Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris/Proposed decision

Arbitrators

 * Arbitrators active on this case
 * Fred Bauder
 * Jdforrester
 * Morven
 * Charles Matthews
 * Dmcdevit
 * Raul654
 * SimonP
 * FloNight
 * Jayjg
 * Blnguyen

The newly appointed arbitrators are assumed by default to be recused from cases already open at the time they took office. If an arbitrator becomes active on this case (by declaration or activity), his/her name will be moved to the active list and the majority adjusted accordingly.
 * New arbitrators inactive on this case
 * Flcelloguy
 * Kirill Lokshin
 * Paul August
 * UninvitedCompany
 * Jpgordon

Jayjg and The Epopt, who were active when this case was opened, are assumed by default to be no longer active. However, they are still entitled to cast a vote if they desire. Jayjg has done so in this case and the active list above and the majority tally have been adjusted accordingly.
 * Arbitrators whose term expired

Request to clarify enforcement of remedy 3.3.2: 195.82.106.244 banned
Dear Sir/Madam: It appears to me that user 195.82.106.244 has created another account. This account is "Some people believe" (please see talk page in Article) A request has been placed for a "check user." Likewise, Admin Jossi and myself requested a "check user" for 195.82.106.244 and brahmakumaris.info. Our request has been ignored so far. Currently, user "Some people believe" has added a "controversy" section in the article which clearly is a non scholastic reference or even a secondary resource, but rather a sensationalist tabloid paper which does not even show the name of the author or qualifications. I sent a message to that paper without a reponse. It appears to me that whoever is user 195.82.106.244 will create a different account and still post, ignoring the ban. However, it is easy to spot him by the type of message he has been trying to convey: 100% negative: libel and defamations against Brahma Kumaris without reliable sources. I am hoping that this motion to ban user 195.82.106.244, will actually ban the user and not just his IP address. thus, I would like to know the steps that will be taken to enforce this remedy. Thank you. Best Regards, avyakt7 17:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the decision bans the person, not their IP address, although proving it may be difficult, depending on circumstances. The ban is effective from now, so what he might have posted before does not violate it.  Use checkuser and arbitration enforcement when needed. Thatcher131 19:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If I recall correctly there was a big tag in the discussion page prohibiting anyone involved with the article ( previous editors) from posting. A check user for user 195.82.106.244 and "Some people believe" was requested by Bksimonb. If that user is found to be 244, then whatever he posted should be deleted accordingly.
 * If we start seeing a 244 typical approach of "bold edits," typical vocabulary and extreme animosity towards BK; there is a 99% chance that user is him. Thank you for the link.. I will be using it. Oh yes.. I realize he may be changing IP addresses too.. I am ready for it.. TCP/IP is part of my reading materials. Very Best, avyakt7 15:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection of article
Dear Sir/Madam; I have placed a request for semi protection of the article. There is an anonymous user under different IPs coming from Japan (but more likely a proxy) disrupting the improvement of this article. There is a particular section which these vandal IPs are supporting, that is the "controversy" section which was deleted for lack of reliable supporting evidence. This section was added by user "Some people believe." I requested a "checkuser" on this since I am pretty sure this user is 195.82.106.244 (recently banned from editing this article) Surprisingly, my request has been ignored one more time. I even reponded to Thatcher131 with links of previous "checkuser" which were requested by several editors. It would be extremely helpful if this article is edited by users with an account rather than IPs, since this article is on probation. Thank you, avyakt7 10:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Requests for page protection should be made at WP:RFPP. Requests for enforcement of this case should be made at WP:AE.  Requests for general clarification from the arbitration committee on matters related to this case should be made at Requests_for_arbitration.  Once a case is closed, generally no one pays much attention to the case subpages. Thatcher131 13:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)