The BKs back on Wikipedia (again)

for ex-BKs to discuss matters related to experiences in BKWSU & after leaving.
  • Message
  • Author
Offline
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BKWSU

  • Posts: 9843
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

The BKs back on Wikipedia (again)

Post12 May 2009

If anyone really has any doubts left about the sneaky, backstabbing manner in which BK adherents work, the BKs are back in action on the Wikipedia working behind the scenes to posion and discredit any non-BK editing the BKWSU topic.

At 14:26, 11 May 2009 an "anonymous" editor from the IP address, "81.5.129.32" left a message on another uninvolved editor's talk page, maliciously damage the reputation of another user who had recently made a number of edits to the BKWSU topic, with the clear intent of having them blocked or banned.

Looking at the contributions for that "anonymous editor", it appears that all but one edit made were made regarding the BKWSU topic, or attacking ex-BK editors such as "Green108".

Following those contributions, it proves the "anonymous editor" is none other than BKWSU IT Team leader BK Simon Blanford, seen here exposing his IP address whilst lobbying a member of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation and Chair of its "Advisory Board" to support the BKWSU.

Known for his extensive wikilawyering in attempt to block ex-BK editors and gain control of the BKWSU topic, Blandford forgets to log back in properly whilst complaining about another non-BK editor, User:Talkabout. Talkabout had earlier stated, "'What I see here is that you (the BKWSU editors) are trying to work the system to hide your true practices, to suit your PR needs under a shield of "verifiable" sources approved by your members, while leaving others out that are quite legitimate".

Blandford claimed this made the BKWSU "the subject of a smear campaign" yet promising that he did not "see any need to abuse Wikipedia". Almost 2 years to the day later, he returns with the same IP address to carry on the same strategy. As their god calls it "those who work and work through others", the BKs attempt to use uninformed others ... to do the BKWSU dirty work for them. This time cloaked in presumed "anonymity".

Its a strange thing but these BK never seem to learn and have no idea how karma works. The Baba says in the Murlis, "Whatever you do, someone will see it" ... and tell them that "the Brahma Kumaris are on a stage in front of the world". Never a truer word was said, especially when it come to the Wikipedia.
Offline
User avatar

Mr Green

ex-BK

  • Posts: 1875
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: The BKs back on Wikipedia (again)

Post12 May 2009

Poor old green108, he sounds like such a nice chap :D.
Offline
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BKWSU

  • Posts: 9843
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: The BKs back on Wikipedia (again)

Post15 May 2009

Further confirmation from the IRC hostmasks from the wikipedia-watch.org #wikipedia chatline records;

    81.5.129.32 bksimonb (n=chatzill@81.5.129.32)
What a sneaky little **** ... well, folks, this is what a decade or more in the 'BKWS Zoo' does to you. Sends you off conspiring to damage others on the internet behind anonymous IP addresses.

Please bear in mind, that the edits BK Simon were snitching on, or attempting to enflame the antagonism of some other non-BK to attack BK critics, were not even to the BKWSU topic page but those of The Family Survival Trust, an unfunded, voluntary support group helping the family and friends of cult members.

BK_Simon_B.jpg
BK_Simon_B.jpg (4.63 KiB) Viewed 3472 times

18 hours later, at 08:44, 12 May 2009, having failed to have the non-BK user do his dirty work for him, Simon is back reporting the user 'Soulslearn' to the Wikipedia administrators. Shame some souls just don't.
Wikipedia wrote:Indef blocked user User:Lucyintheskywithdada back as User:Soulslearn

Editing familiar subjects and already upsetting other editors [140]. I am reporting here first because Lucy is so well known and prolific. However I can file a sockpuppet report if that would be useful. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 08:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it true that, "Lucy in the Sky with Dada", is a reference to the Beatles' LSD song linked to, the dangers of the psycho-active drug and what it does to people's minds? This is the William Shatner version ...

Offline
User avatar

lokila

ex-BK

  • Posts: 90
  • Joined: 04 Sep 2008
  • Location: Europe

Re: The BKs back on Wikipedia (again)

Post01 Jul 2009

Well, here he explains it all now:
I've had a lot of accusations flung at me and so I feel it is time to clarify a few points. There is a grain of truth and a mountain of exaggeration and outright misinformation posted about me throughout Wikipedia and the web in general.

User:Bksimonb's Blog: BKsimonB on Wikipedia
Offline
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BKWSU

  • Posts: 9843
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: The BKs back on Wikipedia (again)

Post01 Jul 2009

Its good. It proves that BK Simon and others still read this forum. At least they are reading emails, if still being too arrogant to actually respond to them. What kind of person posts private emails on pubic websites rather than answer them!?!
BKSimonB wrote:The reason I reported you was because I don't want you editing Wikipedia.

I use Wikipedia daily as a reference for all kinds of information both for work and leisure and find that it is generally right on the mark. The problem I have with you editing Wikipedia, and especially the way you edit the BKWSU related articles, is that you seem to deliberately mislead the reader by biasing and controlling the article.

So ...
    a) what does "bringing it into balance from BKWSU's side" means ... what can they deny about it?
    b) taking a look at the BKWSU article, is it factual wrong or lacking reliable sources?

Simon reckons that comparing the Brahma Kumaris to the Scientologists is an attempt to make them appear more extreme ... I can only apologise to Scientology. Actually, I think the topic is more accurate than anything the BKWSU has ever published about their organization and more heavily referenced than most Wikipedia articles. It was obviously written by some people that have expert knowledge and insight into the subject!

Simon's blog attempts the usual well mannered BK whitewash removing any mention of the persistently "sneaky, pernicious, underhanded and deceitful" lengths that the BKs did go to, or rather, he went to. I have always thought that they were prepared even for "kamikaze" Wiki-deaths ... that is forcing things to the level where they were banned themselves, as long as the non-BKs were banned too in the hope that even random editing would make it more inaccurate.

He forgets to mention how BKSimonb worked in tandem with that loose cannon - BK Luis "The Bombs have been made and will be used" Riveros - and others in their attempt to turn the topic into just more BK PR. Or how it made serious discussion impossible. The BKWSU's own little "meatpuppet" IT team. (In Wikipedia terms, "meatpuppets" means a gang of people working together on a topic, and against other independent editors, with the same agenda).

So, who but some narky 'school prefect' type would post a private email up on the internet for others to see?

As he writes, the Wikipedia IS turning against cults and wising up to their ways. The Church of Scientology were block banned. Jossi, a pro-cultie Admin (and a webmaster for the Prem Wat cult) who defended Simon, was caught out and is now off the Wikipedia. I am not uptodate on the other goings on over at that site but must go and have a look ...
Offline
User avatar

Mr Green

ex-BK

  • Posts: 1875
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: The BKs back on Wikipedia (again)

Post03 Jul 2009

Poor old Simon, he doesn't mention the personal insults he made to me.
Offline
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BKWSU

  • Posts: 9843
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: The BKs back on Wikipedia (again)

Post04 Jul 2009

The funniest thing is, the Wikipedia Admin Simon is sucking up to, had his Admin status removed because of ...

    long term incivility, resistance to listening to the concerns of the community, declared an intent to edit war and get users banned.
In other words, precisely the sort of person the Brahma Kumaris would like to get to know!!!

Call me naive, but I just realised that implicit to to Simon extensive research and documentation is an implied threat to 'out' or 'expose' ex-BK editors and turn the more venomous of the Wikipedia against them. As he has been trying all along, setting the dogs of the Wikipedia on any ex-member from editing the BKWSU topic.

Personally, I have never "outed" anyone that did had not already "outed" themselves. This forum protects, as best it can, individual's identities to avoid the BKWSU doing the likes of this. Of course, it finally took the BKWSU to use financial legal power to crack open and find out who was involved with the website ... what different is that from the Scientologist's "Fair Game" policy? Using legal attacks as a "chilling effect or frightener.

We were told they did the same to xBKChat.com, and were successful in shutting it down, before this forum. This one stood and fought ... successfully.

If Simon wants to get into bed with the likes of Hansa and this Wiki Admin, then that is a reflection of who he is. It is not as if that would be anything new ...
Wikipedia wrote:Future Perfect at Sunrise desysopped

Future Perfect at Sunrise has been displayed long term incivility, resistance to listening to the concerns of the community, declared an intent to edit war and get users banned, and abused his Admin bit. Future Perfect at Sunrise is desysopped as a result. Future Perfect at Sunrise may obtain the tools back via the usual means or by request to the arbitration committee.

Return to Commonroom

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests

cron