Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris

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)Reply

Second update Good grief. The problems here are more pervasive than I imagined. Thatcher131 00:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

• Requested checkuser on other involved IPs and usernames: (195.82.106.244 (talk · contribs) , brahmakumaris.info (talk · contribs) and bkwatch (talk · contribs) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

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? Durova^Charge! 14:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Yes, it is here [11]. No action taken as yet. 195.82.106.244 10:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

• Accept, then. Charles Matthews 11:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

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:

• 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) 15:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Thank you so much for responding. This is most helpful. Regards Bksimonb 08:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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 · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · 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 · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · 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 · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), also Andries (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and one other editor who seems to be just spellchecking, Chris_the_speller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). User Riveros11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · 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 · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was placed on article probation, but the terms do not allow direct enforcement by admins against disruptive editing. Rather, a review by the Arbitration Committee must be requested to determine whether further remedies are appropriate. This article has been the subject of numerous complaints at Arbitration enforcement of disruptive editing by single purpose accounts. I am not a party to the dispute, and I have not attempted to evaluate whether all the complaints are equally valid. Certainly some of the edits are by the banned anonymous editor's sock or meat puppets, which have grown increasingly good as masking their usual identifying characteristics. I believe that a review may be required to either sanction some editors or at least put in place a more muscular form of article probation. Thatcher131 15:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am convinced that the banned user, 195.82.106.244, is re-incarnating in various forms ranging from agressive [27] to comical [28]. After first appearance these usually escalate to a once or twice daily revert cycle. This user has also appeared to state his/her case on Thatcher131's talk page [29].

More recently another user, Green108 who I also strongly suspect is associated with the http://www.brahmakumaris.info website forums [30] made a very agressive and attacking series of posts on the BKWSU article talk page [31] and edits with what I consider to be a defiant, cavalier attitude. Attempts to reason with this editor were greated with the response, "...i am not interested in speaking with you" [32] [33] [34].

I would like to see a solution that strongly enforces the principles of the existing Arbcom ruling and the basic requirements of etiquette, civility, no personal attacks and good faith so that the responsible editors can continue without intimidation. I would also be happy with a solution where the article is only edited by trusted editors, even if that doesn't include me. A solution is required for the talk page as well as the article itself since the taunting and baseless accusations are off-putting for any would-be editors.

Thanks & regards Bksimonb 08:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is Wikipedia capable of enforcing its desicions? Is the ArbCom for "real"? Does Wikipedia want an encyclopedic/academic article here with representative neutral input? [35]

I would like to support BKSimonb idea of having this Brahma Kumaris article only edited by trusted editors. The details of how this could work could be discussed later once the principle of this idea is accepted. Blessings from the heart, avyakt7 09:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

i dont think there is a problem really ,some of us have learnt how to edit by the rules. on the 19th i came back and added 10 or 11 academic quotation at some considerable effort to myself......the Bks call this defiant and cavalier.

oh , i also removed two items one that had fact requests for over a month..........the other that is a separate organisation from the topic subject............and the Bks keep putting them back. i have a few more academic papers and a couple of books still ,

i want to be brief but i must state for the administrators benefit.......... what is "trusted"?

appledell, Bksimonb and avyakt7 are all Bks two of them at least are long term members and they are working as a team. the mentality of Bks is drilled like the marines from 4 am every morning through 6.30 am to 8 am class through constant meditation and going to meet God, in person, in India . they call themselves an army , and are taught they are fighting a war against maya or ravan (the devil). 99.999999% all they have done is edit the BKWSU topic and attack others that try to add stuff the Bks dont want made public and attack them with words like goading....aggressive......comical...suspicion....reverting everyone else. is it any surprise if reasonable people who are putting in energy eventually react against such pressure? i suppose it is what they want.............for goodness sake, they even revert changes when someone else fixes a spelling mistake just because

personally it is below me to sit here and pick out all they have said and done and inferred....................i am not interested. what i said to simon is that i did not want him to speak to me on my talk page. I do not want to personalise this ,i came back to add academic references to back up all the claims on the topic . its not personal. Green108 04:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Since the arbritration, several editors have taken the cue and provided references. Certainly the atmosphere seems more adversarial than, for example, the Cheese article, which contains few references, presumably because of general agreement among the editors about the history and manufacture of cheese. Nevertheless, the BKWSU article has, in my opinion, reached a higher standard of rigor than previously. Actions of the BK IT team mercilessly deleting material without citations, while adversarial, has resulted in an increase in cited material.Duality Rules 23:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I also think that the article is better than it used to be. I do not understand why BksimonbThatcher131 considers Green108's possible off-Wikipedia affiliation relevant. Andries 20:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Because I consider it to be an "attack" site with a clear agenda that is in opposition to the stated purposes of Wikipedia. If you look at some of the paragraphs above and imagine that it is jews or blacks being talked about instead of BKs then it should be quite obvious what the problem is. Also civility is a core policy on Wikipedia and that is the main basis of my complaint [36].

We have also been treated to a wonderful muppet show of sock and meat puppets since the arbcom ruling, you even welcomed one of them yourself [37] :-) Thatcher131 needs some way to enforce the principles of the arbcom ruling because right now someone or some people out there are using brute force, persistence and aggression to run rings around the rulings.

I have absolutely no problem with any editor that doesn't behave disruptively, for example, I have found Duality Rules to be perfectly reasonable and civil.

BTW I appreciate your input to the article. You raised some good points there. Bksimonb 07:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I do not think that affiliation with a website critical of a certain faith should be a problem on Wikipedia as long as somebody's wikipedia behavior is okay. For a comparison, I think it is crazy to ban all Christians who are memberrs of a local Christian community from the article Christianity. I am aware that most arbcom members will not agree with with me, but I continue to hold the opinion that their reasoning is completely flawed in this respect and I will continue to refute and oppose their reasoning wherever I see it. Andries 08:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Andries. I agree with you completely that affiliation with a critical website alone should not be a problem as long as someone's behavior is OK. That is why I mentioned Duality Rules because in the arbcom case he strongly promoted the site but I have found him to be civil and unbiased. So there is no problem there as far as I am concerned. The same can not be said of 244 who was found by arbcom to be uncivil, biased in editing and to have threatened another editor. The same applies to other editors who behave in a similar disruptive way. If the disruptive style is sufficiently similar then perhaps association with that website, that evidence suggests 244 is running and setting the whole tone of, has something to do with it.

Regards Bksimonb 12:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have reviewed the editing and find it generally reasonable. Please continue to improve the article. Fred Bauder 16:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Fred. Thank you for looking into this. Please let me know if you noticed the following edits (just a sample) and what your views are on them [38] [39] [40] [41].

Thanks Bksimonb 05:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi again Fred. Actually, it just occurred to me I may have misconstrued your comment to imply that there is no reason to review the case when if fact you may have just been making an open-ended compliment. If it was the latter than sincere apologies and "thank you" on behalf of the involved editors :-) If the former then please consider recent developments linked above that demonstrate an agenda to bias the article with unreferenced contentious claims, remove any POV & citation warnings and offend other editors. Please clarify. Regards Bksimonb 20:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, there are problems, but not sufficient for a review. Fred Bauder 11:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks for clarifying. Regards Bksimonb 15:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

A previous request by Thatcher131 was declined declined in April however the the pattern of disruption has continued, has been experienced by non-affiliated editors, and evidence of the disruption being due to the same editor using a succession of different accounts has been built up. Yes, the article has improved substantially due the input of editors with no association with the article subject, however the disruption is something the article, and other editors, could well do without. Relevant sockpuppet reports are [42] [43] [44].

The pattern of disruption usually involves editing with contempt for consensus, edit waring, taunting other editors based on their affiliation, incivility and ranting against the article subject. Strong enforcement of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:NOR and WP:CONS would effectively screen out the disruption.

I have tried using normal dispute resolution methods but this is getting tiring for me, other editors who have dropped by to help and also the admins that have to deal with the constant requests for help. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I suggest that there has been little to no "disruption" at all and this is just another preemptive strike by an individual that admits to be part of the organization in question, a new religious movements' called the BKWSU, own Internet PR Team; and is acting in accordance with the organization's PR aims. An individual that has invested a huge amount of time, effort and admins' energy in attempt to control the topic for his affiliated organization.

To state this for the sake of new admins coming to this issue is hardly "taunting". It is a statement of fact. I hope that eventually the Wikipedia admins will appreciate this for what it is. Simon has become incredibly skilled in his manipulation of Wikipedia admins and constructing accusations.

Let's look at the timing of this and the collusion of yet another BKWSU contributor, User:76.79.146.8. Bksimonb requests an early unprotection, User:76.79.146.8 reverts and accuses vandalism, attacks etc. Both complain to admins etc. Bksimonb puts RfA.

Putting aside the loaded and hysterical language, the seemingly endless accusations and complaints, if we look at the differences between the BKWSU's chosen version, the main differences are really;

• the removal of weblink to an informed independent website that makes public and openly discusses the BKWSU's core teachings, the only independent website about the organization and one that the BKWSU's USA trust spent considerable amount of money attempting to recent silence via legal action and failed to do so.
• the attempt to play down the centrality of channelling and mediumship to its practises. The channelling and mediumship of a spirit guide its followers are told is God and a centrality which illfits with its public face and political ambitions.
• the instant removal and erasure of considerable time and effort made making neutral and beneficial formatting ... etc the 65 edits, here;[45].

Personally, I just want to get on and contribute to the Wikipedia. I am sick of being the target of these people. I know the subjects I edit on. I add form, content and provide citations. It gives me no pleasure to be continually subjected to wasting admin's time and constantly tripping over the stumbling blocks these people are persistently using in an attempt to exclude me.

I am happy to discuss this in detail and supply all the diffs that illustrate just exactly what Simon and the BKWSU are up to if required. but, frankly, the Wikipedia admins cannot see this for what it is by looking at nature and amount of complaints this individual has made, then I am afraid that I would wasting my time.

References;

• Suspected sock puppet [46]
• BKWSU IT violation [47]
• WP:3RR pattern [48]
• Long term use of affiliation to discredit [49]

• Bksimonb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 76.79.146.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

--Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

As a remedy I am asking for strong enforcement of Wikipedia's policies. If this causes a problem then it is clear where that problem lies. I am not asking for unilateral enforcement. I am happy for the same rules to apply to me and other editors. It is clear from the above post that there is a strong bias against the BKWSU and a rather obvious attempt to discredit me and other editors based on our affiliation and non-agreement with the the above editor's own views. In the above post alone I am being accused, as if it were some indisputable fact, of "collusion", "PR", "preemptive strike", "manipulation" and censorship. In fact, I am most grateful for the above post as it clearly illustrates the problem. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree with the need for enforcement of Wikipedia's policies. In particular WP:COI where it states;

" Editing in the interests of public relations is particularly frowned upon. This includes, but is not limited to, edits made by public relations departments of corporations; or of other public or private for-profit or not-for-profit organizations; or by professional editors paid to edit a Wikipedia article with the sole intent of improving that organization's image."

BK Simon B is a member, if not leader, of the BKWSU Internet PR team. In fact, I think the correct title is "core Internet PR team". The Internet PR team of the organization in question. If Simon choses to deny this, here, then I am happy to provide evidence to support this assertion. He is and has been supported by other BK followers (BK is the title followers given themselves) and they also work together to suppress other internet source, e.g. they (Simon and other BK Wikipedia editors) recently acted in a failed attempt to close down an independent website via a domain name dispute. This is the same domain that BK Simon and the other BK contributors keep removing from the article; http://www.brahmakumaris.info.

I do not think it is fair that the Wikipedia's admins have their time used up protecting the PR interests of a new religious movement but that it is only in this context can we understand what is going on here.

The BKWSU has invests a considerable amount of money on its public face and generally keeps hidden from newcomers the more extreme elements of its beliefs, e.g.

• the practise of mediumship or channelling of a spirit they claim is God himself via their mediums at the Indian headquarters
• the belief is a 5,000 year Cycle of time that repeats identically
• numerous failed predictions of the End of the World in which 6 Billion are meant to die so that 900,000 of their faithful followers will inherit a Golden Age heaven on earth (all, of course, backed up by independent, academic sources).
• their historical revision and superiority as God's chosen religion

The last year or more has been one long war of attrition in which the BK followers, with varying degrees of finesse and investment in gaming the Wikipedia system, have attempt to distort the topic to hide these core, identifying elements to bring the topic inline with the 'vanilla' version presented on their websites. This gaming continues with a barrage of complaints, accusations, unfounded vituperative depending each time on some new admin or contributor not knowing the history and not knowing the organization.

I think it is wrong that the Wikipedia allows this waste of volunteers resources. I think this individual has made a disproportionate amount of complaints underling his and his organization's single intent ... which is to break the spirit of any informed, independent contributor and push their PR agenda. Even the Scientology article includes independent websites and external links. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 08:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just an outside view from a regular user, but the article is on probation and adding unnecessarily positive or negative stuff without reference to core policy seems to be against the terms of this. The remedy reads, "Any user may request review by members of the Arbitration Committee", which both sides appear to have done in the section above. Also in Principles: "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, per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest." User:Bksimonb has a self-declared conflict of interest, and per WP:COI as cited in the arbitration, needs to consider whether the edits are promoting his organisation, or promoting the interests of Wikipedia. I can't tell exactly what has been added by the user, but I made a reverse diff of Lucy's revert which gives some clue as to what matters are under dispute. The article was reverted to the pre-Lucy version and immediately full-protected by User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry on 26 December 2007. I am unsure at this stage whether User:Lucyintheskywithdada also has a conflict of interest in the opposite direction - user commenced editing on 21 December 2007 and, strangely, their main edits have not been focused on this article. However, their reference to the BKWSU Internet Team in their very first edit to the page suggests they may be a historic participant in the dispute. Orderinchaos 08:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to have a go at trying to get this one on track - it does seem to have rather gone off the rails. If Wikipedia policies were strictly enforced here it would be necessary to ban everybody involved, which while resulting in peace and a complete end to edit warring on the article, would certainly not be a desirable outcome. Strict enforcement of the rules before has led to a situation where it appears the article overly favours one side, is far from encyclopaedic and needs a lot of sourcing. I'm acting purely as a content editor and negotiator with no past history and no particular views on the subject, and am quite happy to defer to arbitrators on any matter. Orderinchaos 09:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Orderinchaos. Although I obviously find some of your initial assessment challenging the important thing for me is that you are prepared to work with us, and I really appreciate that. As far as COI issues are concerned I have tried my best to act within limits and leave the most drastic edits to outside editors who have dropped by. I appreciate that it probably doesn't look that way without a detailed analysis of the article history and talk archives. I don't expect you to do that so I'll just take it all on the nose for now knowing that everything will transpire in it's own time if you stick around. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would have to disagree with you Orderinchaos, the article is, or at least has been prior to the BKs revision, very highly sourced. It lists all the major and many minor BK sources. One of the problem it has suffered is the BKs team persistently removing not just references and citations but also perfectly good copy and formatting edits. This is not bitching, the history demonstrates it and it worth studying. The purpose has surely been the same as all the admin complaints; a bad will disincentive for any informed non-BKWSU contributors.

I am sorry but although I have been cautioned to let this go, I must ask for action to be taken on the obvious WP:COI by the Internet PR team. Fine, a Christian editing a page on Christianity, that is acceptable. But the representative of the "Core Internet PR Team" of the organization warring on the organizations own topic, I am afraid that really is too much given all the illwill.

Whilst doing my laundry, I made a spreadsheet of this individual; Bksimonb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Of 1266 edits only a handful were not related to the BKWSU. Going by the summaries alone (approximately ... my attention to detail has some limits)

• 103 were Administrator requests related to the BKWSU (including 26 "Reports" and 50 re "enforcement")
• 76 were "Suspicions", e.g. "Suspected" complaints related to the BKWSU,
• 76 Revision of non-BKWSU contributors
• 88 related to Sockpuppets accusations related to the BKWSU
• 69 Related directed to Adminstrators noticeboard related to the BKWSU protection
• 13 checkusers complaints related to the BKWSU
• 13 POVs related to the BKWSU
• 3 were page delete requests related to the BKWSU

This equals approximately 428 non-constructive edits, or a third of the total. These are then mirrored by the other BKs such Appledell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I suggest this is disproportionate to the value to the Wikipedia, the time and efforts of other volunteers. I think I can find 4 time he actually added a reference, the rest are just passing judgement on or removing other's work.

In his original arbcom statement [50] he writes, "we (BKWSU Internet PR Team have no problem with critical websites". But then in reality, he and other members of the BKWSU team both persistently remove all independent websites links from the article under a variety of guises and work together on a failed legal attack to silence the leading one. As I state before, even the Scientologists are mature enough to allow criticism and critical links on their topic.

Surely it would be naive of us not to consider that "creating a problem" is in order to achieve an end result within which even uninformed inaccuracies are better than referenced precision. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 13:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Comment Certainly there are some pro-BK or BK-affiliated editors working here. There are also some people committed to "exposing the truth" about BK. Interestingly, brand new editor Lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs) is making exactly the same arguments as a number of previous editors, including the editor who used 195.82.106.244 and was banned for making personal attacks. The "truth" about BK often comes from alleged internal BK documents that are in the possession of former members, and which do not meet the reliable source guidelines, although I understand there has been improvement in this area. Ultimately, the article probation that passed had unique wording that makes it unenforceable except by the Arbitration committee. What is needed therefore is a review by the Committee to determine whether the current disputes are within the normal scope of the dispute resolution process (thus directing the parties to RFC, mediation etc.) or whether the disruption is sufficient to adopt a more muscular remedy. Thatcher 02:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to make a factual correction here.

The "internal BK documents" that have been referred to as such by the BK editors, or debate with regards to this topic, are the channeled messages believed to be God speaking through their mediums called the Murlis. It was discovered that some at least had been published with an ISBN number after all but, in principle, it is accepted that the main body are disallowed. Other early sources of literature, including Indian ones are all taken from publicly sources are equally held by the BKWSU. So there can be no controversy over these.

There is some inconsistency towards the use of BKWSU produced materials, e.g. the BK editors refusing certain publications but then using other publication or their websites to support their own claims, e.g. that charity projects are theirs, where the documentation appears to support they are not BK ventures. The debate has really be about "who" gets to use and chose them, i.e. whether they are a BK or not; what is a "contentious" citation or not and the guiding principle being whether or not it matches their current publicity or not.

We are dealing with a very specific and narrow topic here with relatively little literature. Any contributor coming forward is going to rely on the same sources and references. I would suggest that there would be no contention at all if Bksimonb and the other BKs were not pursuing their policy of total reversion over even utterly neutral edits (typos, formatting etc) ... and shooting the messenger by way of killing the message.

I think what the topic needs is a chance to develop without persistent and personalised BKWSU censorship before motives are assigned. To that end, I am asking the committee to extend some trust and allow us to do so.

I also think the article needs to be split into a number of others to allow each aspect to be covered in detail, again something the BKs keep disallowing. Part of the problem is a simple dispute caused by the artificial constraint imposed by insisting it all fits onto one page.

I am not a new editor. I joined as Lwachowski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) but forgot my password, I rejoined and immediate drew admin attention to this as AWachowski [51] attempting to recover my original account. My diffs are here if they are to be criticised [52]. Please do.

Despite making clear the change of name, these were reported by Bksimonb and disallowed with any chance of comment because they were either too similar (of course, they were meant to be!) or the name of a real person (Wachowski is a fair common name in Poland) forcing me to register another name Creationcreator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

Creationcreator was then contrived to be a sockpuppet account by Bksimonb and reported again on two separate occasions using the L/AWachowski change of name despite his knowing clearly that I had lost a password and made efforts to have it official changed. No checkuser was made other alleged accounts. None of these have ever been used consecutively.

I am happy to use one account IF I can be left alone without an obvious policy of exclusion by the BKWSU PR guy Simonb ... and if it can be recognised what is going on. Please note again the collusion; [53] [54].

I am being open here in trust and good faith, with all the attendant risks. I make no effort to hide this. This not sockpuppetry. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Could the parties and/or administrators with the relevant background please clarify whether this is a request for enforcement of the existing remedies from the prior arbitrator, or whether the committee is being asked to clarify the remedies or enact new ones? If the latter, please clarify exactly what is being proposed or requested. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The existing article probation states only that the parties may ask for a review; it does not have the usual enforcement provisions such as allowing admins to issue topic bans for disruptive editing. Bksimonb appears to be asking that the article be placed on standard article probation so that admins could hand out topic bans and so forth. I have not reviewed the content or recent contribs/talk page to see whether Bksimonb is correct in his assessment that certain editors are disruptive (as opposed to merely disagreeing with him). Thatcher 16:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I would appreciate input from administrators active on Arbitration Enforcement (including Thatcher) regarding whether a Review case is warranted and/or whether a motion to add the standard enforcement provisions to the decision should be adopted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I apologise for asking this but I would appreciate if the arbcom would look at enacting new remedy with regards to the "core BKWSU Internet PR team" and WP:COI. I also have posted recently on the talk page noting the involvement of Sockpuppets of Ekajati; IPSOS/Ekajati/GlassFET. I have been cautioned about persisting in the use of the above term but it is the organization's official term for the group, under the BKWSU USA leadership, which Bksimonb represents. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I request that User:Lucyintheskywithdada and all relevant incarnations he admits to above be blocked for persistent violation of WP:NPA and WP:OWN.

I am an outside editor trying to work in good faith on the article and each time I ask a question for clarification, suggest that he create a sandbox, or otherwise engage in in consensus building, he reverts to personal attacks or WP:Own. I've gone to a great deal of effort to research the articles and most recently acquired a copy of the book that Lucy suggested getting (Walliss's book) yet he continues his relentless attacks.

For example of violation of WP:NPA, scroll to the end of this entry [55].

This, this, and this are clear examples of WP:OWN.

From WP:OWN: "An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions. The discussion can take many forms; it may be purely negative, consisting of threats and insults, often avoiding the topic of the revert altogether. At the other extreme, the owner may patronize other editors, claiming that their ideas are interesting while also claiming that they lack the deep understanding of the article necessary to edit it."

Lucy's repeated diversionary tactics (including filing checkusers, reports here, etc.) and disruptive talk page edits demonstrate his unwillingness to discuss substance and build consensus in good faith. He is violating arbcomm's ruling that current and former associates refrain from personal attacks and aggressive edits. Please block. Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

There appears to be a lot of allegations, accusations etc flying around, and that's actually the main problem at present - I think the content issues have all but faded into the background while each of them accuse each other of various violations of policy and/or being sockpuppets. If the parties can set that aside and work together, there would not be a need for a review. If they are unable to, it's probably the only option. I don't think an encyclopaedic article is impossible from the people and sources available. Orderinchaos 00:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

In response to NYB's request - the review request seems to have been made as part of a campaign by one side of the dispute against the other side of the dispute, a continuance of a pattern which extends back some months. Said other side has come in and made allegations/launched processes in response. Past enforcement of the ArbCom, whose decision was a broadly sensible one, by admins viewing individual / out-of-context requests (without criticising any of them, as it took me days to determine where things were at) has sadly been narrow in focus and has been gamed somewhat by involved editors, particularly those on the BK side. The response of course has been the other party turning to increasing degrees of shrillness, which we're seeing above in the bolding of paragraphs and bizarre allegations. The unfortunate reality is that this article is a mess, one needs to be something of a subject expert to wade through it and improve it (I've actually read a lot of source documents in recent days), and the few here who have that expertise are small in number and have a history of conflict with each other. Orderinchaos 03:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I would appreciate a more thorough investigation. I can't really go along with some of the above assessment. Firstly the "shrillness", bolding of paragraphs, presumptions of bad faith, soapboxing and bizarre allegations are something I encountered right from the very first time I posted [56]. What you call "gaming" is just what happens when help is requested and there is no response. One naturally tries escalating the issue. I've always tried to be as reasonable as possible but when in the absence of any feedback at all when I've signaled an issue, I can't really be expected to know how to proceed or what, if anything, I was doing wrong at the time. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I should add that I have no complaint regarding arbcom and arbcom enforcement. The problem is in finding any useful feedback or response with lower forms of dispute resolution. For example, should any editor have to spend a year and a half being constantly harassed regarding their affiliation [57] ? Regards Bksimonb (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I should note I'm not in ArbCom, am not a clerk, etc, so my "investigation" carries the weight only of my own opinion, as much as that may be regarded or ridiculed in some quarters - I'm an admin, I've been a user for almost two years, and I'm trying to use my experience to end a dispute in a good-faith manner, however impossible a task that seems. I come from outside the dispute and until 30 December had no exposure to any of the disputants. My concern is simply that most of the action reports which have led to actions being taken have been initiated by yourself. Then you point to those actions as evidence that the community is acting on your concerns, and use your own reports as justifications for other reports. When you are in a position of an identified conflict of interest regarding the article, and all your reports are about people who disagree with you, while people who agree with you appear to have gotten off, you can understand the problem for Wikipedia and the community in trusting the soundness of these reports and actions. In addition it appears that these actions on your part may have assisted in escalating the dispute which has continued for well over a year now and shows few if any signs of ending soon. Orderinchaos 22:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate your efforts to end the dispute. However I must protest that I have never reported someone simply because they disagreed with me. I report editors who blatantly ignore consensus, constantly make crazy accusations against other contributers and the article subject, use the talk page as a soapbox for propaganda, use anonymous IPs (probably proxies) and other accounts abusively and taunt editors on their talk pages and in edit comments. Is this really a normal part of the editing process we should be expected to live with? I would have thought that editors who behave in such a way have effectively forfeited any right to be a part of any editing process. It's kind of disheartening. It's like my house constantly gets burgled and when I complain to the police they say I am part of the problem because I complain so much. Nice. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 05:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Did BKSimon ever put in a complaint against BKWSU editors who did the same, e.g. Riveros [58]? Why so few citations in comparison to blocks, bans, and reversions? I am sorry but we have to see all this talk of "consensus" for what it is; media control.

The organization has considerable personal and material resources and yet throughout the history of the topic has done, basically nothing to add value (by which I mean citations and references) whilst engaging in cover up. Please allow us the chance to develop the topic without the organization's own censorship.

This is why, following the involvement of IPSOS I would like a checkuser to be allowed on Cleanemupnowboys.

I suspect they are Reneeholle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as the edits patterns match and our experience is similar to that on the Talk:Alice Bailey and related admin complaints.

Personally, I would just like some peace of mind that it is not IPSOS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) or Riveros11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) back again under another guise. I am not asking for a punitive results, just a commitment to openness and straightforwardness. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 07:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Original discussion