Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard +  Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics ( Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks +  Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Case Opened on 10:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Case Closed on 18:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Case Amended by motion on 14:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Case Amended by motion on 05:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 21:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

• MuZemike ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) filing party
• Bigweeboy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ChemistryProf ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fladrif ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hickorybark ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jmh649 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kala Bethere ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Keithbob ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Littleolive oil ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Luke Warmwater101 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TimidGuy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tuckerj1976 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Will Beback ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Requests for comment

After communicating on-wiki and with a couple of editors privately about this quickly-escalating issue regarding articles related to the Transcendental Meditation movement(including some BLPs that have been reported in the past to the BLP noticeboard). I see many parallels with the Scientology ArbCom case ( WP:ARBSCI) in which I think it's now time for the Committee to help sort out. According to the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TM editors/Archive and the various checks that were run during the course of this SPI case and before, there is also some private matters and evidence by a few editors in which I believe the Committee will have to look at and sort out. In my capacity, I have been involved in giving advice as to what should be done here. I recommended that we go through with the SPI to see if it would have been possible for the community to handle this without resorting to Arbitration. After seeing the latest CheckUser results and now fully realizing the complexity of this situation, I do not think that will be possible, and I believe the Committee will need to step in and help out here. After a very lengthy SPI case which has gone on for over two weeks, it is of my opinion that any single administrator cannot and should not sort this out alone.

In a nutshell, this is about a group of editors involved with articles regarding the Transcedental Meditation movement (TM). Many of these editors and IP ranges are from Fairfield, Iowa and Maharishi Vedic City, Iowa, which is home to the Maharishi University of Management, who runs the TM movement. As said in the SPI case and as with the Scientology case, many of the editors seem to be single-purpose (see proposal 10.1 in the ARBSCI case) and likely meatpuppetry (see proposals 11 through 14 in the same ARBSCI case) with the possibility of some sock puppetry going on.

I have listed all users and IPs (including ranges) involved in the SPI case as well as all those who participated in the SPI case, including those CheckUsers involved in running the various checks. – MuZemike 19:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

The Transcendental Meditation movement is often considered a new religious movement, has been called a cult, and has been accused of promoting fringe theories and pseudoscience, including dubious medical treatments. It is an international movement with real estate valued at over $3.5 billion.

The TM editors have engaged in POV pushing, [1] [2] [3] [4] tag team editing, [5] tendentious editing, and have bitten newcomers [6] [7] and driven away even established editors. Their COI issues have been raised repeatedly, but they have rebuffed previous complaints.

While many accounts have been found to be using the same IP range, nine accounts have been significantly involved in TM articles recently. (Note: there have also been other accounts tied to the movement that edited the articles heavily in the past but are now inactive: Nima Baghaei, Lumiere/-Lumière/Étincelle, Peterklutz/85.30.186.206, Maharishi International Publications Department/212.178.127.50, Sparaig)

• Bigweeboy
• ChemistryProf
• Haworth777
• Hickorybark
• Keithbob
• Littleolive oil
• Luke Warmwater101
• Roseapple
• TimidGuy (sometimes editing logged-out as 76.76)

These nine accounts have dominated the TM-related articles. Their POVs are indistinguishable from one another.

In addition to being the lead editors on topics directly related to TM, some of these editors have also been strongly involved in promoting the movement's POV on tangentially related articles such as What the Bleep Do We Know!? and Flipped SU(5).

A leaked document posted on an "anti-TM" blog describes a plan to coordinate responses by TM insiders to blog threads that concern TM. [8] It refers to the existence of "team captains" who can coordinate a team response, including handing off issues from one person to another in cases of disputes. It seems likely that, at a minimum, the same coordination is occurring regarding Wikipedia editing.

Background: In 1971 the newly formed Maharishi International University (now called Maharishi University of Management or MUM) bought the campus of a defunct college in Fairfield, Iowa. Since then that small town has become a "magnet" for TM practitioners and the adjoining settlement of Maharishi Vedic City, Iowa is the literal capital of the movement's Global Country of World Peace. Members of the movement are well-known for frequently repeating that "over 600 studies" have proven the benefits of TM and other products and techniques taught or sold by the movement. [9] Most of those studies have been conducted by the faculty of MUM. While the MUM does not actually run the movement, the movement in the U.S. is run from Fairfield/MVC by people such as Bevan Morris and John Hagelin who work at MUM.

@Timidguy and others: Logged out edits show that some editors have used IPs registered directly to the Maharishi University of Management (MUM). Using the MUM network, and perhaps using MUM computers, while asserting that one has no conflict of interest regarding MUM strains credulity. Is it possible to be a member of the 57-person faculty of MUM and be neutral about it, its research, or its cause? That has yet to be proven. It's worth noting that LISCO, the ISP which supplies MUM and WP editors with their Internet access, is also owned by a TM practitioner. [10]   Will Beback  talk  09:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply

@Atama: There is a significant difference between rank-and-file adherents to a movement and hard-core members. There probably aren't any people in Fairfield who "just happen" to be TM practitioners. People have moved there to be with other serious practitioners, and many of them engage in the most involved and important rituals, including Yogic Flying. The faculty of MUM are among the most central and committed members of the movement. That's nothing like a single person practicing meditation in their den.   Will Beback  talk  09:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply

@Dreadstar: I believe that Dreadstar may qualify as an involved admin in this topic due to his edits and involvements with engaged editors. If so, some of his actions may not have been properly independent.   Will Beback  talk  09:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply

@Ruinia: I hadn't expected to see any comments from the other accounts also included, yet this comment seems especially worthy of note. Here is a relatively committed member of the movement, right in Fairfield, who is concerned about the integrity of the WP articles due to the activity of the MUM group. I agree that the MUM/TM editors are here acting in good faith with the best of intentions rather than with malicious intent. But having good intentions is not the most important criterion in encyclopedia writing.   Will Beback  talk  09:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC}

I agree with the above. This has been an ongoing issue of a COI / POV editing by a small group of persistent editors. This needs to be settled. I first edited this topic area Jan 19 2010 after coming across a discussion at WP:MED [11]. My first edits were adding a 2007 review article which was somehow missed in favor of primary research from the 1970s. [12]. The main issues since then has been multiple attempts to obscure and / or misrepresent the conclusions of this review by editors from TM movement.

Attempts include

Most of the results of the review were removed from the lead here and the remaining bits were reworded to make it less understandable by Olive [13] Again Olive tries to change the meaning of the text to make it sound like this review is limited rather than the evidence it is based upon being limited. [14] and again [15] An attempt to reword it so that the review does not appear to related to TM [16] Here TimidGuy attempts to obscure the conclusions of the review [17] And again [18] and again [19] Here he claims a different review is an update of the 2007 review which it is not [20] Here Chemistry Prof attempts to weaken the conclusion [21] And again [22] And again [23]

I subsequently added a Cochrane collaboration which was not in our article. Here TimidGuy adds text not in the summary of this review in what appears to be an attempt to weaken the conclusion [24] And again [25] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I was asked privately to look at several accounts involved in this back in early January. I don't actually remember much about what I found (transferring to a new university does not have a beneficial effect on one's memory), but based on what I wrote, I had decided that it was too complicated for me to deal with. I can forward my half of the conversation to arbcom-l if desired. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 20:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I concur that this is a matter that will take ArbCom to deal with. The Scientology ArbCom decision is directly on point and controlling precedent for this situation. Prior attempts at informal dispute resolution have been numerous and utterly fruitless. Direct instructions from Admins to COI Editors that they not edit the TM-related articles at multiple WP:COINdiscussions are openly and defiantly ignored. Sockpuppetry/meatpuppery is rampant, as noted above. More to come, I expect. Fladrif ( talk) 20:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

The sources and links already provided by others provide ample support for accepting the Arbitration request, so I'll not expand on those. The Fairfield sockdrawer editors can speak for themselves as to whether they think that the request should be accepted, but I note that one of them recently expressed a strikingly enthusiastic desire that this go to Arbitration. [26] Fladrif ( talk) 22:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

One other thought: the SPI concentrated on the Fairfield sockdrawer, but if this RFA is accepted (which based on a 8-0-0-1 vote so far would appear to be a foregone conclusion), it should also address editors posting from other TM-Org assigned websites in other locations, such as 212.178.127.50 and 51, [27], [28] which resolve to STICHTING MAHARISHI FOUNDATION INTERNATIONAL [29]. Not sure how one goes about tracking all those down. Fladrif ( talk) 21:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply

This does seem to me as exactly analogous to the Scientology cases. I've not analyzed any behavioral evidence, but the technical evidence I have seen warrants ArbCom's attention. I recommend accepting the case. -- jpgordon ^{::==( o )} 20:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• I am an independent editor. I am not a sock puppet or a meat puppet. I am in fact a neutral editor who abides by WP:COI. I urge the Committee to accept this case so that I may have the opportunity to present evidence to demonstrate this.
• There are two Users who edit almost exclusively on the TM article(s). One (Kala Bethere) has been cited in two diffs submitted by Will Beback in his statement above. [30] [31] Curiously, both these users, Kala Bethere and Tuckerj1976, are absent from the Involved Parties list and so I have added them to that list and notified them of this proposed Arbitration case.-- — Kbob • Talk • 02:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I agree that this case should be accepted by ArbCom, primarily to settle the endless stream of COI accusations once and for all. Other issues also need to be investigated and addressed; including the behavior of editors involved in the TM articles who are constantly engaged in incivility, personal attacks, and tendentious and disruptive behavior; as well as addressing what appear to be other sockpuppets and SPA accounts, all editing from what seem to be an "anti-TM" pov. Any evaluation of claims that certain editors appear to be “promoting” TM should also take into account the continual addition of negative content by "anti-TM" editors, which may make it superficially appear that the others are “promoting” instead of abiding by NPOV. I'm also concerned that we are apparently indicting as "TM promoters," the entire city of Fairfield, Iowa and all the IP address ranges of the local ISP. It seems a bit too broad of a scope to me.

I would also like ArbCom to look further into the issue of what has been termed "pseudo-outing"; where an editor had previously posted personal information, but later redacted it, only to have it repeated by other editors on multiple article, user and noticeboard talk pages. ArbCom partially addressed this in Wikipedia:ARBMAC2#Outing, but in light of potential safety and peace-of-mind concerns from real-life, off-wiki harassment due to the revealed personal information, I hope ArbCom can tighten the restrictions on repeating redacted personal information. If there is a need to use the redacted personal information, then that use should be restricted – to emails to Arbitrators or possibly administrators working on an issue that requires it, but it should never, ever be re-posted on Wikipedia. And we certainly shouldn’t be gauging how to handle those who repeat redacted personal information by the very narrow scope of WP:COI. Dreadstar ☥ 03:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I would ask that this case be accepted for Arbitration. Consistent and constant mischaracterization, incivility, harassment, clear agenda, as well as systemic bias have become the editing norm on some of these articles. These systemic biases, perceptions that are underlying and I hope are unconscious, skew and set the scale for what is neutral. Such a standard, set over time because of the consistent and repeated accusations, and the inability of editors to rebut or refute the numerous accusations on numerous articles, becomes a created and eventually accepted truth. This is a dangerous standard and modus operandi for any collaborative project. The environment on many articles has increasingly deteriorated and become almost untenable, and at this point it would seem only clear directions from arbitration could remedy the situation.

I am not a sock or meat puppet. I am, as I have stated numerous times, a neutral editor and stand by my editing record.

I would suggest that the similar IPs are a result of internet providers that supply bandwidth not only to SE Iowa, but also to the university, and uses dynamically assigned IPs.

I would assume that this case will be dealt with on its own merits and not as has been suggested on several ocassions by the some editors here, to its perceived parallels to Scientology, an unfair position that creates and establishes bias.( olive ( talk) 06:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)) reply

• I have family responsibilities that have taken me out of town, but will reply to the opinions and accusations made above as soon as I return, probably Sunday.( olive ( talk) 23:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)) reply
• I have added a third editor/admin who has been prominent in some of these articles and who is noticeably absent. The editor has been notified.( olive ( talk) 05:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)) reply

I am not a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. I am a neutral, independent editor who endeavors to followed Wiki guidelines and to be civil to other editors, while focusing on the content of the articles. -- BwB ( talk) 12:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I welcome arbitration. My understanding is that the focus of the process is to determine if the listed editors above edit the TM related articles with a COI, and will not be focused on whether or not the TM technique is a religion, or TM-Sidhi related research is pseudoscience, or if the TM Movement is a cult, or if the Maharishi is a saint or scoundrel. Since I have no control over the Wiki activities of other editors, I request that my individual edits be judged on their own merits. -- BwB ( talk) 12:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply

My Internet service provider (Lisco) uses DHCP, such that I am assigned various IPs. I noticed last August that it seems to assign a different IP number every day, which I don't think is typical for DHCP, though I don't know much about this. I asked technical support about it, knowing it could cause a problem in Wikipedia down the road. They confirmed that it was happening, said that it was unusual, and said they didn't know why it so frequently assigned a different IP. Since Fairfield is a small town, it's quite likely that an IP assigned to me today would at some point be assigned to another Lisco customer editing here. I've never edited TM-related articles from another account and no one other than me has ever edited using the TimidGuy account. Quite a few of the accounts listed above have never done any TM-related editing. Since these accounts aren't implicated in any way, I think it's unfair to these editors to make public the city in which they live. By the way, Lisco's DHCP server seems to only assign a different IP after a period of hours of inactivity. You won't, therefore, find instances of an IP editing from one account shortly thereafter editing from another account, as a sock puppet would do. The meat puppet question is a separate issue, and it will be good for Arbcom to look at the evidence.

I welcome arbitration. Will has raised many points I'd like to contest, but I'll mention just one: the science. It's true that many studies have been done by MUM researchers, but it's also true that there are many by unaffiliated researchers. One such study, for example, was a 2006 randomized controlled trial involving over 100 subjects that was published in Archives of Internal Medicine, a journal published by the American Medical Association. The study was conducted at Cedar Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. The first four authors of the study have no affiliation with TM. Authors 5-7 do, but their role was limited to making comments on a draft of the study. This study was deleted from the TM article. [32] because per WP:MEDRS it's considered a primary source. MEDRS says that secondary sources should be used, such as research reviews, meta-analyses, and medical textbooks. I can understand the deletion of the primary source, but I don't understand the deletion in subsequent days of these secondary sources. [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] And even as they were deleting these secondary sources, editors opposed to TM were adding science material sourced to a blog [38] to a newspaper (in violation of MEDRS) [39], and to a website by magician James Randi in which he refers to it as crackpot science. [40] The latter was added to the lead. TimidGuy( talk) 12:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm one of the newer editors here. Early on it was obvious there were COI / POV issues. The group of editors from MUM / Vedic City / Fairfield, IA were all not only heavily pushing a TM Org POV, but they were posting large amounts of TM Org-based or TM Org sponsored meditation research, mostly Primary sources. Thus a large part of fixing up these entries was compiling lists of the questionable sources and removing these non-compliant sources, dozens of them.

Any edits seemed short-lived however, as the POV editors would slowly change them back to what they wanted. Until this situation is rectified, it will be virutally impossible to attain NPOV on these various entries.-- Kala Bethere ( talk) 13:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I see no other solution that going through with arbitration, I am really itching to say a few things about what has been going on, but I will wait for the case to begin. -- Luke Warmwater101 ( talk) 13:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply

To be honest, I would normally not get involved in this sort of thing but an invite has been sent to me and I am deeply concerned about what has/is happening with this article. I will not repeat what has already been said above by Willbeback, etc but simply support it. However, it is obvious from the recent investigation that many editors on this page appear to be part of/work for an orgainisation that has been named both a "cult" and religion. It is an a multi-billion dollar organization with a clearly defined psychological, social, economic and political goals (it funds its own political party) while manufacturing its own currency and founding its own universities, schools, TV broadcasting company, publishing company, etc. Till recently the articles were little more then an extended advertising pieces making the most amazing pseudo-scientific claims appear valid (such as practicing the techniques this organization sells will allow a person to fly, walk through walls, become immortal, cure all manner of illnesses,live longer and be able to to stop all crime simply with the power of their mind!!).

If WIKI is to be considered a real source of reliable information then this sort of manipulation simply must stop. Tuckerj1976 ( talk) 16:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply

PS. I am unsure if it is the correct etiquette (and if not please delete this) but in response to Timidguys's comments regarding research material being removed or only, what he considers "negative", research material being added, there are two reasons for this:

1 Much, if not nearly all of the "positive" (should that term even be used in scientific research?)is funded by the TM movement, conducted by TM movement researchers or considered of low research quality by independent researchers. The general scientific or medical community does not share it's viewpoints. (For an example much of it has/is conducted by David Orme-Johnson whose latest paper supports a theory that "proves" that users of TM can stop wars with the power of their minds (or something similar) [ [41]

2 Many editors claim research is "positive" about TM even when it clearly is not.

I believe further reasons why this needs to be reviewed here. I would be happy to be "banned" from editing this article if the review here meant that the "pro" TM POV was removed and the balance that should exist in a wiki article was in place Tuckerj1976 ( talk) 20:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Addition. I notice above Will Beback has said: The TM editors have engaged in POV pushing, [87] [88] [89] [90] tag team editing, [91] tendentious editing, and have bitten newcomers [92] [93] and driven away even established editors.

I think that this may still be continuing as can be seen on my talkpages with these perhaps odd comments here [ [42]] and here [ [43]] Tuckerj1976 ( talk) 22:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I don't really have anything particularly useful to say, but I got an arbitration notice so I feel I ought to say something. I practice TM/Sidhis, live in Fairfield, and attended MSAE and MUM. I've felt uncomfortable for a while about the way pro-TM people seem to treat Wikipedia, and I'm glad this is happening. From what I know of people in Fairfield, a stern talking-to to make clear the nature of Wikipedia's policies and to make clear that this is Serious Business is likely to be better in the long run than the banhammer; most likely the offending editors are clueless rather than malicious, but are also likely to take offense easily if banned. I'm not familiar with the history of this dispute and what has already been tried, but I would have started with restricting the users from editing particular pages, and maybe semi-protecting the pages in question.

I hope this works out. If there is to be unbiased information on the TM movement anywhere, it's likely to be Wikipedia. Ruinia ( talk) 18:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I feel an open-minded arbitration process could be helpful in this situation. It is obvious that two sides have formed on several articles having to do with this meditation technique. As an occasional editor on WP, I have been struck by something that must be obvious to most editors on topics that generate controversy. When a disagreement arises between any two editors, there is often a tendency for their different positions to be taken up by others so that pretty soon polarized “sides” of editors have formed. There could be a number of reasons for this to happen, but the most obvious is that one or both these sides feel they have access to information or to a point of view that the other does not, and each side feels its POV to be the correct one. In most cases, it seems that one side represents individuals whose main field of study is close to the topic of the article and would tend to qualify them as “experts” in the field. In such cases, it is hardly surprising that those editors will tend to fall into one group and those who have had less experience in the field will tend to fall into the other group. It is understandable also that each group would tend to see in the other’s edits a concerted effort to express a particular POV, and each of these more or less opposite perceptions may be correct, based on each editor’s individual experiences. This kind of situation must come up often on WP, and there must be some process that can help to break these deadlocks. I support this request for arbitration and hope arbitration will be that deadlock-breaking process. ChemistryProf ( talk) 04:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I have no wish to be involved in a drawn-out arbitration process on this, "open-minded" or not.

As I see it, we have caught MUM astroturfing the TM articles, now the admins should do something about it. No arbitration necessary. . Just apply some good judgement and refer to how the Scientology thing was addressed. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. -- dab (?) 10:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

It has been a long time (eighteen months or longer) since I was involved in editing the TM pages, but I recall repeated statements from assorted editors associated with Maharishi et al. admitting to serious conflicts-of-interest and a collective agenda in editing. My ceasing to edit those pages was in large part due to this POV-pushing making improvement of the article impossible. In particular, User:Littleolive_oil and User:TimidGuy come to mind, but there were others.

I accept that each of the MUM editors may be acting on their own initiative, but given that the POV-pushing that was happening then is happening now, this is indistinguishable from puppetry in its effect on the articles.

I concur with dab that the ArbCom deliberations on this should be brief. Cite the Scientology case and get it over with.

I thank Will Beback for telling me about this case, and for doing the forensics. I do not intend to contribute further to the case, but will answer emails if necessary. Michaelbusch ( talk) 01:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (9/0/0/1)

• Awaiting further comments, but a read over the SPI page puts me in a rather accepting state of mind. Steve Smith ( talk) 19:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Accept. Steve Smith ( talk) 13:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment - awaiting some additional statements, but leaning to accept. Risker ( talk) 20:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Accept. Risker ( talk) 15:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Accept and the parties would be advised to look at the Scientology case for the type of findings and remedies I would expect to see out of this case. SirFozzie ( talk) 21:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Still waiting to hear from "the other side" but leaning towards accept.   Roger Davies ^talk 21:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• Accept — Rlevse • Talk • 11:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• Accept, as others have mentioned, appears similar to the Scientology issues at face value. Shell ^babelfish 04:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• Accept. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 04:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• Accept Fritzpoll ( talk) 12:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• Accept KnightLago ( talk) 18:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• Accept —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision Information

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the encyclopedia to advance personal agendas – such as advocacy or propaganda and philosophical, ideological or religious dispute – or to publish or promote original research is prohibited.

Passed 10 to 0 at 18:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Neutral point of view and verifiability

2) Wikipedia articles are to be written from a neutral point of view and without bias, and must not contain advocacy for any organisation, cause, or belief. To comply with the verifiability policy, assertions of fact, particularly controversial ones, should be supported by an inline citation to a reliable source. In appropriate instances, clean-up tags may be placed on an article to draw attention to content without citations within the article text. If a citation is not forthcoming within a reasonable time, any editor may remove tagged content. In the case of biographies of living people, such content may be removed immediately.

Passed 10 to 0 at 18:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality and conflicts of interest

3) Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular view is prohibited. Editors who have or may be perceived as having a conflict of interest should review and comply with the applicable policies. These does not prohibit editors from working on articles about entities to which they have only an indirect relationship, but urges editors to be mindful of editing pitfalls that may result from such a relationship. For example, an editor who is a member of a particular organisation or holds a particular set of religious or other beliefs is not prohibited from editing articles about that organisation or those beliefs but should take care that his or her editing on that topic adheres to the neutrality policy and other key policies.

Passed 10 to 0 at 18:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality, verifiability and appropriate weight

4) The neutrality policy requires that articles (i) accurately reflect all significant claims or viewpoints published in reliable sources and (ii) give prominence to each only in proportion to the weight of the source. The verifiability policy requires the use of the best and most reputable sources available, with the claim or viewpoint's prevalence in these sources determining the proper weight to be placed upon it. Apparently significant claims or viewpoints which have not received proportionally significant attention in the topic's literature should be treated with caution and reported only to the extent that they are supported by reliable sources. In deciding the appropriate weight to place upon a claim or viewpoint, it is its prevalence within reliable published sources that is important, not the prominence given to it by Wikipedians or the general public.

Passed 10 to 0 at 18:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality and sources

5) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarised sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. Relying on synthesised claims, or other "original research", is therefore contrary to the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is a guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional.

Passed 10 to 0 at 18:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy of sourcing

7) The contents of source materials must be presented accurately and fairly. By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor represents that the quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes the contents and meaning of the original source, and that it is not being misleadingly or unfairly excerpted out of context.

Passed 8 to 0 at 18:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Decorum and assumptions of good faith

9) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.

Passed 10 to 0 at 18:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Peremptory reversion or removal of sourced material

10) Peremptory reversion or removal of material referenced to reliable sources and added in good faith by others, is considered disruptive when done to excess. This is particularly true of controversial topics where it may be perceived as confrontational.

Passed 7 to 0 at 18:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus building

11) Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process and to carefully consider other editors' views, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth to competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving content disputes.

Passed 10 to 0 at 18:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Feuds and quarrels

12) Editors who consistently find themselves in disputes with each other whenever they interact on Wikipedia, and who are unable to resolve their differences, should seek to minimize the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them. In extreme cases, they may be directed to do so.

Passed 10 to 0 at 18:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Single purpose accounts

13) Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is incompatible with the goals of this project.

Passed 10 to 0 at 18:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Avoiding apparent impropriety

14) All editors, and especially administrators, should strive to avoid conduct that might appear at first sight to violate policy. Examples include an administrator repeatedly making administrator actions that might reasonably be construed as reinforcing the administrator's position in a content dispute, even where the administrator actually has no such intention; or an editor repeatedly editing in apparent coordination with other editors in circumstances which might give rise to reasonable but inaccurate suspicions of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry.

Passed 10 to 0 at 18:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Recidivism

15) Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions.

Passed 10 to 0 at 18:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Off-wiki communication

16) While discussion of Wikipedia outside of Wikipedia itself is unavoidable and generally appropriate, using external communication for coordination of activities that, on-wiki, would be inappropriate is improper.

Passed 8 to 0 at 18:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Off-wiki conduct

17) A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions, except in extraordinary circumstances such as those involving grave acts of overt and persistent harassment or threats or other serious misconduct. The factors to be evaluated in deciding whether off-wiki conduct may be sanctioned on-wiki include whether the off-wiki conduct was intended to, and did, have a direct and foreseeable damaging effect on the encyclopedia or on members of the community.

Passed 8 to 0 at 18:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Locus of dispute

1) This dispute broadly concerns the articles within the Transcendental Meditation movement category and its sub-categories. In particular, the focus has been on the following articles: Deepak Chopra, John Hagelin, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic University, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Maharishi School of the Age of Enlightenment, Maharishi Sthapatya Veda, Maharishi University of Management, Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health, Maharishi Vedic City, Iowa, Maharishi Vidya Mandir Schools, TM-Sidhi program and Transcendental Meditation.

Passed 10 to 0 at 18:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Background

2.1) The articles on Transcendental Meditation related topics have been the subject of persistent disputes, often stemming from conflicting viewpoints about transcendental meditation itself. One side broadly comprises admirers and adherents of Transcendental Meditation; the other side consists of editors who eschew Transcendental Meditation and/or are sceptical about its claimed benefits. The principal common characteristic is a tendency to assume bad faith of the other side and to cast doubt on the integrity of others' motives, which has in turn given rise to wide-ranging related complaints. Although the misconduct so far has rarely risen to the level of warranting Arbitration Committee sanction, as time has gone on the atmosphere on these articles has become increasingly soured and, without intervention, is likely to continue to interfere with high-quality editing of these articles.

Passed 10 to 0 at 18:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Fladrif

3) Fladrif ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly engaged in unseemly behaviour – including personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith – even after being counselled against this by other editors and even during this arbitration case ( [44], [ [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], and [62] (with [ many more examples here]).

Passed 10 to 0 at 18:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, and collusion

4) The evidence presented has been carefully examined; investigating arbitrators have been unable to independently detect or confirm – other than in one isolated instance – sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry or collusion within the topic.

Passed 9 to 0 at 18:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Tuckerj1976

5) Tuckerj1976 ( talk · contribs) has, during the currency of this case, been detected and indefinitely banned as a sockpuppet of The7thdr ( talk · contribs).

Passed 9 to 0 at 18:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

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.

All parties instructed

1) All editors who are party to this case are instructed to read the principles outlined above, to review their own past conduct in the light of them, and if necessary to modify their future conduct to ensure full compliance with them.

Passed 8 to 0 at 18:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Editors reminded

2) Editors are reminded that when editing in controversial subject areas it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the dispute, writing from a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilising reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary.

In addition, editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and to adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counselled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area, and to find other related but less controversial topics in which to edit.

Passed 8 to 0 at 18:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

3) Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Transcendental meditation or other articles concerning Transcendental meditation and related biographies of living people, broadly defined, if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles. The sanctions imposed may include bans for a period of time or indefinitely from editing any page or set of pages relating to Transcendental meditation; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; blocks of up to one year in length; or any other measures that the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the proper collegial editing of these articles and the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning advising of the problems with his or her editing and containing a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This requirement of a prior warning shall not apply if an editor who was a named party to this case engages in gross misconduct.

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and the misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in the area of dispute are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviours that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. Any editor who is unable or unwilling to comply may wish to limit his or her editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator shall be considered "uninvolved" only if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes as an editor in articles within the topic. Hitherto uninvolved administrators enforcing the provisions of this decision shall not be considered to have become involved by their participation in enforcement. Any disputes about administrator involvement are to be referred to the Arbitration Committee.

All bans and restrictions shall be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement#Log of topic bans and blocks.

Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed initially to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to the Administrators' noticeboard, or to Arbitration Enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. Administrators may not reverse discretionary sanctions without either (i) the agreement of the imposing administrator or (ii) community consensus or Arbitration Committee approval to do so.

Passed 9 to 0 at 18:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Superseded by an alternate sanction, 14:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Guidance for uninvolved administrators

4) Uninvolved administrators are invited to monitor the articles in the area of conflict to enforce compliance by editors with, in particular, the principles outlined in this case. Enforcing administrators are instructed to focus on fresh and clear-cut matters arising after the closure of this case rather than on revisiting historical allegations.

Passed 7 to 0 at 18:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Periodic review by ArbCom

5) From time to time, the conduct of editors within the topic may be re-appraised by any member of the Arbitration Committee and, by motion of the Arbitration Committee, further remedies may be summarily applied to specific editors who have failed to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner.

Passed 5 to 0 at 18:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Fladrif strongly admonished and restricted

6) Fladrif ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is:

(i) strongly admonished for incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith; and

(ii) subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After three blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement#Log of topic bans and blocks.

Passed 9 to 0 at 18:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Standard discretionary sanctions

Passed 14 to 0 by motion, 14:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Amended by motion 7 to 1 by Motion, 05:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Rescinded by motion at 21:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Enforcement by block

1) Should any user subject to a restriction or topic ban in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement#Log of topic bans and blocks. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to the Administrators' noticeboard, or to Arbitration Enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee.

Passed 8 to 0 at 18:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Amendment (October 2014)

Amended to change "articles" to "pages"

Passed 7 to 1 by Motion, 05:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes (Transcendental Meditation movement) (February 2022)

Remedy 7 of the Transcendental Meditation movement case ("Standard discretionary sanctions") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.

Passed 12 to 0 by motion at 21:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged in this section. Please specify the administrator, date and time, nature of sanction, and basis or context. Unless otherwise specified, the standardised enforcement provision applies to this case. All sanctions issued pursuant to a discretionary sanctions remedy must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log.

• Per [63]: TimidGuy ( talk · contribs) topic-banned from TM edits for two months, for obstructing consensus through persistent stonewalling and unconstructive debating on Talk:Transcendental Meditation. Additionally, TimidGuy ( talk · contribs), Littleolive oil ( talk · contribs) and Edith Sirius Lee ( talk · contribs) placed on collective 1RR/24hrs revert restriction on all TM-related edits (i.e., these editors together may not revert edits by users outside their group more than once per 24hrs; reverts internal to this group are not affected by this.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • provisionally lifted (with respect to TG and LOo) to see how it works out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• David spector ( talk · contribs) notified of discretionary sanctions. Stifle ( talk) 08:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Edith Sirius Lee 2 ( talk · contribs) (former Edith Sirius Lee ( talk · contribs)) placed on 6-month topic ban, per consensus at WP:AE ( [64]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• Littleolive oil ( talk · contribs) topic banned for 3 months, tendentious editing NW ( Talk) 21:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC) reply

• An appeal to WP:AE against this sanction was unsuccessful.  Sandstein  23:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• As a result of an AE request [65]:

• Littleolive oil ( talk · contribs) is topic banned from the area of transcendental meditation, broadly construed, for six months. This restriction will expire at 00:00 UTC on 11 March 2014.
• IRWolfie- ( talk · contribs) is banned indefinitely from speculating or commenting in any way upon the real-life identity of any editor in connection with transcendental meditation, broadly construed, except that IRWolfie may contact the Arbitration Committee privately with concerns about such. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply

• Scope of Littleolive oil's topic ban clarified per this AE request. Gatoclass ( talk) 06:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC) reply