This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.
1)
1)
1)
1) All editors listed as a party to this case are banned from editing the article until the case is settled.
1)
1)
1)
As the individual that initially filed the RfC, Mediation and Arbitration attempts with Riveros11, I would like to ask the arbitration committee if it was possible to keep this arbitration to the policy issue that I raised. That is WP:VERIFY or specifically [1]. Preferably, I would avoid this process from descending into endless personal incriminations of various hue but limit the arbitration to myself and Riveros11 as main protagonists.
I appreciate that a Wikipedia topic must be verifiable before it is true, that editors much provide references and citations to support their contributions and I have stated that I am happy to use the papers suggested by Riveros11 as well as additional ones. But more than that a topic article must read well, it is also a literary work and one should not be limited to mere "copy and pastes" from chosen academics.
To quote directly, I believe that as with illustrations and images, material from self-published sources may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as:
* it is relevant to their notability;
* it is not contentious;
* it is not unduly self-serving;
* it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
* there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.
and it does not constitute primary research. This is to say, that as long as it is honest reportage without interpretation and it is valuable to clarifying the secondary sources, it is not only acceptable but useful and attractive.
To this extent, I wanted to request was clarification - and acceptance by the other party Riveros11 - over which self-published material was acceptable, this would include specifically;
a) reference to material from BKWSU published & purchasable books, e.g. Chander
b) teaching aids or widely used posters etc under fair use
c) reference to BKWSU published websites
d) reference to BKWSU scriptures called "Murlis" which are easily identified by date.
Given that the organization has numerous e-commerce sites, approximately 7,000 centers worldwide and UN status, I consider that any such citations would be "easily verifiable" by any other researcher or contributor. 195.82.106.244 13:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
1) {text of proposed principle}
1) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability are core polices.
2) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires that all significant points of view regarding a subject shall be fairly represented.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
1) {text of proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
1) The principals in this matter are either advocates or critics of Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University ( | 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.
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.
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].
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..
1.2) 195.82.106.244 has engaged in incivility and personal attacks [39], recent taunting of a BK advocate.
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.
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 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
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."
1.1) Chekuser confirms Riveros11 [41] is also (signed once as Avyakt7), , 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.
1.2) Riveros11 has [43], comment "Reverted page again- New user Andries was informed of our own policy in this page."
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.
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.
1) In several instances what appear to be a legitimate scientific papers on their face are posted on a pro-BK site [49].
1) The identity of editors to BK articles is unclear due to extensive use of anonymous ips and possibly of alternate accounts.
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.
1) TalkAbout ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly restored the critical version of the article.
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.
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"
1) Brahmakumaris.info ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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}
1) 195.82.106.244 is banned for one year for a personal attack which contained a threat against another user [51].
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.
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.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
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.
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.
1)
1)
1)
1) All editors listed as a party to this case are banned from editing the article until the case is settled.
1)
1)
1)
As the individual that initially filed the RfC, Mediation and Arbitration attempts with Riveros11, I would like to ask the arbitration committee if it was possible to keep this arbitration to the policy issue that I raised. That is WP:VERIFY or specifically [1]. Preferably, I would avoid this process from descending into endless personal incriminations of various hue but limit the arbitration to myself and Riveros11 as main protagonists.
I appreciate that a Wikipedia topic must be verifiable before it is true, that editors much provide references and citations to support their contributions and I have stated that I am happy to use the papers suggested by Riveros11 as well as additional ones. But more than that a topic article must read well, it is also a literary work and one should not be limited to mere "copy and pastes" from chosen academics.
To quote directly, I believe that as with illustrations and images, material from self-published sources may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as:
* it is relevant to their notability;
* it is not contentious;
* it is not unduly self-serving;
* it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
* there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.
and it does not constitute primary research. This is to say, that as long as it is honest reportage without interpretation and it is valuable to clarifying the secondary sources, it is not only acceptable but useful and attractive.
To this extent, I wanted to request was clarification - and acceptance by the other party Riveros11 - over which self-published material was acceptable, this would include specifically;
a) reference to material from BKWSU published & purchasable books, e.g. Chander
b) teaching aids or widely used posters etc under fair use
c) reference to BKWSU published websites
d) reference to BKWSU scriptures called "Murlis" which are easily identified by date.
Given that the organization has numerous e-commerce sites, approximately 7,000 centers worldwide and UN status, I consider that any such citations would be "easily verifiable" by any other researcher or contributor. 195.82.106.244 13:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
1) {text of proposed principle}
1) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability are core polices.
2) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires that all significant points of view regarding a subject shall be fairly represented.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
1) {text of proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
1) The principals in this matter are either advocates or critics of Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University ( | 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.
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.
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].
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..
1.2) 195.82.106.244 has engaged in incivility and personal attacks [39], recent taunting of a BK advocate.
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.
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 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
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."
1.1) Chekuser confirms Riveros11 [41] is also (signed once as Avyakt7), , 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.
1.2) Riveros11 has [43], comment "Reverted page again- New user Andries was informed of our own policy in this page."
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.
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.
1) In several instances what appear to be a legitimate scientific papers on their face are posted on a pro-BK site [49].
1) The identity of editors to BK articles is unclear due to extensive use of anonymous ips and possibly of alternate accounts.
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.
1) TalkAbout ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly restored the critical version of the article.
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.
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"
1) Brahmakumaris.info ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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}
1) 195.82.106.244 is banned for one year for a personal attack which contained a threat against another user [51].
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.
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.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
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.
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis