Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

  • Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
  • Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if they so choose. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, 10 Arbitrators are active and none are recused, so 6 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

All parties banned from editing the article during the case[edit]

1) Enacted on 11:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC) All editors listed as a party to this case are banned from editing Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University until the case is settled.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 02:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Dmcdevit·t 09:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 14:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Central policies[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --FloNight 02:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 00:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Charles Matthews 20:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Neutral point of view[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --FloNight 02:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 00:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Charles Matthews 20:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Verifiability[edit]

3) Information may be included in articles if it 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 is considered self published and thus not verifiable by reliable sources.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --FloNight 02:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 00:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Charles Matthews 20:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Conflict of interest[edit]

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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --FloNight 02:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 00:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Charles Matthews 20:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor a battleground[edit]

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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --FloNight 02:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 00:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Charles Matthews 20:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Article probation[edit]

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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --FloNight 02:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 00:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Charles Matthews 20:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Conflict of interest[edit]

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, per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --FloNight 02:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 00:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Charles Matthews 20:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Links to biased sites[edit]

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, citing the original source, but should not be linked to.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. James F. (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC) This is too specific, and has two seperate thoughts rolled together; see below.[reply]
  2. SimonP 00:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight 03:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 20:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Use of biased sites[edit]

8.1) The use of material from sites in favour or against the topic in question as references or as external links is acceptable, but only when said sites are covered as "reliable sources"; if the sites are not reliable (self-published or otherwise verifiable), they should only be used at most as external links.

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Better.[reply]
    FloNight 02:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 00:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Muddy Fred Bauder 04:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As with Fred, I think this confuses more than it clarifies. I don't like any of the proposed versions of this so far. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. On second thought I do not like this one either. FloNight 17:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 20:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Links to reliable information hosted on biased sites[edit]

8.2) Where copies of an otherwise "reliable source", such as an academic paper, are hosted on a biased site, this may be used by editors for the purpose of generating understanding and references, but should not be used as the target of a link (as it can unduly influence users' comprehension of the reliability of the site overall).

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Not sure about this as a Principle, but I think this is clearer, at least.[reply]
  2. SimonP 00:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Unclear Fred Bauder 04:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This remedy is not the best way to state this idea. FloNight 03:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Unclear. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Unclear. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I see the point, but I don't like the implementation ... Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 20:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

No original research[edit]

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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --FloNight 02:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 00:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Charles Matthews 20:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Appropriate use of sources[edit]

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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. James F. (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Too specific, again.[reply]
  2. SimonP 00:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight 03:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 20:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Appropriate use of sources[edit]

10.1) Generally, material used in articles should come from reliable secondary sources, not from primary documents, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Types of source_material. Primary documents can be quoted in order to accurately describe uncontroversial items, but using them to illustrate controversial facts or conclusions is inappropriate.

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Better? "Draw[ing] novel conclusions" is prohibited under "Original Research", however, so I've missed it off - worth re-stating as a separate one?[reply]
  2. --FloNight 02:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 00:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fred Bauder 04:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Not perfect, but it is good enough, I guess. Primary sources are great for what they actually verify, but the danger is that drawing other than obvious conclusions about a primary source is OR. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Charles Matthews 20:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Declaratory judgement[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --FloNight 02:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 00:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Charles Matthews 20:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Threats[edit]

12) A threat to contact the University a user attends in order to make 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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --FloNight 02:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 00:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Charles Matthews 20:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) (Proposed principle)

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Nature of dispute[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight 03:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 00:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Charles Matthews 20:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Partial history of the article[edit]

2) 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." [2]. Lengthy self-published material has sometimes been added [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Often links to critical websites and other critical material has been removed [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] 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 [13]; again, material is original research, apparently derived from self-published material [14] [15]. 195.82.106.244 is, however, one of the first editors of the article to reference a third party source [16]. On April 1, 2006 Riveros11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made his first edit [17], original research with a positive spin.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 00:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight 03:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Charles Matthews 20:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

195.82.106.244[edit]

3) 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 [18].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 00:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight 03:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Charles Matthews 20:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Personal threat by 195.82.106.244[edit]

3.1) In the course of a struggle over content 195.82.106.244 made a threat to disrupt the personal life of another user [19], 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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 00:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight 03:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Charles Matthews 20:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Incivility and personal attacks by 195.82.106.244[edit]

3.2) 195.82.106.244 has engaged in incivility and personal attacks [20], recent taunting of a BK advocate.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 00:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight 03:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Charles Matthews 20:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy by 195.82.106.244[edit]

3.3) 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 could easily know more than a third party researcher, such a criterion for verification is very different from Wikipedia policy.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 00:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight 03:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Charles Matthews 20:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Riveros11[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 00:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight 03:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Charles Matthews 20:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Removal of well-sourced information by Riveros11[edit]

4.1) Riveros11 has removed well sourced information [21]; the comment is interesting, "Reverted back again - New user added statements without previous discussion in talk page."

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 00:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight 03:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Charles Matthews 20:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Editwarring by Riveros11[edit]

4.2) Riveros11 has edit warred [22], comment "Reverted page again- New user Andries was informed of our own policy in this page."

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Also ownership?[reply]
  3. SimonP 00:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight 03:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Charles Matthews 20:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Secondary sources[edit]

5) 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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 00:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight 03:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Charles Matthews 20:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Use of materials on pro or anti BK sites[edit]

6) In several instances what appear to be legitimate scientific papers on their face are posted on a pro-BK site [23].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 00:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight 03:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Charles Matthews 20:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Identity of editors[edit]

7) The identity of editors to BK articles is unclear due to extensive use of anonymous IPs and possibly of secondary accounts.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 00:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight 03:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Charles Matthews 20:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

195.82.106.244 banned[edit]

1) 195.82.106.244 is banned for one year for a personal attack which contained a threat against another user [24].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 00:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight 03:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Charles Matthews 21:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

195.82.106.244 placed on Probation[edit]

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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 00:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight 03:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Charles Matthews 21:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Article probation[edit]

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 publications to an article containing verifiable information based on reliable third party 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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 00:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight 03:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Charles Matthews 21:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Enforcement by block[edit]

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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 00:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight 03:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Note that with 10 arbitrators active and a majority of 6, no version of principle 8) Links to biased sites passes. Do you want to wait for a 6th vote on 8.1, or work out compromise wording for an 8.3? Thatcher131 06:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears none are likely to pass now (1-7, 4-4, 2-6) after two Arbitrators moved to reject the now- 4-4 one. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 00:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update of status: as of now (all dashes inclusive):

  • Pr. 1-7, 9, 10.1, 11-12 pass; 8, 8.1, 8.2, 10 fail
  • FoF all pass (1-7, 3.1-3.3)
  • Re. all pass (1-3)
  • En. pass (1 only)

Vote[edit]

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

  1. Move to close.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close. SimonP 16:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Close. Charles Matthews 21:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Close FloNight 03:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Brahma_Kumaris/Proposed_decision&oldid=1037706111"