about it. Prior to that I was only engaged with server admin and development activities on the BKWSU IT team. An internal cc list of concerned people gradually evolved and we discussed a response. (The reasons for the team's concern are outlined in my first post [43].) It was decided it was better to have one person representing this team rather than several. The aim was to play strictly by the rules knowing that a neutral article would be both a lot less harmful than the existing one and also in alignment with Wikipedia's stated aims and objectives. The response to my first post was disappointing [44]. The 'team' had previously agreed amongst ourselves not to proceed if the discussion was not constructive. For that reason I have contributed little since then and have mainly been observing developments on the article and its talk page and reporting it the back to the team. When I began to see some opportunity to build consensus on the discussion page recently I again began to be active.

Over the last year concerned students and contacts have asked us about this article because it described a parody of the real-life organisation that they are experiencing first hand for themselves. We have no problem with critical websites however the campaign use of a Wikipedia article to present such a disparaging account of the BKWSU is misleading to the public and, in my opinion, an abuse of the public service Wikipedia aims to provide.

It is not surprising that there are some single-purpose editors here. I, and perhaps other editors, are here out of alarm and concern more than anything else. We don't need an "advert" for the BKWSU, we have our own websites for that. A neutral article, or even no article, is just fine with us.

Maybe when this article is finally in a reasonably stable state the single-purpose editors such as myself will branch out to contribute to other articles that we personally find interesting. But right now, we seem to have a crisis on our hands and as far as Wikipedia is concerned, I can't think of much else. It is also worth noting that new pro or con editors are not getting a "normal" upbringing in Wikipedia since they are throwing themselves right into a hostile situation.

Here is our take on 195.82.106.244's citation requests.

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

I believe Jossi has already listed some literature which would be considered reasonable to use as citation. Teaching aids or widely used posters are more variable. Certainly the posters 195.82.106.244 wants to use are very old and of historical interest only. The BKWSU is an evolving organisation, and always has been right back to 1936. We have identified that one of the pictures at least (The Ladder) has had text added that isn't normally there. If we can find a less contentious source for these pictures then perhaps they can be presented in context as part of the BKWSU's history. Otherwise, there are more up to date pictures on our main website.

• "reference to BKWSU published websites"

The main website www.bkwsu.org is subject to internal review and fact-checking, for example, with regard to the current number of centres and students. There a many other centres that have created their own websites independently but may contain factual errors, out of date information or have fallen into disuse. The Indian version of our website has not had the same degree of peer review and fact checking.

• "reference to BKWSU scriptures called 'Murlis'"

Murlis are not thought of as "scriptures" within the BKWSU. In Wikipedia terms, these are internal documents of the organisation. I have also checked the murlis concerned and the quotes that 195.82.106.244 produces are not in fact anywhere to be found. I then double-checked with students and teachers who were around in the university at that time (1969-1976) and they have no recollection of such statements being made in murlis. Such statements would clearly be memorable if they did indeed exist as quoted. Since murlis are not published externally by the University, they cannot be sourced from a reputable, easily verifiable source. It is clear that even such an interested party as 195.82.106.244 has been unable himself to access authentic murlis - as evidenced by the false citations.

Finally, I don't understand why references to the "TEAM" are apparently regarded as such a conspiracy. How else is a reputable organisation supposed to respond to a sustained internet misinformation campaign? Of course there will be an internal response. To echo the albeit poorly translated fragment of murli that TalkAbout cited, "...you are doing it in an organized way and as per rules." So, as I have stated, we do not intend to break any of Wikipedia's rules and if I have, then I am sorry and if you tell me about it then I will adjust. Bksimonb 21:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept, then. Charles Matthews 11:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Accept. Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. (Active arb on this case.) --FloNight 03:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. (New arb) Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) All editors listed as a party to this case are banned from editing Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University until the case is settled.

Passed 4 to 0 at 11:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)