This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 195.82.106.244 (talk) at 07:12, 30 December 2006 (→Verifiability: clarification of controversial). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

All parties banned from editing the article during the case

1) All editors listed as a party to this case are banned from editing the article until the case is settled.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The parties are continuing to edit war and make sterile reverts to their preferred version. Although there may only be one or two reverts per person per day, there is clear evidence of article ownership, and attempts by outside uninvolved editors to work on the article are being reverted as blindly as the efforts of the partisans. An editing ban would allow uninvolved editors to try and clean up the article and find some reliable sources, while protection would just freeze it. Thatcher131 02:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Support banning all editors listed as a party. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Policy versus personal attacks

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 . 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.

Verifiability

I appreciate that a Misplaced Pages 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.

Specific query

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)

None of the material you mention is acceptable as a reference for points which are in contention. They are self-published by the organization and for our purposes considered original research. Fred Bauder 14:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That is fine then. Thanks. None of the material I wish to use is contentious or can be contended. 195.82.106.244 00:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Central policies

1) Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view and Misplaced Pages:Verifiability are core polices.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Neutral point of view

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Verifiability

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Contentious points; WP:V self-published source can be and are reliable sources. This is policy. Just because a self-published source says it is true does not make it true, but it is true to say that that self-published source does. We are not talking blogs and fanzines here, we are talking about publshed, verifiable, core scriptures, biography and philosophical works.

We have to understand clearly the context of the word "controversial" here, e.g. the stated belief that all of time exists within a single 5,000 Year Cycle (dinosaurs exists 2,500 years ago) is a controversial belief. Likewise, the stated beliefs in channelling and mediumship, that the deceased or a "higher being" can come down to earth, enter into another human's physical body and speak through it is controversial, especially when that being is claimed to be God. However, what is not controversial in this incidence is that the BKWSU claim both. Inarguably, they are true statements of faith verified in both self-published and secondary sources although not necessarily true statements of fact. They and their equivalents are non-controversial reportage. In such incidents, especially in fairly obscure topics, definitive quotation from self-published sources are actually beneficial in clarifying or substantiate by their weigh of presence.

Such quotations do not equate to primary research as no conclusions are being drawn from them. Just merely illustrative reportage ensuring accuracy and useful where they are being publically denied. In addition, there are also wholly benevolent incidents where self-published sources are also useful, e.g. non-controversial and uptodate statistics and recent worthy achievements where academics will by their nature of peer review be widely out of date. What would be controversial would be if these figures or achievements were grossly exaggerated by way of self-agrandisement. I agree we have to guard again self-agrandisement such as a inflated and proprietary claims of divinity and monopolies over "God". Rather than facts, as stated in self-published materials, these have to be reported as defining beliefs.

• Comparibles: if we look at equivalent topics beit Scientology at one end or Taoism on the other, original docrines, scriptures and self-published materials, e.g. L. Ron Hubbard are widely used as references through the Wiki. Just because they are an uncomfortable fit with the organization's current PR, or political aspirations, does not make then controversial content from a policy point of view. If L. Ron Hubbard, why not Kripalani, Chander or BapDada?
• NGO status: paradoxically, given the organizations NGO and charitable status, and widespread governmental associations, it adds credence to the assertion that its self-published sources are responsible. From a validatory point of view, if self-published sources states clearly and consistently "mediumship" then that added weight to support the inclusion of a secondary source referencing it.

195.82.106.244 07:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

WP:V has specific wording regarding self-published sources in articles about the author(s), that permits the use of such self-published sources under some limitations. See Self-published and dubious sources in articles about the author(s). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The error is using such sources to demonstrate contentious points. Fred Bauder 14:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I agree. But then the wording needs to be corrected on the proposal to clarify the circumstances in which these sources can be used. Maybe merging this proposed decision with the one below titled "Appropriate use of sources" will do the trick. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It does say "except with respect to information which is not controversial" as written above. Thatcher131 16:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

...which is not the way expressed in policy. WP:V states differently, and does not mention the word "controversial" as it pertains to self-published sources in articles about the author. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

4) Misplaced Pages: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, Misplaced Pages: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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, nor a battleground

5) Misplaced Pages is not a platform for advocacy, Misplaced Pages:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox, nor is it a battleground for struggle, Misplaced Pages:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Article probation

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Conflict of interest

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, Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Links to biased sites

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

No original research

9) Misplaced Pages 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Accepted Fred Bauder 15:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Based on "Neutral point of view" policy. I see summarizing a reliable secondary source as a point of contention between parties. "Biased paraphrasing" is what have been noted so far.

avyakt7 16:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

A common error on Misplaced Pages. Summaries need to reflect the content of the source, not the biases of the summarizer. Fred Bauder 14:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Based on .244's comments above and his stated reason for filing the case, I think we need this. Thatcher131 22:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate use of sources

10) Generally, material used in articles should come from reliable secondary sources, not from primary documents, see Misplaced Pages: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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Accepted Fred Bauder 15:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

"Murlis" are not published documents. Murlis are not in the public domain. However, attempts from users such as .244 have allowed their distribution through his website Brahmakumaris.info. without the consent of Brahma Kumaris.(FTP Site, pics provided in the evidence) Also. the Murlis provided by .244 are not accurate. These documents could be easily modified. Which version of the Murlis do we trust? Please clarify the concept of "uncontroversial beliefs and practices." avyakt7 16:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Scholarly work could exist regarding these teachings and could be used. Use of primary sources of this nature is utterly unacceptable. Fred Bauder 16:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

See above. Thatcher131 22:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Declaratory judgement

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Threats

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 Misplaced Pages. Contacting an employer, a person's university or anyone else to gain advantage in an editing dispute on Misplaced Pages is utterly unacceptable and will be discouraged using the strongest methods available.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Nature of dispute

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 while the organization or its supporters maintain godhascome.org, bkwsu.org, and others.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

History of the article

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." . Lengthy self-published material has sometimes been added . Often links to critical websites and other critical material has been removed 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 · ; again, material is original research, apparently derived from self-published material . 195.82.106.244 is, however, one of the first editors of the article to reference a third party source . On April 1, 2006 Riveros11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made his first edit , original research with a positive spin.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

195.82.106.244

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 .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Content later Fred Bauder 22:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Personal attacks by 195.82.106.244

1.1) 195.82.106.244 has made personal threats , 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..

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 21:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Incivility and personal attacks by 195.82.106.244

1.2) 195.82.106.244 has engaged in incivility and personal attacks , recent taunting of a BK advocate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages policy by 195.82.106.244

1.3) 195.82.106.244 misunderstands the basis of Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Riveros11

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 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Removal of well-sourced information by Riveros11

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Fred Bauder 15:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Editwarring by Riveros11

1.2) Riveros11 has , comment "Reverted page again- New user Andries was informed of our own policy in this page."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Incomplete Fred Bauder 15:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Assuming that these Tampa IP addresses are Riveros, here is a 3RR violation on 25 October. . Note that 72.91.4.91 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) is a frequent editor of the BKWS article and talk pages and his edit summaries are consistent with Riveros. Thatcher131 15:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, here, User:72.91.4.91 signs as Riveros . Thatcher131 15:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Secondary sources

1) Significant secondary sources exist which might appropriately be used as references, see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Brahma_Kumaris/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_third_party_jossi_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Ex-L or Ex-London

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 Misplaced Pages article. An interesting discussion follows.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Use of materials on pro or anti BK sites

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Identity of editors

1) The identity of editors to BK articles is unclear due to extensive use of anonymous ips and possibly of alternate accounts.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Geejap

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 . 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

TalkAbout

1) TalkAbout (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly restored the critical version of the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Brahma Kumaris

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Jesselp

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"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Brahmakumaris.info

1) Brahmakumaris.info (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Placeholder bookmark Fred Bauder 20:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

195.82.106.244 banned

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

195.82.106.244 placed on probation

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 Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Brahma_Kumaris#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Article probation

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

But admins can not take action against individual editors if they continue to act disruptively, right? It has to go back through arbcom? Thatcher131 14:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

At first administrators should only jawbone them, but they can petition us to create remedies for specific editors. Such a remedy might be probation. Article probation should not be punitive nor should it give license for continued disruptive biased editing. It is an opportunity to edit appropriately for those deeply interested in the subject, but subject to sanction if they don't. Fred Bauder 14:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher131, as admins we can apply blocks for disruption without having to consult with the ArbCom. I would argue that editing pattern and behavior of some of the editors involved warrant such application of WP:BLOCK. In addition, as the article will be in probation, that gives us additional license to temporarily block editors that do not comply with the article probation. Fred, if this is not the case, please clarify. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the remedy is probably too subtle to work. Premature blocking shortcircuits it. They have no opportunity to adequately learn to reform their editing. Not applying substantial penalties for what are substantial violations gives a false impression that the users can continue aggressive biased editing. Fred Bauder 16:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

User probation allows admins to block users at a lower threshhold of disruption than would be required of a user not on probation, and also allows admins to ban users from individual articles they disrupt. It appears that article probation in this case does not allow either of those two things. As I read it, and similar cases, (and the Waldorf case, where Fred explicity removed block language from a proposal I made), continued disruptive editing that that violates the spirit of the decision but is not overt enough to justify a full block will have to be reviewed by arbcom. I do think it is an unclear area, and while I appreciate Fred's light touch (honey rather than vinegar), cautions and amnesties make it harder to persuade recalcitrant editors to follow the principles enumerate for their benefit, as shown by a few recent cases. (but this should probably be followed up somewhere else) Thatcher131 16:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Users need to understand that the alternative is a ban from editing the article and that if they keep on, that is what will happen. Fred Bauder 16:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Enforcement by block

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 Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Brahma_Kumaris#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: