Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris

message: :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 . 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  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  
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  while logged out, giving the impression that he was a third party
* posts to intervention against vandalism , not blocked
* same vandal report filed the next day , rejected as content dispute 
*Contributions of  (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 . 
*  and , if they are Riveros11, violate 3RR on 25 October.
*Two other accounts that revert to each other's versions,  and ; 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)
replies: text: Second update Good grief. The problems here are more pervasive than I imagined. Thatcher131 00:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Thatcher131 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by {{user|Jossi}} 

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

message: 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 ) 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Request by TalkAbout 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, it is here . No action taken as yet. 195.82.106.244 10:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Threaded comments from the acceptance section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thank you so much for responding. This is most helpful. Regards Bksimonb 08:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Timescales

message: 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      .
* 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)
thread_title: Page protection [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Brahma_Kumaris/Workshop#All_parties_banned_from_editing_the_article_during_the_case]

message: 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 . 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 . 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)
thread_title: Request for checkuser

message: I've had the article on my watchlist for a bit but really only revert the obvious POV edit from one side or the other.  It's pretty rare at this point to see edits to the article.  I think the restrictions did their job and it's time to retire them.  If something starts up again, I think there are adequate resources available to handle most problems. Ravensfire (talk) 04:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Ravensfire 

message: My thanks to  for bringing this up and for looking through the list of active restrictions. If anything else comes up, this would be a good time to get the housekeeping out of the way. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by L235 

message: *This arbitration case was decided more than 13 years ago and none of the current arbitrators will be familiar with it. It is so long ago that our occasional reviews of old discretionary sanctions will have missed it, because it predated the change in terminology.  At this point, are there current problems with editing of the article that warrant having ArbCom-level sanctions in place? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought this sounded vaguely familiar but I couldn't remember why. If that was the last time this was even brought up I have to agree, we probably don't need it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brahma Kumaris: Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: :
:Enacted: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: *Plus "terminated" just sounds cooler. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Motion: Brahma Kumaris