| Revision as of 02:57, 30 November 2006 edit72.91.169.22 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 11:39, 22 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (44 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| *'''THIS PAGE IS WORK IN PROGRESS, FOLLOWING OTHER USERS COMMENT I AM IN THE PROCESS OF REBUILDING WITH THE ENTIRE HISTORY PLEASE ALLOW ME TIME TO DO SO''' | |||
| {{User WikiProject Hindu mythology}}<br><br> | |||
| <noinclude>{{TOCright}}</noinclude> | |||
| == Blocked == | |||
| ]You have been temporarily ] because of your disruptive edits. You are ] in a ] as soon as the block expires. // ] (]) 21:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC) <br clear="both"> | |||
| == Re: ] and BK Followers== | == Re: ] and BK Followers== | ||
| ===Message for admins.=== | |||
| There is a BK Follower Riveros11 that is trying any trick in the Wiki book to block any other contributor to the above page. | There is a BK Follower Riveros11, using various IP in the Tampa Flordia 72.xx.xx.xx range, that is trying any trick in the Wiki book to block any other contributor outside of the BKWSU to the above page. | ||
| For the record, I have tried to engage in Discussion, formal Mediation and Arbitration and he has refused to co-join despite being informed. I have also put in a RfC for use of self-published material within the set limitation according to policy. Two admins have agreed that this is inline with policy already. | For the record, I have tried to engage in Discussion, formal Mediation and Arbitration and he has refused to co-join despite being informed. I have also put in a RfC for use of self-published material within the set limitation according to policy. Two admins have agreed that this is inline with policy already. | ||
| Rather than engage in discussion, Riveros appears to me to just be intimidating folk off with endless and often erroneous Vandalism accusations, including |
Rather than engage in discussion, Riveros appears to me to just be intimidating folk off with endless and often erroneous Vandalism accusations, including newcomers. I am going to remove those to give the newcomers an easier ride. I have no fear that I am doing the right think. Help .. don't bite. | ||
| ] 23:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Within his intent to re-write, with slavish copy and pastes from academic papers, in my opinion, Riveros has no intent to engage in discussion and is working with another Brahma Kumari, user Bksimonb to make repetitive accusation against me. Its becoming very silly. | |||
| What do we do? | |||
| I have decided to coninue to engage in editing the article until his modus operandi is made very clear and public. ] 03:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == |
==Time to rebuild== | ||
| It sounds like you are going to restore the whole page- if so, I applaud your choice to do say. It raises your credibility in my eyes and probably others as well. I will peak back in a couple of days. ] 02:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Hello== | |||
| I looked over a bit of your request for arbitration. There are many ways to avoid this lengthy, time consuming (on the part of both yourselves and arbitors), process that can sometimes get very ugly. | |||
| I'm a member of two (or maybe even three) Seperate WikiProjects that have could perhaps provide assistance. In any case, I'm willing to provide you with assitance. | |||
| As a member of a fairly new religious movement myself, I can sympathise with your passion in this matter. I could tell you TONS of stories, but I would rather assist you both in creating the best article you can. | |||
| Please leave a message on my talk page, and I can give you both more information about how I can be of assistance. | |||
| You're certainly free to do whatever you want, but take it from me - it's much better to perhaps see things in a different light and work towards a common goal than go to arbitration. | |||
| Sincerely, | |||
| ] 04:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::PS: With the current neutrality tag on it, I suggest that few readers are going to give much weight to ''anything'' written there, and ''everyone'' loses - including the readers. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 05:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> | |||
| Whoops! Sorry, forgot to sign.] 06:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well heavens, I guess I should have read the talk page before I made my offer. In any case, it still stands. If I can be of service, please let me know.] 07:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Hello again== | |||
| I am writing to let you know that I unfortunately need to rescind my offer of personal assistance. Currently, there are great demands on my time - both here and in real life. I encourage you to contact the ], make a ] to the general community, or simply seek a ]. You may also consider posting a message on the noticeboards for various ] that are appropriate to the topic. | |||
| I will reiterate, it is simply best to try to reach consensus with your fellow editors based on the common goal of writing a fair and well-written article. As long as you can at least share this small patch of common ground, there is hope. | |||
| Sincerely, | |||
| ]You have been temporarily ] because of your disruptive edits. You are ] in a ] as soon as the block expires. // ] (]) 21:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC) <br clear="both"> | |||
| ] 05:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Your question == | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|I have been blocked on the basis of accusation by Riveros11 of not being willing to discuss changes. Wiki records will show that I instigated both a Request for Mediation and a Request for Arbitration with Riveros11 but on both occasions he refused to participate. Two admins have cited Wiki policy of allowing self-published material which the other editor refuses to accept. I have even accept using the academic citation he suggests but am still subject to skillfully crafted ad hominen attacks by this member of the religious group in question. Please see discussion pages. It is laughable that I am the one being accused on not being willing to discuss!|decline=I reviewed the block and see no reason to unblock. Use this time-off to reconsider your editing behavior. ] <small>] • ]</small> 00:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)}} | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ==brahmakumaris.info reply== | |||
| Jossi, | |||
| ok try and answer these two as best I can | |||
| that really is not the place for further discussion on this matter ]. What the likelihood of it succeeding without further contention? Why does the same principle not apply to pages on the other major "new religious movements"" Why not go engage them? | |||
| Unlike yourself, I have travelled to India. Whilst there I visited the home of the BK in Abu. | |||
| In common with some of the other ashrams I visited, Abu appeared as a virtual haven of order and tranquillity relative to the colourful but disorientating chaos of the rest of India. Although I didn’t stay on site, I mixed freely with the many other students, including children of all ages. My impression during my time there, was that the children were thoroughly enjoying the experience and were well looked after. | |||
| I am asking honest questions, not a rhetoric questions here. | |||
| Abu is a very large campus and I reckon must cater for substantial numbers of children every year. I’m confident that if you or the BKI community pick up the slightest rumour of anything remotely similar in the period since the child abuse was alleged to have occurred, (which would appear to be over twenty years ago), then it too, will immediately appear on your website. For the moment however, I’m having no difficulty trusting my own observation that the BK are providing a safe, well-managed environment for children in their care, both at home and on pilgrimage. | |||
| If you want to discuss this from a spiritual perspective and ask where I am personally coming from on this matter, I am happy to do so. | |||
| Regarding 1976. Scanning the ex-bk/pbk dialogue, it seems despite initial pbk assertions that there was a clear murli directive in 1966 indicating that ‘destruction’ would take place in 1976, that these assertions were subsequently retracted, and it appears the weight of evidence is left with a picture sourced from your website, incorporating the words ‘Destruction will take place in 10 years’. Ten years from when exactly? I could further speculate that the inclusion of this phrase maybe due to a little doctoring, that just happens to nicely suit pbk theology? Or, if it is indeed original, - quite simply a bit of artistic license on the part of the draughtsman? | |||
| If I am swayed at all as to 1976 being a significant issue for the BK, it’s where an ex-bk recounts witnessing the feeling of expectation apparently running through the BK in 1976. Not that he himself was exactly biting his nails, as elsewhere he recalls receiving direct permission from ‘Baba’ to pursue a college degree in the fall of ‘76! | |||
| Thanks. ] 03:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| True or false? Black and white? One or the other? If only you applied some of this wonderful two-tone moral code to your own behaviour. - Maybe there wouldn’t be the mysterious user brahmakumaris.info lurking around to worry about? sincerely ] 18:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Opposition to other major "new religious movements" have been described widely in scholarly books and articles. If as you say there is documented material about opposition to Brahma Kumari since 1930, then find it and add it to the main article. Hope this helps. ] <small>]</small> 03:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have references, the question remains, what are the likelihood of being able to post them? ] 03:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :], this has all been covered in the discussion page. | |||
| :::If you have references, then present these at the talk page. Me or other experienced Wikipedians will assist you there. ] <small>]</small> 05:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *There were numerous Murli references prior to and well after Kirpalani's death in 1969 | |||
| *At least one of the teaching aid posters is actually dated, they appear in BKWSU publications that you can still buy online. | |||
| ==]== | |||
| :It is simple, if you lack faith, check the references to Kirpalani's surety and Shiva's predictions of Destruction in 1976 with the BKWSU. Especially, ask for copies of the the original Murlis of that time. If they will not allow you access to the original Murlis, ask why. | |||
| Hello, | |||
| An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: ]. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, ]. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ]. | |||
| *You consider that you can succeed in your allegations and discrediting me by making a libels. The latest being of my doctoring BKWSU posters. Sadly, that is seems typical for you personally and of the increasing dishonesty typical for the BK team, e.g. please note psychologist ]'s complete contradiction and denial of his earlier claims that he was in the BKWSU. | |||
| On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --] 17:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :'''The solution is simple. Ask the BKWSU. I know. I am not moved by the slur. You could ask the BKWSU to check these Murlis received by the BK medium called Sister Gulzar AFTER Kirpalani's death and alleged perfection.''', e.g.; | |||
| :Please let the ArbCom clerk do his duties. You can use the talk page to raise concerns, and edit the section in which you provide your evidence. ] <small>]</small> 03:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :• Avyakt Murli 25/10/69 : | |||
| :“The final Destruction of the whole World takes place within 6 years. Those who tell it to be 7 years have their position reduced.” (6 years from 25/10/69 comes to 1975/76) | |||
| ==I replied to you on my talk page== | |||
| :• Avyakt Murli 05/11/70 : “From this journey, it is 5 years for Destruction.” (5 years from 5/11/70 comes to 1975/76) | |||
| Feel free to drop on by and discuss if you want.] 04:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :• Avyakt Murli 03/02/71 : ” Within 5 years, the whole work should be completed.” (5 years from 3/2/71 comes to 1975/76) | |||
| == Why screw around with the ToC? == | |||
| :• Avyakt Murli 09/09/72 : “Even those who are rich, even they live hardly for 3-4 years more.” (3-4 years will come to 1975/76) | |||
| "''Why screw around with the ToC''?" | |||
| :• Avyakt Murli 04/02/74 : “From 10 years (of the declaration), only 2 years are left. Soon Kali Yuga has come to an end. The Drama is certain.” (2 years will fall in 1976) | |||
| Because if one does one does not get that big, stupid, useless blank big right eating up half the page in the middle of one's browser when the page loads. | |||
| :• Avyakt Murli 09/11/74 : “Rest, 2 years is left over. Don’t think that it will become 3 years. It may become one year but it can never become 3 years” (2 years will come in 1976). | |||
| Is is some new Wiki law not to? Why else was the template made? If it is used at the top then it clashes with the other tags. Placed where it is text flows nicely about it. Simple. | |||
| :] 23:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] 07:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Arbitration== | |||
| Dear .244, | |||
| Sure. place the request. BUT before doing that I have a request to have the article reverted to the last version I made (see BK talk page). This is to be fair with BK. You have nothing to lose. Otherwise, I have no choice but to continue changing the page. I have not done that today to show good faith and to behave in a "gentleman" manner... tomorrow it may be different. Let me know. | |||
| Best, ] 02:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It doesn't fit in line with all the other articles, and doesn't follow ]. It's there to ''allow'' for specialization, such as on the Main Page. ] (] ° ]) 13:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for that link, I had not seen it before and it interests me. I was finding my way in the dark. However, I don't see any direct link to content table but agree that neither style nor intelligence necessarily rules wiki articles ... | |||
| OK. 244 I am waiting for your answer... Thanks! AVYAKT7 ] 16:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I still that think big empty spaces in prime view spots is dumb and ought to be fixed/changed. May be they need to rethink the look placement of content menu ... a scroll down from the top menu would work. ] 17:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::The point is to give a brief overview of the contents of the article ''before'' readers are smashed with the content of the article. Placing the ToC and the article content side by side makes readers lose focus. I strongly feel the ToC should be placed as it is placed per default, judging by every other article that's community consensus. ] (] ° ]) 17:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == counselling == | |||
| == Temporary Injunction == | |||
| u have not got back to me. have you started seeing a therapist? | |||
| JP 19:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| A temporary injunction has been ] in ]. All editors listed as a party to this case are banned from editing ] until the case is settled. | |||
| :I may be out of line here, not knowing what conversation is going on between the two of you and seeing your recent comment on the BK talk page, JP, my request is that you abide by ] and ] in context of the BK and the people associate with it] 21:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee --] 11:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Comment regarding post to ]== | |||
| ::hey you have to stop telling people that i have been in since i was young and and my mothers in. | |||
| ], I think both sides share the same concern about editors sympathetic to each other's POV. There are some editors roaming around who give me the creeps too! | |||
| ::cause neither is true. | |||
| I am strongly denying that there is a co-ordinated team of BK ''editors''. The same sort of accustation could be made regarding your website forum members. Please do not persist in stating such accusations as if they were a fact. We're all in this together and I suggest we learn to live with the current injunction. And that's coming from someone who only made precisly one edit to the article ever and is now currently banned from it ;-) Regards ] 09:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::] 16:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Merry Christmas and Happy New Year== | |||
| Dear .244, Just a brief note to wish you the best in these holidays and the upcoming new year. As always, best wishes; ] 15:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Not quite true ], is it? See here; ] 05:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Falling a bit behind on responses== | |||
| Hi ], | |||
| First of all happy new year to you! | |||
| I realise I have a few posts outstanding and fully intend to respond as soon as I can. It's a bit busy for me this week. Hope to get back to you within the next week. | |||
| hey dude, again i did not mean to insult you, you said that life is complex, i said a therapist would not agree with you, based on that i suggested you might need, ask a therapist and they would say that EVERYONE needs therapy, one does kid themselfs if they think they are fine. Have you heard of socially disable response, its when we present ourself to sociality in a manner that we thing people will like, to be accepted etc. and generally nowadays people are stuck in this behavior and are not true to themselfs, and basically causes them loads of issues, most people are not aware. if you knew this i;m sure you would have said that same to me, not to insult myself but to benefit. yes we have had our differences, had a banter. but to me i would not actually mind if we were to go out and grab a drink someday. i have no reason not to. | |||
| Cheers ] 07:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| i said that it is not quite true, because in wiki and the bkwus it said bk devotees do xyz, and neither of me or family does. i would not call either us a bk, or would i say that i have left the bk's as i never have really been that involved reflecting back. Whats on google pages , well just becuase i have i the soul on it does not really mean anything, loads of people believe in soul, the actor thing, Shakespeare spoke about it. look at youtube.com and search for crossmack, he speaks about related issues, it would be beneficial. | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Its good you have kept tabs on my google page, valuable information. | |||
| And It good that you let your feelings out. do this more often personally to yourself, and here if necessary. if you want your more then welcome to on my discussion page about anything or i can give you my email or whatever you want, but generally one does not need to relate things of this nature to another person, but you want to,need to then... | |||
| Really the advice that i give for ones emotional state, i am not saying out of spite. | |||
| This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. | |||
| Again i do apologies. | |||
| ] is banned for one year for a personal attack which contained a threat against another user . 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. ] 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. 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 ]. | |||
| ] 14:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee --] 17:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==] case== | |||
| {{test4}} | |||
| {| align="left" | |||
| || ] | |||
| |} | |||
| You have been accused of ]. Please refer to ] for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with ] before editing the evidence page. | |||
| ] 20:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 11:39, 22 February 2023
- THIS PAGE IS WORK IN PROGRESS, FOLLOWING OTHER USERS COMMENT I AM IN THE PROCESS OF REBUILDING WITH THE ENTIRE HISTORY PLEASE ALLOW ME TIME TO DO SO
Blocked
You have been temporarily blocked from editing because of your disruptive edits. You are invited to contribute in a constructive manner as soon as the block expires. // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 21:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Re: Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University and BK Followers
Message for admins.
There is a BK Follower Riveros11, using various IP in the Tampa Flordia 72.xx.xx.xx range, that is trying any trick in the Wiki book to block any other contributor outside of the BKWSU to the above page.
For the record, I have tried to engage in Discussion, formal Mediation and Arbitration and he has refused to co-join despite being informed. I have also put in a RfC for use of self-published material within the set limitation according to policy. Two admins have agreed that this is inline with policy already.
Rather than engage in discussion, Riveros appears to me to just be intimidating folk off with endless and often erroneous Vandalism accusations, including newcomers. I am going to remove those to give the newcomers an easier ride. I have no fear that I am doing the right think. Help .. don't bite.
195.82.106.244 23:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Time to rebuild
It sounds like you are going to restore the whole page- if so, I applaud your choice to do say. It raises your credibility in my eyes and probably others as well. I will peak back in a couple of days. Sethie 02:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello
I looked over a bit of your request for arbitration. There are many ways to avoid this lengthy, time consuming (on the part of both yourselves and arbitors), process that can sometimes get very ugly.
I'm a member of two (or maybe even three) Seperate WikiProjects that have could perhaps provide assistance. In any case, I'm willing to provide you with assitance.
As a member of a fairly new religious movement myself, I can sympathise with your passion in this matter. I could tell you TONS of stories, but I would rather assist you both in creating the best article you can.
Please leave a message on my talk page, and I can give you both more information about how I can be of assistance.
You're certainly free to do whatever you want, but take it from me - it's much better to perhaps see things in a different light and work towards a common goal than go to arbitration. Sincerely, NinaEliza 04:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- PS: With the current neutrality tag on it, I suggest that few readers are going to give much weight to anything written there, and everyone loses - including the readers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NinaEliza (talk • contribs) 05:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
Whoops! Sorry, forgot to sign.NinaEliza 06:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well heavens, I guess I should have read the talk page before I made my offer. In any case, it still stands. If I can be of service, please let me know.NinaEliza 07:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello again
I am writing to let you know that I unfortunately need to rescind my offer of personal assistance. Currently, there are great demands on my time - both here and in real life. I encourage you to contact the Mediation Cabal, make a Request for Comment to the general community, or simply seek a Third Opinion. You may also consider posting a message on the noticeboards for various WikiProjects that are appropriate to the topic.
I will reiterate, it is simply best to try to reach consensus with your fellow editors based on the common goal of writing a fair and well-written article. As long as you can at least share this small patch of common ground, there is hope.
Sincerely, NinaEliza 05:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Your question
Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Brahma_Kumaris_Info
Jossi,
that really is not the place for further discussion on this matter Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Brahma_Kumaris_Info. What the likelihood of it succeeding without further contention? Why does the same principle not apply to pages on the other major "new religious movements"" Why not go engage them?
I am asking honest questions, not a rhetoric questions here.
If you want to discuss this from a spiritual perspective and ask where I am personally coming from on this matter, I am happy to do so.
Thanks. 195.82.106.244 03:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Opposition to other major "new religious movements" have been described widely in scholarly books and articles. If as you say there is documented material about opposition to Brahma Kumari since 1930, then find it and add it to the main article. Hope this helps. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- I have references, the question remains, what are the likelihood of being able to post them? 195.82.106.244 03:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- If you have references, then present these at the talk page. Me or other experienced Wikipedians will assist you there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 17:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Please let the ArbCom clerk do his duties. You can use the talk page to raise concerns, and edit the section in which you provide your evidence. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I replied to you on my talk page
Feel free to drop on by and discuss if you want.Sethie 04:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Why screw around with the ToC?
"Why screw around with the ToC?"
Because if one does one does not get that big, stupid, useless blank big right eating up half the page in the middle of one's browser when the page loads.
Is is some new Wiki law not to? Why else was the template made? If it is used at the top then it clashes with the other tags. Placed where it is text flows nicely about it. Simple.
195.82.106.244 07:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- It doesn't fit in line with all the other articles, and doesn't follow Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style. It's there to allow for specialization, such as on the Main Page. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for that link, I had not seen it before and it interests me. I was finding my way in the dark. However, I don't see any direct link to content table but agree that neither style nor intelligence necessarily rules wiki articles ...
- I still that think big empty spaces in prime view spots is dumb and ought to be fixed/changed. May be they need to rethink the look placement of content menu ... a scroll down from the top menu would work. 195.82.106.244 17:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- The point is to give a brief overview of the contents of the article before readers are smashed with the content of the article. Placing the ToC and the article content side by side makes readers lose focus. I strongly feel the ToC should be placed as it is placed per default, judging by every other article that's community consensus. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Temporary Injunction
A temporary injunction has been passed in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris. All editors listed as a party to this case are banned from editing Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University until the case is settled.
For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 11:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment regarding post to Srikeit
195.82.106.244, I think both sides share the same concern about editors sympathetic to each other's POV. There are some editors roaming around who give me the creeps too! I am strongly denying that there is a co-ordinated team of BK editors. The same sort of accustation could be made regarding your website forum members. Please do not persist in stating such accusations as if they were a fact. We're all in this together and I suggest we learn to live with the current injunction. And that's coming from someone who only made precisly one edit to the article ever and is now currently banned from it ;-) Regards Bksimonb 09:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year
Dear .244, Just a brief note to wish you the best in these holidays and the upcoming new year. As always, best wishes; avyakt7 15:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Falling a bit behind on responses
Hi 195.82.106.244, First of all happy new year to you!
I realise I have a few posts outstanding and fully intend to respond as soon as I can. It's a bit busy for me this week. Hope to get back to you within the next week.
Cheers Bksimonb 07:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.
195.82.106.244 is banned for one year for a personal attack which contained a threat against another user . 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. 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. 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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris#Log of blocks and bans.
For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 17:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry case
|
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/195.82.106.244 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.
Bksimonb 20:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)