1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability are core polices.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires that all significant points of view regarding a subject shall be fairly represented.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3) Information may be included in articles if they can be verified by reference to reliable sources. As applied to this matter, except with respect to information which is not controversial, material published in Brahma Kumaris related publications are considered self published and thus not reliable sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Contentious points; WP:V self-published source can be and are reliable sources. This is policy. Just because a self-published source says it is true does not make it true, but it is true to say that that self-published source does. We are not talking blogs and fanzines here, we are talking about publshed, verifiable, core scriptures, biography and philosophical works.

We have to understand clearly the context of the word "controversial" here, e.g. the stated belief that all of time exists within a single 5,000 Year Cycle (dinosaurs exists 2,500 years ago) is a controversial belief. Likewise, the stated beliefs in channelling and mediumship, that the deceased or a "higher being" can come down to earth, enter into another human's physical body and speak through it is controversial, especially when that being is claimed to be God. However, what is not controversial in this incidence is that the BKWSU claim both. Inarguably, they are true statements of faith verified in both self-published and secondary sources although not necessarily true statements of fact. They and their equivalents are non-controversial reportage. In such incidents, especially in fairly obscure topics, definitive quotation from self-published sources are actually beneficial in clarifying or substantiate by their weigh of presence.

Such quotations do not equate to primary research as no conclusions are being drawn from them. Just merely illustrative reportage ensuring accuracy and useful where they are being publically denied. In addition, there are also wholly benevolent incidents where self-published sources are also useful, e.g. non-controversial and uptodate statistics and recent worthy achievements where academics will by their nature of peer review be widely out of date. What would be controversial would be if these figures or achievements were grossly exaggerated by way of self-agrandisement. I agree we have to guard again self-agrandisement such as a inflated and proprietary claims of divinity and monopolies over "God". Rather than facts, as stated in self-published materials, these have to be reported as defining beliefs.

• Comparibles: if we look at equivalent topics beit Scientology at one end or Taoism on the other, original docrines, scriptures and self-published materials, e.g. L. Ron Hubbard are widely used as references through the Wiki. Just because they are an uncomfortable fit with the organization's current PR, or political aspirations, does not make then controversial content from a policy point of view. If L. Ron Hubbard, why not Kripalani, Chander or BapDada?
• NGO status: paradoxically, given the organizations NGO and charitable status, and widespread governmental associations, it adds credence to the assertion that its self-published sources are responsible. From a validatory point of view, if self-published sources states clearly and consistently "mediumship" then that added weight to support the inclusion of a secondary source referencing it.

195.82.106.244 07:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

WP:V has specific wording regarding self-published sources in articles about the author(s), that permits the use of such self-published sources under some limitations. See Self-published and dubious sources in articles about the author(s). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The error is using such sources to demonstrate contentious points. Fred Bauder 14:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I agree. But then the wording needs to be corrected on the proposal to clarify the circumstances in which these sources can be used. Maybe merging this proposed decision with the one below titled "Appropriate use of sources" will do the trick. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does say "except with respect to information which is not controversial" as written above. Thatcher131 16:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...which is not the way expressed in policy. WP:V states differently, and does not mention the word "controversial" as it pertains to self-published sources in articles about the author. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4) Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, a guideline, strongly discourages editing regarding an organization by those associated with the organization, especially in a public relations capacity. As applied to this matter, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest applies to those persons associated either with Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University or with critical former associates who are aggressively editing in a biased manner.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

5) Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy, Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox, nor is it a battleground for struggle, Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

6) An article or set of articles which have diverged significantly from encyclopedic standards may be placed on probation. Articles which are on probation shall be reviewed periodically and if they do not significantly improve, appropriate additional remedies restricting editing of those editing the article or articles may be imposed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

7) Users with a deep personal involvement with a subject who edit in a disruptive, aggressive biased manner may be banned from editing the affected article or articles, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

8) The use of material on pro or anti BK sites as references or links to material hosted on such sites, except as an external link are inappropriate. Such material is considered self-published and thus unverifiable. Scholarly papers which are copied on such sites may be referenced but should not be linked to.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

self-published material can be very easily verifiable or challenged. Again, this is neither wholly according to policy nor comparible examples across the Wikipedia. It risks being deeply prejuducial and, of course, plays into the hands of organizations wishing to silence open public debate. There is a vast difference between a critical website and an anti-party. Calvin and Knox were critical of the Holy Roman Empire, banged their nails into the metaphorical cathedral door. This did not make them anti-Christs. Who is to judge where the spirit lies? 195.82.106.244 07:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

9) Wikipedia editors may summarize reliable secondary and tertiary sources but may not include original research based on their experience or knowledge, however accurate or well founded. As stated at WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, synthesis of primary documents into a new argument constitutes original research.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Accepted Fred Bauder 15:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Based on [2]"Neutral point of view" policy. I see summarizing a reliable secondary source as a point of contention between parties. "Biased paraphrasing" is what have been noted so far.

avyakt7 16:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A common error on Wikipedia. Summaries need to reflect the content of the source, not the biases of the summarizer. Fred Bauder 14:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Based on .244's comments above and his stated reason for filing the case, I think we need this. Thatcher131 22:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10) Generally, material used in articles should come from reliable secondary sources, not from primary documents, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Types_of_source_material. As applied to this case, primary documents published by BKWSU (such as books, teaching aids, scriptures or "Murlis" and official web sites) may be quoted in order to accurately describe uncontroversial beliefs and practices of the group. Use of the primary documents to illustrate controversial facts or to draw novel conclusions is inappropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Accepted Fred Bauder 15:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

"Murlis" are not published documents. Murlis are not in the public domain. However, attempts from users such as .244 have allowed their distribution through his website Brahmakumaris.info. without the consent of Brahma Kumaris.(FTP Site, pics provided in the evidence) Also. the Murlis provided by .244 are not accurate. These documents could be easily modified. Which version of the Murlis do we trust? Please clarify the concept of "uncontroversial beliefs and practices." avyakt7 16:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, bound collections of Avyakt Murlis have been published by the BKWSU and sold publically. I do not know if this is a lack of knowledge of his subject or a wilingness to publically state that which is not true in order to make some advantage. Giving Luis the benefit of the doubt, can I please ask him to verify this with his seniors and report back here?

Distribution. Secondly, Murlis have, and are being published and distributed in the West since the 1970s in a number of medias. Until relatively recently, there were no limitation to their circulation. All of Baba's children a right of access to them. As Luis is not a rights holder nor officially representing either the BKWSU or AIVV, if he is willing to make personally claims over their proprietary nature, could he please substantiate this with documented evidence to support his position from the original author?

Authority of edtions. The BKWSU is engaged re-writing, or revising, the both Sakar and Avyakt Murlis and has been since the 1970s. Luckily originals exist both within and without the BWKSU. Like most religons, the Brahmin family has fractured and forked. The beauty of the Murlis is that they are all dated and given that there are as many as 7,000 Raja Yoga centers worldwide, it is perfectly feasible to request a copy of any specific dated Murlis given. If Luis is willing to make allegations about the accuracy of any particular Murli in public circulation, could he please substantiate it by demonstrating the differences, or remove the allegation entirely.

Copyrights. Again, Luis is not an official represenatative of either the BKWSU or the AIVV and so I find his claims difficult to stomach. The Brahma Kumaris are not the copyright holders of the material which remains with the original author. If Luis wished to make such an allegation publically, can he please prove substantiation that the original author has consigned his exclusive copyrights over to the BKWSU, or remove it?

Lastly, Luis continues to make allegations as part of his slur against me that http://brahmakumaris.info/ is "my" website. Could he please substantiate this allegation of my ownership or remove it?195.82.106.244 08:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

See above. Thatcher131 22:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly work could exist regarding these teachings and could be used. Use of primary sources of this nature is utterly unacceptable. Fred Bauder 16:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Substantiate your position please. If you remove the continued, erroneous and discrediting slur; comparible topics clearly suggest otherwise.

If we take as an example The Gospel of Mark [3], under Content, [4] are you honestly suggesting that every scriptural reference be removed or is illicit? You may be au fait with Christianity. I happen to be au fait with the Adi Sanatan Devi Devta Dharma. These are my scriptures and I have every constitutional right to study and reference them as a Christian does his. I think you would be doling out cultural hot potatoes for the Wikpedia if you were to start banning minor religions the right of expression equal to white Christians or followers of said religions equal expression.

195.82.106.244 08:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went back to the http://brahmakumaris.info/ website and checked with other contribitors here. What we have here is an other obsure half-truth or dishonesty. On http://brahmakumaris.info/, there are a number of Sakar Murlis, these are all original BKWSU and as dated, here [5]. There can be no criticism of these. There are a large collection of summarized Avyakt Vanis or Murlis, here [6] which are clearly marked as summaries and the process defined.

As far as I can conclude, because the point is deliberate obfuscated, is that one PBK member of the forum posts either translated excerpts of recent Murlis or messages claimed to be spoken by a different Brahmin medium. These are clearly refered to as such and it is a matter of internal theological debate of there veracity outwith my knowledge or the scope of this arbitration. I mention this in detail to contrast the exactitude in which I am approaching these proceeding and contribution to the Wikipedia in comparison to Luis approach. 195.82.106.244 10:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11) In the case of a dispute where users editing in good faith have misunderstood basic policy, it is more appropriate to interpret the policy and expect the users to conform than to restrict their editing.

Please, let's all always move forward by assuming good faith. Good

people, trying to do a good thing for the world, balancing many complex and competing concerns. It's a complex mess. That's because the world is a complex mess. We're all doing our best here.

--Jimbo

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

12) A threat to contact the University a user attends in order to made trouble for them for misuse of their account by promoting their religious orientation is a gross violation of the standards of Wikipedia. Contacting an employer, a person's university or anyone else to gain advantage in an editing dispute on Wikipedia is utterly unacceptable and will be discouraged using the strongest methods available.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

As this allegation is made against me, I will respond as the other arbitrators are being misled.

I am sure that "promoting their religious orientation" does not equates exactly to the fearful Millenarianist incantations Luis has been posting all over the internet under his psuedonym Avyakt7 to which I referred. And, yes, religious proselyting was against the policy of his employers, [7] with reference to his website [8] included. Just as every citizen has a right to religious freedom, every other citizen has a right and a responsibility to safeguard his society from extremists that believe in mass murder through civil war, natural disaster and Nuclear Holocaust. Here follows is a direct and numerously posted quote. Fred, I am starting to doubt your impartiality here. This is beyond mere religious orientation but entirely concurrent with BKWSU teachings of an imminent Destruction prophesied to kill 6 Billion people to make way for their Heaven on Earth.

"7) We, humans will destroy our planet. We have the means to do it now. There are some signs of this already. Natural disasters will increase in force around the globe, water will soon become scarce, wars and conflicts will thrive and there is nothing we can do about it. Our technology “know how” have created the atomic bomb. Many countries have them. The bombs will be used." [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]

Actually, I will respond in full with supporting evidence to show how my reaction was entirely in defensive and in response to the primary and consistent attacks by Luis. I am happy with the Wiki reference given [14] as it shows me clearly stating "back off ... stop the attacks ... play by the rules". Searchin man, what at that time was colluding, is another close BK associate willing to use personal information against those that are questioning the orthodox within the BKWSU.

195.82.106.244 09:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) The principals in this matter are either advocates or critics of Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Some times abbreviated "BK"). While the exact identity of each user is uncertain, it is probable that brahmakumaris.info is the website of 195.82.106.244, a critic [15] while the organization or its supporters maintain godhascome.org, bkwsu.org, and others.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

If the website http://www.brahmakumaris.info is registered in my name or hosted in an account that is paid for me, either substantiate it or withdraw this claim. As I openly stated ^{[citation needed]}, I contribute to and take benefit from the website but I take offence at this persistent discreditation that Luis and Simon have attempted to engage in over this issue.

Although there is collusion between numerous BKs and associates over this matter, I do not believe that Luis is acting an official representative and so one should not make a direct between him and the organization, unless he can publically substantiate that his action are sanctioned. www.godhascome.org is registered to Luis Riveros [16]. FYI, BK is short of Brahma Kumar or Brahma Kumaris, an individual follower of the BKWSU 195.82.106.244 09:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1) Until December 21, 2005 the article consisted of positive material regarding BK. At that time an edit was made by an anonymous ip with the comment "rv blatant whitewash. B.K.s, this is not an advert for your group." [17]. Lengthy self-published material has sometimes been added [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. Often links to critical websites and other critical material has been removed [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] blanking of entire article. Much of the editing, including contested edits have been made by anonymous ips. 70.119.13.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an apparent expert in the details of the beliefs of the group, added much of the original, apparently self-published material. March 27, 2006 marks the first edit by 195.82.106.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a sophisticated critic [28]; again, material is original research, apparently derived from self-published material [29] [30]. 195.82.106.244 is, however, one of the first editors of the article to reference a third party source [31]. On April 1, 2006 Riveros11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made his first edit [32], original research with a positive spin.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

• Actually, I started this article on 2 November 2005 [33]. You will note, equal represention to BK, ex-BK and PBKs and reference to the Kranenborg quote re Patanjali and Walliss re Destruction.

OK, Thank you for your recognition of my dedication to this topic but, again, I am sorry but given the circumstances you are frightening me with my concern of bais here.

The "apparent expert" and "anonymous ips User:70.119.13.124 is ... lo and behold ... Luis A. Riveros who signs himself in full on User talk:Randy Johnston page from that IPs, [34]. Meanwhile, my contribution is "material is original research, apparently derived from self-published material" ... Please note April 3 the request for academic sources [35] I am sorry but I have actually read the reference I supplied. I choose not to slavishly copy paste. At the point where I would admit my influence was at it greatest, [36] there were over 20 reasonable references and many website collectively containt the information.195.82.106.244 09:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1) 195.82.106.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits as a critic of Brahma Kumaris. His preferred version is critical and incorporates considerable insightful original research [37].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Content later Fred Bauder 22:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Again, thank you but no thank you to "original research". This is not original reseach. Again, having the the advance of having read the media of which the consistent revision to my earlist contribution, see above, were entirely concurrent, I have full confidence in the veracity of my statements. "Destruction" is the word they use not "Transformation" which is the PR whitewash. 195.82.106.244 09:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1.1) 195.82.106.244 has made personal threats [38], this attack is based on 195.82.106.244's belief that there is a particular person whom he has identified as a pro BK editor..

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 21:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I sorry but this is becoming ridiculous. "belief ... particular person ...". This is a repeat of the Luis Riveros episode above. It relates entirely to my defence of Luis's continued personal attacks. Considerable water had already flown under the bridge between searchin man, Luis and myself. 195.82.106.244 09:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1.2) 195.82.106.244 has engaged in incivility and personal attacks [39], recent taunting of a BK advocate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1.3) 195.82.106.244 misunderstands the basis of Wikipedia:Verifiability, "Facts in article verified as accurate by BK teacher in discussion. POV removed". While a BK teacher might actually know more than a third party researcher, such a criteria is very different from Wikipedia policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Riveros11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who uses the signature avyakt7, is a "a current teacher of Brahma Kumaris" and has vigorously contested the content of Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1.1) Riveros11 has removed well sourced information [40]; the comment is interesting, "Reverted back again - New user added statements without previous discussion in talk page."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Fred Bauder 15:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1.1) Chekuser confirms Riveros11 [41] is also 72.91.169.22 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (signed once as Avyakt7), 71.251.88.110 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), 72.91.4.91 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) as well, and has been use a separate IPs to put in vandalism reports and block requests [42] on 95.82.106.244 in order to dominate editing contrary to WP:OWN. Single topic user or attack on 95.82.106.244 mainly.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1.2) Riveros11 has [43], comment "Reverted page again- New user Andries was informed of our own policy in this page."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Incomplete Fred Bauder 15:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Assuming that these Tampa IP addresses are Riveros, here is a 3RR violation on 25 October. [44] [45] [46] [47]. Note that 72.91.4.91 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) is a frequent editor of the BKWS article and talk pages and his edit summaries are consistent with Riveros. Thatcher131 15:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, here, User:72.91.4.91 signs as Riveros [48]. Thatcher131 15:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Significant secondary sources exist which might appropriately be used as references, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Brahma_Kumaris/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_third_party_jossi_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Ex-L or Ex-London, user identity unknown, who is sometimes mentioned in this dispute, is a critic who posted on XBK Chat post by Ex-London regarding Wikipedia article. An interesting discussion follows.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) In several instances what appear to be a legitimate scientific papers on their face are posted on a pro-BK site [49].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) The identity of editors to BK articles is unclear due to extensive use of anonymous ips and possibly of alternate accounts.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Geejap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), also editing at 129.110.241.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), edits in a pro BK manner removing critical material and substituting original supportive material [50]. He repeatedly removed most of the content in the article, but has ceased editing the article removal of most content removal of most content removal of most content.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) TalkAbout (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly restored the critical version of the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Brahma Kumaris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits in a pro BK manner pro edit including removal of most content pro edit including removal of most content another blanking.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Jesselp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a pro BK editor using original unsourced material "Information was misleading towards BKWSU, much information is still fabricated"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Brahmakumaris.info (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Placeholder bookmark Fred Bauder 20:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

User block due to erroneous name. Domain names not allowed as Wikipedia users. 195.82.106.244 10:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) 195.82.106.244 is banned for one year for a personal attack which contained a threat against another user [51].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

User 195.82.106.244 could use different accounts to edit the article, thus unless there is a provision to stop him rather than his IP address, this motion may seem unrealistic. Best, avyakt7 02:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

2) 195.82.106.244 is placed on probation. He may be banned from editing any article which he disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing, especially that relying on inadequately sourced original research. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Brahma_Kumaris#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3) Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University is placed on article probation. The principals in this matter are expected to convert the article from its present state based on original research and BK publication to an article containing verifiable information based on reliable sources. After a suitable grace period, the state of the article may be evaluated on the motion of any member of the Arbitration Committee and further remedies applied to those editors who continue to edit in an inappropriate manner. Any user may request review by members of the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

But admins can not take action against individual editors if they continue to act disruptively, right? It has to go back through arbcom? Thatcher131 14:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At first administrators should only jawbone them, but they can petition us to create remedies for specific editors. Such a remedy might be probation. Article probation should not be punitive nor should it give license for continued disruptive biased editing. It is an opportunity to edit appropriately for those deeply interested in the subject, but subject to sanction if they don't. Fred Bauder 14:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher131, as admins we can apply blocks for disruption without having to consult with the ArbCom. I would argue that editing pattern and behavior of some of the editors involved warrant such application of WP:BLOCK. In addition, as the article will be in probation, that gives us additional license to temporarily block editors that do not comply with the article probation. Fred, if this is not the case, please clarify. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the remedy is probably too subtle to work. Premature blocking shortcircuits it. They have no opportunity to adequately learn to reform their editing. Not applying substantial penalties for what are substantial violations gives a false impression that the users can continue aggressive biased editing. Fred Bauder 16:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User probation allows admins to block users at a lower threshhold of disruption than would be required of a user not on probation, and also allows admins to ban users from individual articles they disrupt. It appears that article probation in this case does not allow either of those two things. As I read it, and similar cases, (and the Waldorf case, where Fred explicity removed block language from a proposal I made), continued disruptive editing that that violates the spirit of the decision but is not overt enough to justify a full block will have to be reviewed by arbcom. I do think it is an unclear area, and while I appreciate Fred's light touch (honey rather than vinegar), cautions and amnesties make it harder to persuade recalcitrant editors to follow the principles enumerate for their benefit, as shown by a few recent cases. (but this should probably be followed up somewhere else) Thatcher131 16:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users need to understand that the alternative is a ban from editing the article and that if they keep on, that is what will happen. Fred Bauder 16:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Should any user violate a ban imposed under the terms of this decision, they may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Brahma_Kumaris#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: