Main case page ( Talk) — Evidence ( Talk) — Workshop ( Talk) — Proposed decision ( Talk) Case clerks: Dougweller ( Talk) & AlexandrDmitri ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Roger Davies ( Talk) & Cool Hand Luke ( Talk)

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

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Cicorp

1) Add User:Cicorp as a party to this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Interestingly, I reviewed the edits of Cicorp and the two IPs who made similar edits, and noticed something that perhaps isn't as obvious to those of you actively editing the page: all of you responded in much the same way. You all identified certain edits as problematic, explained things to the editor(s) in more or less the same terms, and it was obvious that the consensus was not split into anything that could be characterised as pro- and anti-TM factions. In other words, the normal editing system worked, and indeed worked better than anyone might imagine if they went only by what has been discussed in this case. Incidentally, I do not think the edits were as disruptive as they have been characterised: the Sagan reference, which didn't include the name of the reference source before this episode, is now complete (an improvement, by any measure). I do wonder about the photo that the editor(s) was trying to remove, because I have seen photos of similar structures associated with a different faith/movement; that photo is pretty obviously someone's holiday snapshot, and people can be inaccurate in describing such images, and the original Flickr tag by the photographer does not include some of the information that is present on the Wikipedia tag. It might be worthwhile to try to find similar photos in TM-related reference sources, even if they don't qualify for non-free use inclusion in Wikipedia, and noting any such findings on the talk page of the article (e.g., found a similar photo on page xx of the book "YYY"). It does appear that (almost) all of the editors who have regularly worked on the article do believe that the tag on the image is accurate, so I would assume somebody would be able to find another confirmatory source. Risker ( talk) 11:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply

WBB-when I protected TM you complained that it was unneeded, that I should just blocked the user(s), now you're using the protection to try to prove your point about how bad the disruption was. So was the protection needed or not needed? — Rlevse • Talk • 00:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Will Beback, removing "sourced" material is not automatically disruptive, and that meme needs to stop now. I have deleted sourced material from just about every article I have edited: in some cases, because it was unimportant, sometimes because it was coatracking, sometimes because it was repetitive, occasionally because of undue weight, and sometimes because the sources weren't all they were cracked up to be. This is called editing, not disruption; many articles benefit significantly from being pruned on a regular basis, including removal of sourced material. This is an encyclopedia, and it cannot and should not contain all material about a subject. Sometimes specific removals can be disruptive, but it is because the removals have a negative effect on the article, not simply because the material was sourced. Risker ( talk) 01:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Cicorp ( talk · contribs) (possibly also editing logged-out as 71.191.8.27 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 67.55.221.3 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)) has recently edited articles in the TM topic disruptively, removing sourced material, and edit warring.   Will Beback  talk  04:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Is it not a bit late to add another editor to the case? I am not against it, but di not the events leading to this Arb case occur long before Cicorp arrived on the scene? -- BwB ( talk) 09:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply

A) The case is still open. It may be easier to deal with this now than to open a fresh case later. B) Some ArbCom members seem to prefer to focus on recent events rather than on 4-month-old edits. C) How do you propose to deal with the disruption by this editor? Just let it slide?   Will Beback  talk  09:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply

@Risker- Assuming that the same editor was using the named account and the two IPs, he was engaged in enough disruptive edit warring that Rlevse had to semiprotect an article. Yet we're not even going to admonish him? If we're going to discuss the merits of his edits then we ought to do so in a better format. Even if he was right about something, edit warring is a disruptive way of making a correction. The view that disruption is OK if it results in a better article is contrary to the core policies of Wikipedia. I'm surprised to read an ArbCom member advancing that theory. Comparing Cicorp to Fladrif, Fladrif has also been disruptive, but his points have often resulted in improvements to the topic. Like Cicorp, a variety of editors have condemned his behavior. So why are they being treated differently?   Will Beback  talk  21:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply

@Rlevse- Risker's comment appears to say that there hadn't been any significant disruption from that editor. I disagree. Edit warring and deleting sourced material is disruptive. I don't recall ever saying that there wasn't disruption - rather, my point was that the disruption could have been handled by blocking the disruptive editor instead of protecting the page. [1]   Will Beback  talk  00:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply

@Risker- Is it the view of the ArbCom members here that Cicorp has not been disruptive or not? If not, why was the article page protected? As for deleting sourced material, there are good and bad reasons for doing so. In this case, he removed some of the material because it did not match his personal experience. Basically, "I know this is wrong and so I'm deleting it, source be damned." And then he edit warred over it. Is that not disruptive? Again, I'd like to suggest that this issue would be dealt with best by compiling and reviewing evidence.   Will Beback  talk  02:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision Information

Proposed principles

Responsibility of organizations

1) Editors who access Wikipedia through an organization's IP address and who edit Wikipedia articles which relate to that organization have a presumptive conflict of interest. Regardless of these editors' specific relationship to that organization or function within it, the organization itself bears a responsibility for appropriate use of its servers and equipment. If an organization fails to manage that responsibility, Wikipedia may address persistent violations of fundamental site policies through blocks or bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not particularly applicable in this case. While some edits were made with respect to TM through the MUM IPs, many more edits were made to other completely unrelated subjects. This is not immediately obvious to viewers who are unaware of other username-based accounts who have edited through these IPs. Risker ( talk) 03:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Sound principle, though I'm undecided as to its applicability to this case. Steve Smith ( talk) 06:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Wikipedia by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Wikipedia through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif ( talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support Tuckerj1976 ( talk) 18:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support. This has been recognized in previous cases, and is common sense.   Will Beback  talk  00:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support It's seems like common sense to me.-- Kala Bethere ( talk) 20:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support-- — Kbob • Talk • 12:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose in current form. While I support the intent and principles of this proposal I feel it needs to be modified to reflect the unique circumstances of this case. The above proposal was crafted in response to the Scientology case which had its own particular set of circumstances such as volunteers editing at the Scientology offices (this is my understanding anyway). In this TM case there are some unique circumstances such as a small town with a dominant IP provider (Lisco) and a university campus IP system that is used by faculty, employees, students, guests and the public (on its library computers). I think there is an opportunity here for the Committee to consider this speficic situation and make specific decisions that will have bearing not only this case but on other small towns and other campuses. For example can a student at Harvard use the campus IP system to edit the Harvard article on WP? Such decisions will have ramifications that radiate far beyond the handful of editors who are involved in the case and deserve careful wording that reflects the specifics of this issue.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Reservations. The weight given to this principle must be determined with reference to the overriding importance of advancing Wikipedia’s purpose: to be a reliable source of information. Although I have not been an editor on the Transcendental Meditation article, it has serious problems—and these are not due to too much input from the TM editors. Hickorybark ( talk) 22:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Analogous cases: (i) Durova has already drawn attention to the anaolgy to Harvard. Should we restrict editors with Harvard IP’s from editing the Harvard article? “But Harvard is not a cult and it doesn’t psychologically damage its students.” Oh, really? (ii) Should we restrict CERN scientists from editing the CERN article? “But there are no pressing controversies regarding CERN.” (In fact controversies range from whether the billions of euros couldn’t have been better spent, to whether CERN might accidently produce a black hole which could destroy the solar system.) The anti-TM group of editors is pushing as aggressive an agenda as any cult, and you don't need a Check User report to see the evidence--the TM article has degenerated to where it reads like a lurid gossip column.

Conclusion. It has been repeatedly stated without argument that Scientology is the controlling precedent for this case. But the dis-analogies are obvious and crucial: the TM organization has a record of responsible conduct and mainstream legitimacy that sets it apart. It is not our mandate to override the judgments of scientific decision-makers, granting agencies, accreditation boards and the like. To be sure, the TM organization has hostile and determined detractors, and they are noteworthy. But they do not represent the mainstream, majority viewpoint and it is not Wikipedia's mandate to try to legitimize their point of view. Moreover, ArbCom is under no obligation to fulfill their wishes regarding the outcome of the current proceedings. [2] Hickorybark ( talk) 22:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Reservations If Wikipedia can't systematically determine what the IP of an organization is, how can this be a principle? Early on it was assumed that any Lisco IP was affiliated with MUM, but that's not the case. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose This principle is too encompassing. It does not take into consideration the unique situations that can arise on university campuses or in small towns. Some large universities may have multiple IPs while small universities may have IPs that are shared with the surrounding communities, as appears to be the case in Fairfield. ChemistryProf ( talk) 17:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Suggesting a few basic principles that will probably be relevant no matter how the case progresses. This one is an exact copy of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS/Proposed_decision#Responsibility_of_organizations and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Proposed_decision#Responsibility_of_organizations. Was originally proposed here in response to an argument that CU-confirmed edits from Church of Scientology Internet connections would not constitute conflict of interest if the editors were volunteers of the Church of Scientology rather than employees. Durova ⁴¹² 20:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC) reply

This seems reasonable to me as long as the organizations IP address is clearly identified and established. Has this been done? If so, what is it? I don't think that has been made clear yet. That would be an important step in developing and enforcing this proposed guideline.-- — Kbob • Talk • 07:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Agreed. Already shown as an appropriate statement from the Scientology case. Applicable and relevant here to this case. Cirt ( talk) 07:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Regarding Keithbob's question, this proposal is a principle rather than a finding of fact. The determination of fact is up to the people who have access to that information. Either way the principle is relevant as a statement of our standards and expectations. Durova ⁴¹² 19:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Good point, thanks for the clarification.-- — Kbob • Talk • 12:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support. I support the principle of COI here, assuming it can be shown that the pro-TM editors are definitely employed by a TM organization or school. However, I agree with Scientology being a precedent only with the following understandings: (1) Scientology is a religion; TM is not; (2) The Church of Scientology has been accused (with evidence) of many violent and/or evil acts against rebellious members; TM has never fostered or committed violent and/or evil acts (however, certain advanced TMM programs do make unreasonable medical claims). David Spector 03:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you. This principle is unrelated to whether an organization is a religion. It could apply to any organization. Durova ⁴¹² 04:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Re: Hickorybark, actually the analogy was to Princeton and Columbia two infinitely superior universities and the original linked proposal included this in the discussion Proposed. This seems flexible enough to cover decentralized corporations, universities, etc. without undue burden on editors who act in good faith. DurovaCharge! 08:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Of course we wouldn't sanction any university without cause, not even humble Harvard. But if COI editors from Harvard spent years promoting all things Harvard and deleting/watering down anything negative about the university, then if the associated policy violations were severe enough this same proposal would apply to them. Durova ⁴¹² 22:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the clarification, and the clause, "without undue burden on editors who act in good faith," is an important qualifier. Obviously, you aren't expecting university librarians to monitor the WP editing behavior of patrons accessing the internet through the university servers. WP's remedial action would be to block the university's IPs and require individual users from the university to apply to Wikipedia on a case-by-case basis. I appreciate that this is a pragmatic approach to a complex problem, but I think there might be a more straightforward approach which would be both more effective and less judgmental. Is there any precedent for simply locking the contentious pages and ArbCom's hand-picking a committee of the least adversarial and most knowledgeable editors to develop the pages? Hickorybark ( talk) 00:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Content disputes are outside the remit of Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee; it handles conduct issues. Wikipedia administrators routinely block educational institution IPs for vandalism, and when the conduct issues are serious enough those school blocks may be lengthy. When librarians and school administrators fail to resolve habitual problems Wikipedia may do so. Durova ⁴¹² 04:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you. Hickorybark ( talk) 20:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Does this mean that I have a presumed conflict of interest for articles related to Telenor? Taemyr ( talk) 03:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I don't think this is meant to cover ISPs. But if an editor was using the IPs registered to an ISP's HQ, and was making edits that advocated for the company, then that would be a problem.   Will Beback  talk  07:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Regarding Kbob: actually the particular wording was drafted by me in 2007 per the links and the quote provided above. The intention was not specific to the Scientology case at all; it is a statement of general principle applicable to any institution. It's a little surprising that confusion exists on that point; let's hope this dispels it. Durova ⁴¹² 04:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Does Wikipedia have a systematic way of determining the IP of an institution? Wouldn't such a principle be contingent on that? Does it depend on me or someone else getting a statement from the MUM IT department? I'm happy to do so. Would that suffice? How would I present it? And how could it be verified? TimidGuy ( talk) 12:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Principles aren't contingent upon practical factors. There have also been places where editors have argued that we shouldn't have a sockpuppet policy because checkuser can be evaded. Practical discussions take place at findings of fact and remedies. Durova ⁴¹² 16:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Editors who access Wikipedia through an organization's IP address and who edit Wikipedia articles which relate to that organization have a presumptive conflict of interest.

→ That depends. If I'm a student at a university, and I edit on an article related to my university but perhaps unrelated to what I do there, would that still be a COI? For example, I'm a math student at the University of Wisconsin–Madison (not anymore, obviously, but just for example), and I edit/improve the University of Wisconsin–Madison Arboretum article. I don't take any biology-related courses, and I don't belong to any organizations regarding the arboretum, yet I use the university's IP address(es). Would I still have a COI? – MuZemike 22:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Regardless of these editors' specific relationship to that organization or function within it, the organization itself bears a responsibility for appropriate use of its servers and equipment. If an organization fails to manage that responsibility, Wikipedia may address persistent violations of fundamental site policies through blocks or bans.

→ I agree, and that is consistent with the current policies and similar ArbCom cases that we've had. I will note, however, that ISPs/organizations do frequently go deaf with regards to requests of abuse on Wikipedia through their IP(s). Especially with organizations such as universities, it takes more work to find who is causing said abuse and remove/restrict their individual access as opposed to having Wikipedia do that for them and restrict everybody via a university-wide block/ban on their IP(s). This becomes problematic when those organizations complain to Wikipedia when their IP address(es) get blocked, which does happen. – MuZemike 22:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

The principle seems untenable and unfair to me. How can a university police the internet behavior of all its students, faculty, and staff? This sounds like a human rights violation. I'm speaking generally here, not about the specific applicability to this case. To establish any applicability to the present case, we must have more complete information. ChemistryProf ( talk) 17:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC) reply

MUM blocks access to web sites critical of the TM Org through the campus network [3] [4] so it's clear the MUM not only can but does police the internet behavior of its students, faculty and staff. Fladrif ( talk) 21:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I checked this as any one can. Fladrif's statement is untrue. MUM does not block anything. If this is pertinent a simple call to MUM admissions should clarify the issue.( olive ( talk) 17:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)) reply

Fladrif, Your two references are interesting and some of their information is relevant and should be added to the articles, if more reliable/authoritative references can be found. I do not agree with censorship by any non-religious university, such as MUM.

Durova, I do not agree that MUM has the responsibility of detecting or prosecuting sockpuppets or meatpuppets--I believe that MUM has no responsibility whatsoever toward WP unless its legal rights are being violated by someone on WP, which isn't happening here, in which case MUM only has the responsibility to contact WP and politely request intervention by WP. MUM need not do anything about their SP or MP, even in the unlikely case that they have paid editors to shape the article and be SP and MP! Everyone: If the pro-TM or anti-TM editors are SP or MP, and these editors respond that they are not, then it is up to us at WP, including ArbAdmins, to do research and then ask for or apply appropriate sanctions. If proof cannot be found, and there are only suspicions, then charges must be dropped until and unless proof can be found. WP is not a police state and no user or admin may attempt to place unproved blame on anyone. We are all in a community enterprise; let's use common sense to keep our use of WP policies and guidelines reasonable and to assume WP:GOODFAITH by all editors, even those who hold an opinion that is 'obviously wrong'. Never be suspicious of people (especially polite people) only for their opinions; it may indicate that you're not paying enough attention to your own opinions. David Spector 16:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Financial conflict of interest

2) Persons who receive financial compensation from an organization have a conflict of interest when they edit Wikipedia articles about that organization.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yeah, but who has in this case? Cool Hand Luke 20:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Sound principle; undecided as to applicability in this case. Steve Smith ( talk) 06:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Wikipedia by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Wikipedia through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif ( talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support. It isn't necessary for someone to be paid specifically for editing. If they are paid by the organization then they have interests tied to that organization's existence and prosperity.   Will Beback  talk  00:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support Tuckerj1976 ( talk) 00:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support-- — Kbob • Talk • 12:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Conditional Support. In the interest of Wikipedia's primary objective of producing high quality, fair, reliable and informed articles, an editor with an acknowledged conflict of interest may be permitted--even encouraged--to continue editing, if the value of this editor's in-house expertise outweighs COI considerations and the editor has demonstrated the maturity to edit in an objective, neutral manner. This determination would have to be made on a case-by-case basis. Hickorybark ( talk) 19:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support with reservation As a faculty member at MUM, I have a conflict of interest. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC) But in general, WP:COI seems skewed. Someone could have an ideological conflict of interest and be intent on pushing things toward his point of view, but not fall under WP:COI. TimidGuy ( talk) 11:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support – This is a stronger and more narrow criterion regarding conflict of interest than #1. The key word here is financial compensation. – MuZemike 22:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support with reservation The comments of Hickorybark and TimidGuy deserve weight. In peer reviewed scientific journals, authors are required to acknowledge their potential COIs. It is not assumed that researchers supported by a pharmaceutical company whose drugs they are researching have an automatic COI. The authors acknowledge the possible COI and readers draw their own conclusions based on the transparency of the research. Most readers of such an article would automatically be on guard for conscious or unconscious biases, but each reader would be responsible for deciding for or against the validity of the research. Such a policy might work on WP, but only if everyone were required to reveal their actual identity, occupation etc. ChemistryProf ( talk) 18:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Standard definition of financial conflict of interest. Supplements "Responsibility of organizations" proposal above for non-volunteer members of an organization. Covers paid employees and could extend to indirect compensation such as the staff of a contracted PR firm or paid freelancers; see here for a historic example where an individual rejected an offer of paid freelancing. The intention of this proposal is to mirror real world understanding of conflict of interest, thus minimizing the chances that misguided efforts would result in public embarrassment. In a nutshell: if an organization pays you and you edit Wikipedia articles about that organization, then you have a conflict of interest regardless of which computers or Internet connections you use. Durova ⁴¹² 20:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, agreed as stated above. Durova brings up some additional relevant details.-- — Kbob • Talk • 07:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Agreed. This is a very good supplement and complementary hand-in-hand with "Responsibility of organizations", above. Cirt ( talk) 07:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support. However, note that the validity of COI has nothing to do with Scientology. COI applies even if the TM case has differences from the Scientology case. David Spector 03:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply

All of the editors in the COFS and Scientology cases were volunteers so this distinction was not needed there. Durova ⁴¹² 04:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Personal beliefs

3) Personal adherence to a belief system does not in itself constitute a conflict of interest. Individual adherents of belief systems--large or small, old or new--are welcome to edit Wikipedia without fear of sanction when they abide by site policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Accurate and on-point. Steve Smith ( talk) 06:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Wikipedia by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Wikipedia through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif ( talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support. Mere beliefs do not create a conflict of interest. However advocacy is not allowed, whether by believers or dissenters.   Will Beback  talk  00:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support -- — Kbob • Talk • 07:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support This is a crucial point. When a new editor shows up in TM-related articles, editors who oppose TM typically go after that person, demanding personal information and making accusations of conflict of interest. TimidGuy ( talk) 11:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support Hickorybark ( talk) 19:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support – This precisely differentiates #2 (and what TimidGuy said in his support of #2) from this statement, and this needs to be made clear. – MuZemike 22:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support This is an important distinction that seems often to be ignored. ChemistryProf ( talk) 02:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. Durova ⁴¹² 20:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes. A very good distinction. Cirt ( talk) 07:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Agreed but not relevant to TM. See above [ [5]] (this seems unsigned; see WP:SIG)

Conflict of interest

4) Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline advises people to edit with caution in certain situations. In itself it is not a prohibition against editing, although Wikipedia's administrators and Arbitration Committee may weigh conflicts of interest if behavioral problems arise.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Absolutely right. Steve Smith ( talk) 06:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Wikipedia by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Wikipedia through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif ( talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support This is just a restatement of a long-standing guideline.   Will Beback  talk  00:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support-- — Kbob • Talk • 07:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support This is an important point and could be more clear in WP:COi. Other editors, including Will, constantly demand that i stop editing because I have a conflict of interest. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Well, yes. Which articles are chief among those you've edited? How much caution does that express?   Will Beback  talk  11:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support Hickorybark ( talk) 19:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support – This is why the discussion pages are there. I'm afraid that wasn't made clear enough in the ARBSCI case. However, as with ARBSCI, if the conduct of those with a COI goes against proper decorum and practice here on Wikipedia, action may be taken on those accounts and IPs. – MuZemike 22:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support ChemistryProf ( talk) 02:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support (sorry I'm finding this page a little later than other editors) -- BwB ( talk) 09:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. Durova ⁴¹² 20:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes. Especially appropriate in conjunction with "Responsibility of organizations" and "Financial conflict of interest", above. Cirt ( talk) 07:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Conflict of interest and organizations

5) A conflict of interest in relation to an organization depends upon tangible relationships between an editor and an organization, and is not contingent upon inherent qualities of an organization.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'm not sure I'm clear on how the word "inherent" is being used here. I agree with Durova's explanation below, but I'm not sure this wording captures her meaning as I understand it. Steve Smith ( talk) 06:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Again, see my example I put forth in #1. Just because you're a member of a university doesn't necessarily equate to having a COI if you edit articles related to that university. In addition, one has to consider neutral point of view and the presence (or lack thereof) of it. I wonder if this is somewhat redundant to the #3 and #4. – MuZemike 04:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. Enough conflation has occurred that this is necessary. When assessing whether conflict of interest exists it's irrelevant to introduce certain lines of discussion. If Wikipedia had a COI arbitration case about Microsoft and then one about Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream, we wouldn't mingle discussion of COI with debate over which of those two companies is the more socially responsible firm. There is no double standard for conflict of interest. Durova ⁴¹² 23:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor a battleground

6) Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy or advertising, Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox, nor is it a battleground for struggle, Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The wording could use some refinement, I think, but fundamentally correct and relevant. Steve Smith ( talk) 06:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

• Agree completely in theory. In terms of this arbitration, attempting to counter balance the often one sided, pejorative information presented concerning the TM related articles with views that complete the picture, should not be considered soapboxing or advocacy.( olive ( talk) 20:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)) reply

Support with Reservation - What is one editor's attempt at balanced treatment is often perceived by another editor as advocacy. This situation has arisen repeatedly on the TM related sites. ChemistryProf ( talk) 02:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support This seems apt, and related to evidence that I've presented. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support A sincere wish that this is the case. -- BwB ( talk) 09:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed; from the Waldorf Education arbitration. Durova ⁴¹² 20:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Substantiation and parity

7) Valid substantiating evidence of misconduct is always necessary before sanctioning any editor at arbitration. Requests to sanction an other side in the name of parity are insufficient basis for action because, per WP:BATTLE, an other side does not necessarily exist.

Parity of conduct is not assumed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'd hope this goes without saying. I'm not sure ArbCom needs to specifically adopt principles saying that it won't sanction editors without good reason. Steve Smith ( talk) 06:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Support. Sanctions should only be placed if there is clear evidence of misconduct. Mere allegations should not be the basis for remedies.   Will Beback  talk  07:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. Durova ⁴¹² 20:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Proposed findings of fact

Technical evidence

1) Technical checkuser evidence has connected a large number of accounts and IP addresses that edit transcendental meditation articles. This nexus of activity included matching IP addresses, close geographic proximity, the likelihood of shared computers, and the use of a small internet service provider that serves the Maharishi University of Management but few other customers.

Per drafter request, most of this is covered by the checkuser result itself. For the size of the ISP see primarily here and here. Also per this the only two other institutions of higher learning within reasonable commute from Fairfield, Iowa are served by other ISPs.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Throughout the period for which checkuser data is available, no two editors involved in this case consistently shared the same IP address; there were variations amongst them all. While several had the same user agent, it is the most common user agent seen on checkuser studies, and is not diagnostic of shared computers. The only commonality that can be ascertained is that several editors participate most frequently from southeastern Iowa, which was already acknowledged. Almost all editors from that region used at least two different ISPs during the period for which checkuser was available. There was no evidence of sockpuppetry. Risker ( talk) 05:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I note also the question about customer base for Lisco. The majority of companies providing internet access also provide cable television and/or telephone service (as does Lisco, apparently), but don't necessarily have the same customer base for each of those services. This is common throughout the world. Risker ( talk) 06:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Having seen the backend, I think this finding greatly overstates facts. It is unsupported. There appear to be different machines and in fact different people behind the vast majority of accounts. Cool Hand Luke 20:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I defer to my less technically clueless colleagues. Steve Smith ( talk) 06:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Oppose This is factually incorrect. Lisco has over 3,000 customers. Fladrif acknowledges on Evidence Talk that his information was limited. A number of assumptions are being made here. In addition, there is no evidence of shared computers. Any sharing of IP numbers is most likely an artifact of DHCP. No evidence of sharing of IP numbers within the 6-hour lease period has been presented. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose Agree TG. There is no evidence of shared computers. This statement,"and the use of a small internet service provider that serves the Maharishi University of Management but few other customers." is false. Lisco provides service for most of SE Iowa, is extremely progressive as it supplies fibre optics and MUM apparently a customer, is only one of many customers. I am increasingly becoming concerned by assumptions stated as fact.( olive ( talk) 17:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)) reply

Support. 3,000 customers is very small for an ISP, especially if spread across several counties. There is, in fact, technical evidence of shared computers. There is no question that the technical evidence shows that nine editors who are extensively involved in editing TM-related articles have shared a small network in a small town in a sparesly populated rural area.   Will Beback  talk  20:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support. Accepting TG's figure of 3000+ customers as accurate, LISCO is a very small ISP with a principal base of operation in Fairfield, and otherwise operating in even smaller rural communities in Southeast Iowa. The proposed finding is precisely what SPI determined. Fladrif ( talk) 14:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• I have never shared my computer with any one else nor edited with any other Wikipedia editor. Shared computers in my case is not possible. Why does Will Beback have information that is not available to to all editors in this case. ( olive ( talk) 15:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)) reply

Olive, haven't you yourself submitted private evidence to the ArbCom? In any case, there is publicly available evidence that I've sent to the ArbCom which indicates shared usage.   Will Beback  talk  16:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose No one has shared my computer, ever. I, too, question the assumptions and claims made in this statement. I am unaware of any evidence that could prove that two people shared one computer other than an actual eyewitness who was looking over the shoulders of the two people. If someone claiming to be such a witness is involved in this arbitration, how do we know they are truthful? I smell a big fish here. ChemistryProf ( talk) 06:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose The SPI was not conclusive. No evidence of shared computers was presented. I have never used any other Wiki editor's computer to edit Wiki. I have used computers that are accessible to the general public. Assumptions seem now to be presented as facts. -- BwB ( talk) 09:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. Durova ⁴¹² 21:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Re: Will, that estimate is too large by an order of magnitude. Iowa state utility tax records indicate a customer base closer to 300. Durova ⁴¹² 20:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Please see the Evidence talk page, where this is discussed. Fladrif explains that the utility records are limited to Lisco's role as a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC), which only includes telephone service. The figure he gave doesn't include Lisco's ISP service. The president of Lisco said that the company had $4.8 million in revenue in 2008 and has over 3,000 customers. Why not give Lance Yedersberger a call if there is something that needs to be clarified? Will, there is only technical evidence for sharing of IP numbers, and this is an artifact of DHCP, not sharing of computers. The only concrete proof for sharing of computers would be sharing of an IP number within the 6-hour lease period, and that hasn't been shown. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

TG, the ArbCom and Checkuser have additional evidence that hasn't been disclosed publicly, some of which concerns the matter of sharing computers.   Will Beback  talk  19:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

t's not possible. No one has ever shared my computer. May I see the evidence? TimidGuy ( talk) 11:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

If you haven't shared then you wouldn't be implicated.   Will Beback  talk  16:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

BTW, I've now added the evidence to my presentation. [6]   Will Beback  talk  11:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Now there's an example of circular reasoning! I was wondering what people were talking about. Hickorybark ( talk) 19:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

TimidGuy, are there public records to substantiate these claims about revenue and customer base? The figure of under 1000 is based upon Iowa state utility tax records for telephone service in 2008. It is reasonable to suppose that more people have telephones than high speed Internet. If LISCO is exceptional in that regard then please provide documentation and I will revise my evidence and comments as appropriate. Durova ⁴¹² 19:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

To the arbitrators who responded, thank you for being candid within the limits of confidentiality. This was drafted based upon what was visible onsite. Naturally that isn't isn't as good as what you have at your disposal. Withdrawing. Durova ⁴¹² 06:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Disclosed conflicts of interest

2) Several of the editors from the nexus of checkuser-connected accounts have disclosed onsite at Wikipedia that they are faculty of the Maharishi University of Management.

PerTimidGuy's support and self-disclosure and this statement. [7] Another deleted disclosure is known to the Committee. A contention has arisen that certain disclosures might refer to another college or university. That alternative looks not very plausible per here. See "Probable undisclosed conflicts of interest" below for supplemental purposes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support I can't speak for anyone else, but I am indeed on faculty at MUM. I have always been open about this. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support One of the editors admits it, one of them formerly admitted it, and it's obvious in two other cases. A fifth editor appears to be associated with the MSAE grammar school, which is on the campus of MUM. Only two editors have ever disclosed any involvement with any TM-related enterprises.   Will Beback  talk  20:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I have seen on discussion pages two editors say they have had some relationship with Maharishi University, one that claimed to be current (TG) and one that claimed only a former association (olive). If others have said so, I have missed those. I support that two have made statements of current or past affiliation. ChemistryProf ( talk) 06:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC) reply

A third user has identified himself (or herself) as a "university professor". [8] That same editor has been found to edit in Fairfield, Iowa, which is home to the Maharishi University of Management and also a long drive from the next nearest university. [9] The edits of ChemistryProf have focused on TM-related topics, with only a few exceptions. Among those topics is John Hagelin, MUM professor and nominal resident of Fairfield. If we were to apply logic to this matter, what conclusion must we draw from these facts? It seems logical that the combination of self-identification and behavior show that there is at least one more Fairfield TM editor who's also on the MUM faculty. Which part of that is that incorrect? Given that we're in an ArbCom case, the time for coy evasions is over. Does ChemistryProf have "some relationship with Maharishi University" or not?   Will Beback  talk  10:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC) reply

You are making assumptions. There many universities and colleges in driving distance of Fairfield, and I know several Fairfield people who work at other universities, and other jobs outside of the town. This is an instance of laying a version of truth on an assumption. Fairfield is not remote. And whether an editor is a faculty member at another university you have no way of knowing. COI is not determined by where anyone works, who you know , or who your neighbours are, although you have redefined it this way. COI is about placing an editor's interest above the needs of the encyclopedia, and your assumptions that this is the case is just that, only more assumption, The idea that a mature academic or an mature editor of any kind cannot edit and encyclopedia for neutral content is ludicrous in the extreme. And as for demanding information from ChemProf , why not leave the Inquisition to the Arbs( olive ( talk) 18:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)) reply

It is you who is attempting to redefine COI. There is no assumption that the TM-Org editors are placing their interest, and that of their employer, ahead of the interests of Wikipedia. Rather, the evidence in the case proves that they do. It is indeed ludicrous that mature editors and academics cannot set aside their prejudices and edit neutrally, but the sad and inescapable fact is that they have not done so in this case. That the TM-Org editors, including yourself, continue to repeat incessantly "I am a neutral editor" while continuing to edit in the manner that they have in these articles demonstrates a complete lack of perspective and a fundamental inability to discern the difference between neutrality and POV-pushing. It is clear, for example, that Hickorybark and ChemistryProf, despite their protests to the contrary, view any reliably-sourced criticism of any aspect of TM, the TM-Movement, its research or its leadership as libelous and as evidence of either "derangement" or conspiratorial corruption on the part of anyone who would level such criticism or any editor who would include the well-sourced material in an article. No, we should not have to engage in this process were we dealing with mature editors, but unfortunately we are not dealing with mature editors here, regardless of their chronological ages. Fladrif ( talk) 19:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support This seem a little redundant to have here. It is obvious that Timid has done this, so why do we have to state it here? -- BwB ( talk) 10:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. Durova ⁴¹² 21:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC) reply

In regard to Olive's comment, there is no other institution of higher learning in Jefferson County, Iowa. I have updated evidence based upon a complete Google Maps survey of all colleges and universities in Iowa. That survey indicates no need to revise this finding of fact. In the unlikely event that a professor of some other institution has been named at this arbitration case, that person is welcome to send substantiating information to the Arbitration Committee. Durova ⁴¹² 21:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I dunno. I know a professor couple living in an area not nearly as remote or rural as Jefferson County Iowa, one of whom teaches at the local college in the town they live in, and the other commutes 90 miles each way another college. So, I suppose it's possible, particularly since MUM pays less than MickeyD's pays apprentice fry cooks. It would be worth the drive given the alternative. But, to paraphrase Will, this is ArbCom, and it's time for the charades and Kabuki theatre to end. Fladrif ( talk) 21:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Durova. There are multiple universities/colleges within a 2 hour driving range, many within 1 1/2 hours, and in Iowa that is fast driving...Whether they are in Jefferson County must be a red herring. .As well, as I said on the evidence page, I am not suggesting anything about where anyone works which is none of my business, but am suggesting that we can't base accuracy or truth on assumptions.( olive ( talk) 17:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)) reply

The survey covered the entire state of Iowa with Google's distances and estimated driving times; its complete results can be published if this remains disputed. For purposes of evidence and discussion it is a safe assumption that people do not make more than a two hour round trip daily commute to their place of employment. A small Methodist college and a community college--both outside Jefferson county--are the only feasible alternative commutes for a Fairfield resident. Durova ⁴¹² 19:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

As followup I have entered into evidence that Iowa Wesleyan College partners with Xwires Broadband for its Internet service and that Indian Hills Community College uses Mediacom. So with regard to workplace editing from LISCO IP addresses by self-declared professors of an unnamed institution of higher learning who reside in or near Fairfield, Iowa, there isn't any viable alternative to MUM. Durova ⁴¹² 20:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Re: Fladrif, bear in mind that spousal relationships are included under customary definitions of conflict of interest. Durova ⁴¹² 20:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I understand that COI policy applies to spouses. I would not be suprised if some of the TM-Org editors are spouses of other TM-Org editors, or have spouses who are MUM or other TM-Org employees. But, I wasn't commenting on that. All I meant was that olive's hypothetical scenario (somebody who lives in Fairfield could teach as far away as Iowa City) isn't completly implausible, since I know someone in a far more urban area in a different state who commutes 90 miles each way to a university faculty job. Fladrif ( talk) 21:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Urban factors don't necessarily transfer to rural settings. Consider housing prices four years ago: a house with yard in a safe neighborhood was virtually unavailable under an hour's commute to either USC or UCLA even on a tenured professor's salary. Affordable housing is available throughout most of Iowa. Due to the severity of Iowa winters most people would reside close to work if feasible. If these assumptions are flawed, checkuser has probably already found substantial daytime edits from another ISP from at least one account. Additional substantiation could be handled via email to the Committee. This proposal is based upon the portion of evidence which is visible. None of the unlogged/signed over edits by the nexus editors arise from any other ISP than LISCO. Durova ⁴¹² 21:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I agree completely. All of the editors are editing from Fairfield/MVC & environs, and olive's hypothetical is still merely a hypothetical. ChemProf does not deny that he/she is MUM faculty. Fladrif ( talk) 21:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Probable undisclosed conflicts of interest

3) Other editors from the nexus of checkuser-connected accounts have refused to state whether or not they have a conflict of interest. Technical and behavioral evidence strongly suggest that they do.

Primarily per the checkuser result.

Comment by Arbitrators:

They don't really as a class. If there are any particular problems, please point them out. Cool Hand Luke 20:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Overreaching. Steve Smith ( talk) 07:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Oppose i have posted the two IPs of MUM on the evidence page. For accounts not emanating from these two IPs there is no technical evidence that suggests a conflict of interest. Most of those living in Fairfield who practice Transcendental Meditation are not employed by any TM-related organization. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose The presumption underlying the wording, "have refused to state," implies that volunteer WP editors are somehow obligated to disclose personal information. But this is inconsistent with the established Wikipedia priority to protect privacy. Moreover, COI only derives meaning if an editor's personal interests or affiliations are at odds with their desire to produce reliable, high-quality articles from a NPOV. This has not been shown in the present case.It's an unargued assumption based on the spurious analogy to the Scientology case. Hickorybark ( talk) 20:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support. This case isn't about "most of those living in Fairfield", it's about nine editors. Only two of them have directly admitted being on the faculty of MUM. Another claims to be a professor. While he hasn't said where, there is no other university near Fairfield. A fourth gives the appearance of being a professor, and a fifth is possibly associated with the MUM's attached high school, MSAE. Further, some of these editors have used IPs registered to MUM itself. Although TG has admitted being on the MUM faculty, even he has not followed COI guidelines but instead has actively edited all related articles, even participating in disputes over content.   Will Beback  talk  20:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support. All of the involved editors have posted from Fairfield. TimidGuy and olive stated that they are MUM faculty members. Hickorybark admits to knowing John Hagelin, and inserted into the Flipped SU(5) article verbatim language from a MUM faculty member's paper at a TM-Org website. ChemistryProf says he is a professor, has reviewed the majority of the TM research, has written and published research, has attended large TM assemblies, met thousands of TM practitioners and teachers, and watched hundreds of hours of videotape of the Maharishi. Roseapple, stated that she has lived in Fairfield for 30 years, teaches at public and private college, secondary and primary schools, and extensively edited the MSAE article. There can be no question that these editors at minimum are current or past TM-Org employees. Fladrif ( talk) 21:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose I have never tried to hide the fact that I am a long-term practitioner of the Transcendental Meditation technique. But I have made it clear from the beginning on my user page and on talk pages that I edit with WP:COI always in sight. It is obvious to any neutral party that my edits and my commitment adhere to the goal of WP to "produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia... ". ChemistryProf ( talk) 07:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose This is obviously not true. I have not refused to state whether I have a COI. I have stated several times, as have others, that I do not have a COI. IP address do not prove conclusive COI. -- BwB ( talk) 10:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. Durova ⁴¹² 21:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Re: Hickorybark's oppose, the proposal is not intended to imply that editors are obligated to disclose personal information. Determination of COI is not limited to that. A pertinent example is the WikiScanner, which caused headlines based upon IP edits. Durova ⁴¹² 20:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Other assertions of conflicts of interest

4) It has been proposed that other editors in this arbitration may be employed by the pharmaceuticals industry or might be professional exit counselors with a conflict of interest. No evidence, technical or otherwise, has connected any named party in this case to those counterclaims.

Assertions include this, Hickorybark's comments at this proposal, and a few others. Proposal adapted from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes#Involvement_by_security_organs.

Comment by Arbitrators:

If we were to reach formal findings of fact on all of the allegations that get tossed around arbitration cases, our decisions would be unreadably long. I'd prefer to reserve this sort of finding for particularly persistent memes. Steve Smith ( talk) 07:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Oppose Here is prima facie evidence of collusion between anti-TM editors and this anti-TM blog, funded for the sole purpose of discrediting the TM organization. [10] Note that this blog had detailed information about the upcoming TM Arbitration as early as January 29, a full 17 days before I was notified of these proceedings. Hickorybark ( talk) 20:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support I was going to oppose this since the editor who posted the rant was apparently a sockpuppet of an uninvolved editor, and so the issue was better avoided. However Hickorybark's comment shows that apparently some TM-editors think this is an actual issue. To reply to his comment, a large and complicated SPI cases had been filed on January 26, with notices going out to seven editors, meaning that anyone who watches the topic would have seen them. (Hickorybark was not notified because at the time there was no on-Wiki evidence that he was also from Fairfield.) I know nothing about that blog or who runs it, but the assertion that it is "funded for the sole purpose of discrediting the TM organization" seems remarkable and should be supported by evidence.   Will Beback  talk  20:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The evidence is in the title of the blog: The Honest Truth About TM. Hickorybark ( talk) 22:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

How is the title evidence of the funding? Most blogs are either totally unfunded or are funded by advertisements. There are no ads on the blog. What evidence is there that it is funded?   Will Beback  talk  22:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I have no problem acknowledging the possibility that they are self-funded, but that in no way invalidates my point, which is prima facie evidence of collusion. Their self-described mission is to target the TM organization, not to monitor Wikipedia's ArbCom. The fact that they were so rapidly alerted suggests that an involved editor probably alerted them, and that would most likely be one of the editors pushing for this investigation. Hickorybark ( talk) 22:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

That someone with an anti-TM blog picked up THREE DAYS LATER that a SPI was started at Wikipedia is not prima facie evidence of anything. Fladrif ( talk) 00:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Please avoid making personal comments like that. Even in an ArbCom case where behavior is a legitimate topic, using language like that is inappropriate. As Durova suggests below, please refactor your remarks.   Will Beback  talk  00:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks for editing your comment   Will Beback  talk  19:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support It is funny to see the accusation that I may have work for the pharmaceutical industry. I guess whoever made that claim did not look at the last ARBCOM I was involved in at which time I was smeared as an "anti-pharma" editor. :-) Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support Conspiracy claims of different flavors have now been advanced here by HB, the sock, and David Spector, and on Talk pages by ChemProf. If anything, this underlines how alike this case is to the Scientology ArbCom, as both organizations assert that mainstream medicine and the pharmaceutical industry conspire against them. Fladrif ( talk) 21:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Just to set the record straight, I have never stated or implied that any editor on these articles was being supported by the pharmaceutical industry. In talk pages, I once pointed to the acknowledged influence of the pharmaceutical industry on government agencies and in particular on the AHRQ agency at NIH that produced the famous report on meditation and health. If any editor mistook my reference to mean I suspected WP editors of being under the same type of influence, they misread what I wrote. However, if the shoe fits, then wear it. ChemistryProf ( talk) 07:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC) reply

To be clear, your position is that the AHRQ meta-analysis of meditation research, which concluded that the vast majority of meditation research was so badly conducted and documented that it could not even be subjected to meaningful analysis; that of 230 studies of TM and TM-Sidhi, (the largest group in the approximately 800 meditation studies that could be analyzed) only three were of good quality, and only one of those, a short-term study with a limited sample, showed a statistically-significant improvement in hypertension; that no valid conclusions could be reached from the entirety of the body of meditation research as to the efficacy of meditation in treating any health issue; and that no valid conclusions could be reached as to the efficacy of one type of meditation versus another, should be discounted and ignored as biased and in error because, you contend, without evidence, that AHRQ and the NIH (the same folks who have given tens of millions of grants for alternative medicine research, including to MUM for TM research) are tools of the drug companies and this incented them to come to a negative conclusion. I'm sorry if my statement above implied that you contended that any editors were tools of the drug companies; I agree that you have not said that in any post. Fladrif ( talk) 15:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. Durova ⁴¹² 21:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Regarding Hickorybark's contention about a blog, it would take much more to establish that any named party in this case has a financial conflict of interest. For comparison, my own blog uses "wiki" in the subtitle and uses the WMF logo, but the logo is fair use parody and I've never received a cent from the Wikimedia Foundation. Higher standards of evidence apply to everybody. Durova ⁴¹² 23:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Fladrif, would you refactor please? Durova ⁴¹² 00:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you. Durova ⁴¹² 01:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment on "higher standards of evidence" applying to everybody. In your next proposed finding you speculate on "a likelihood of offsite coordination." The evidence is extremely circumstantial and would never hold up in a court of law, and is certainly no better than the evidence I provided of possible collusion with dedicated anti-TM blogs. [11] Hickorybark ( talk) 17:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Response to Durova on COI. I’m worried about the double standard implicit in your addressing the COI issue primarily (exclusively?) to the pro-TM editors, some of whom are evidently MUM faculty. COI is determined with respect to an editor’s ability to edit objectively. So ArbCom will (at least implicitly) need to make some kind of ball-park determination of what an objective, neutral TM-page should look like. The premise that TM is a cult has been sneaked in, based on the unargued and spurious analogy to Scientology, and is evident in Will Beback’s Opening Statement [12] and in many of his comments. I addressed this in my Evidence Statement and, obviously, Will Beback and I don’t agree on what neutral editing should look like for the TM pages. Hickorybark ( talk) 20:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

MUM faculty typically receive room and board and a small monetary stipend. To call this a “financial conflict of interest” is giving MUM more credit than it deserves. Now I understand that established WP precedent says that volunteers for an organization also need to be aware of the temptation to advocate on behalf of their organization. However, Will Beback’s insistence that, where there is controversy, editors should either disclose their affiliation or stop editing is not supported by what WP:COI actually says, or by established WP practice, in which a sizable majority of WP editors are active on pages that they have a significant interest in or affiliation with. Hickorybark ( talk) 20:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

In attributing COI, the distinction between the pro-TM editors and the anti-TM editors becomes blurred. Whether or not Precautionary’s concerns [13] about possible funding for the anti-TM blogs is correct, I don’t know; but I wouldn’t dismiss his statement as a “rant,” as Will Beback has [14]. The main point is that the contributors and principals on the anti-TM blogs are very likely among Wikipedia’s anti-TM editors. And even for editors, like Will Beback, who don’t have any connection to the anti-TM blogs, their ideological commitment to the patently false and defamatory “cult/pseudoscience” POV undermines their ability to edit neutrally and objectively. Hickorybark ( talk) 20:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

There's no double standard at all. If any named party in this arbitration case can be demonstrated to be a professional exit counselor, etc., then please bring forth evidence to connect those individual(s). Durova ⁴¹² 21:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Hickorybark seems particularly upset that TM is compared to Scientology. Yet the two movements are frequently mentioned together in both academic books ( [15][ [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]) and the mainstream media. [24] [25] Both are international, multi-billion dollar movements with many things in common. There are and many differences too, but for the purposes of the ArbCom looking at Wikipedia editors the similarities are significant.   Will Beback  talk  23:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Will and Hickorybark, if you wish to argue that sort of point please do so elsewhere. That distinction has no bearing on any of my proposals. The previous case could have dealt with conflicts of interest from Widgets, Inc. for all it matters. Conflict of interest hinges upon quantifiable relationships to an organization, but not upon the specific character of an organization. Durova ⁴¹² 23:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The double standard is that you aren't considering the ideological commitment of the anti-TM editors, and the extent to which this idelogical commitment conflicts with WP's interest in providing non-defamatory articles [26]. It has not been shown that any TM-affiliated editors are engaging in advocacy by objecting to defamatory content or that this conflicts with WP's mission. Hickorybark ( talk) 16:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I have never supported any defamatory edits. Please explain yourself.   Will Beback  talk  16:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Ideological commitment, in itself, does not generate conflict of interest. To introduce that as a factor would require withdrawal of proposed principle 3 (Personal beliefs). Durova ⁴¹² 20:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Organizational affiliation, in itself, does not generate conflict of interest, either. This is true in real-world determinations of COI and even more so on WP, where privacy is protected. Per WP:COI, "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia … and the aims of an individual editor." In directing your findings of fact primarily to the checkuser accounts, I believe you are misconstruing the evidence. The TM articles do not read like advertising copy, so advocacy by the checkuser editors is not the problem. But the articles do contain defamatory text. And it is not “mild criticism” that I am objecting to. For one thing, it is the preponderance of emotional trigger words—“cult,” “pseudoscience,” “crackpot,” “fringe” and the like. The sheer weight of repetition (19 references to "cult" and "occult" on the TM page) gives the impression that Wikipedia is endorsing these slanders. And the “TM and Cult mania” [27] page and the “MUM stabbing” [28] page exist for the purpose of putting TM in a negative light. (This is the definition of defamation.) How will banning the checkuser editors help to make the pages less defamatory? Hickorybark ( talk) 01:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

That covers a lot of ground, most of which is unrelated to any proposal or opinion of mine. If you wish to discuss the case in general please do so on the talk page. Durova ⁴¹² 02:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Tendentious editing

5) Editors from the nexus of checkuser-connected accounts have engaged in tendentious editing. Their edits exhibit advocacy for transcendental meditation with a likelihood of offsite coordination. Tendentious behavior has included misrepresentation of reliable sources, circular argumentation, and unsubstantiated assertions of misconduct against other editors. Over the course of several years repeated attempts at dialog, noticeboard input, and formal dispute resolution have failed to resolve the resulting problems. They have disregarded advice from uninvolved editors that could have mitigated the appearance of impropriety in their actions.

Per here and here. It surprised me to see in MuZemike's evidence that I had responded to a COIN thread about this dispute in April 2007: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_5. During the three years that passed I had forgotten that discussion, but upon review it appears the dynamic and several of its participants remain basically unchanged.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think the number of accounts is small enough that we can individualize findings of fact; in the case of at least some of the editors in question, I believe that there is merit to this finding. Steve Smith ( talk) 07:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Oppose This is not factual. The assertions of misconduct against other editors are substantiated, including three blocks for incivility (two against Fladrif, one against The7thdr, who was ultimately permanently banned) and numerous additional warnings. There was only one attempt at dispute resolution, in early 2007. The evidence for misrepresentation of sources is heavily weighted against those who oppose TM. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

This summary of eight WP:COIN actions shows that no problems were found. TimidGuy ( talk) 11:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply

How ironically appropriate that TimidGuy would argue, in a section titled "Tendatious Editing" that "no problems were found" at COIN. His Checkpoint summary conveniently omits every single post from the admins overseeing those COIN discussions which found that there were indeed very serious COI problems, directing TimidGuy, and later Olive, to confine themselves to the talkpages of articles rather than edit them directly where they had a COI, and indeed telling TimidGuy to cease his tendatious arguing with those conclusions and instructions. A sampling of what somehow got overlooked in TimidGuy's "Checkpoint Summary":

• "Another response: TimidGuy has a clear and immediate conflict of interest and for this reason would be well advised to restrict participation to talk pages for all transcendental mediatation-related articles. The particular reference in question appears to be published legitimately and appropriate as a reference source. I suggest an article content request for comment to settle the particular debate. I hope that resolves the problems, but in case it doesn't the likely alternatives are this: a user conduct request for comment and an eventual arbitration case, which would likely end in article paroles on TM topics. Another experimental option is community enforceable mediation. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 02:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)" [29]
• "Durova posted: "TimidGuy has a clear and immediate conflict of interest and for this reason would be well advised to restrict participation to talk pages for all transcendental meditation-related articles."

Given that this is the Conflict of interest noticeboard, a response like "Not sure why you're making this point" is not straightforward and intelligent. This section is about editors, you for example, and in fact you in particular, with, yes, clear and immediate conflict of interest issues which it would behoove you to take seriously. It is not about Mason's (or anyone else's) book.

Wikipedia does not need another ream of paragraphs out of you, it needs you editing neutrally or not at all. No more long diatribes, no more changing the subject, no more disingenuity and smokescreens, capisce?

This section alone is already over 56 kilobytes. Enough, already. — Athænara ✉ 05:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC) [30]

• "Previous filings (please add any that I've missed):

26 February 2007

5 March 2007

27 March 2007

23 May 2007

28 November 2007

Of those, only the 27 March 2007 filing received serious discussion. Durova wrote, "TimidGuy has a clear and immediate conflict of interest and for this reason would be well advised to restrict participation to talk pages for all transcendental mediatation-related articles." That view was endorsed by Athænara, who was the unofficial COIN overseer at the time. The burden is on the editors with conflicts to show that they've followed the guideline, since the appearance is that they haven't. Will Beback talk 04:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)" [31]

• "Getting back to the policies and guidelines, the relevant WP:COI guidelines calls on editors with conflicts that affect their impartiaility to avoid editing directly. Back in 2007, user TimidGuy was given clear direction on this page to stop editing directly. It isn't clear to me why he chose to ignore that direction, and why Littleolive oil, who is apparently similarly situated, also choses to ignore the guideline. I'd like to hear why they think it is necessary for them to keep editing the relate articles directly rather than making suggestions from the talk page as called for. Unless there is a strong reason to ignore the guideline, I think it should be respected. Will Beback talk 09:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)" [32]
• "Regarding the March 2007 COI report, Durova and Athænara gave you clear direction to which you didn't respond and which yuo didn't follow. The purpose of this board is to provide guidance to editors. Is there a reason why you can't follow the COI guideline and avoid editing the articles themselves? You say, "It was necessary, since most of the editors who show up are opposed to Transcendental Meditation and they put in things that are incorrect or skewed or misrepresent the scientific literature." That doesn't require making 645 edits. Can you at least limit yourself to fixing outright errors and vandalism?Will Beback talk 23:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC) " [33]
• "WP:COI calls upon editors to behave in a certain way. There is evidence that you have not followed that guideline. If there is no evidence to the contrary, I will move that both editors with COIs be asked to comply with the guideline, in this case by not editing TM-related articles. Will Beback talk 04:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC) [34]
• The WP:COI noticeboard is the place to discuss this. The guideline calls on conflicted editors to not edit in their areas of conflict so it's incumbent on you to show why you've done so anyway. Will Beback talk 05:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)" [35]
• "I'm disappointed to see that, after our discussion on WP:COI, that you are making edits which promoted a particular POV regarding TM. I urge you to seek consensus on the talk page and avoid making edits directly to the article except in cases of vandalism. As I explained on the article talk page, this is not a clear-cut case. Promoting one view by deleting another isn't consistent with Wikipedia's policies on NPOV. Will Beback talk 22:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)" [36]

Tendatious editing indeed. Fladrif ( talk) 20:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Note that in the March 2007 COIN, Dseer posted 6,000 words of accusations — and not one mainspace diff. How is it possible to say that they found tendentious editing if my editing wasn't examined? No diffs were presented. EdJohnston actually took the time to investigate and didn't find an obvious problem. Here's what he told Dseer. [37] By the way, Aethanara, who wasn't an Admin at the time, took my comment out of context so that it sounds like I said something that I didn't in fact say. TimidGuy ( talk) 17:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Asserting unsubstantiated claims as fact is problematic.( olive ( talk) 16:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)) reply

Oppose This is so one-sided as to constitute misinformation. Advocacy has not been shown and neither has off-site coordination. Moreover, a quantifiable relationship to the organization being investigated is neither necessary nor sufficient to establish advocacy. Here are some of the pertinent statements from WP:COI:

• "Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers, unless you are certain that a neutral editor would agree that your edits are in the best interest of Wikipedia."

Note that the best interest of Wikipedia is the bottom line, not the CU reports. These are largely redundant anyway, in the present Arbitration, since several of the targeted editors have acknowledged their affiliations, either openly or privately to ArbCom.

• "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor."

An editor’s objection to defamatory content is not in conflict with the aim of Wikipedia, and is not COI.

• "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest."

CU reports and instituional affiliations are relevant; but they have been over-emphasized in the present investigation.

• "When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to reveal the identity of other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline on conflict of interest."

The frequent challenge that editors should either disclose themselves or stop editing is not in keeping with Wikipedia’s priorities.

• "In a few cases, outside interests coincide with Wikipedia’s interests. An important example is that unsupported defamatory material appearing in articles may be removed at once. Anyone may do this, and should do this, and this guideline applies widely to any unsourced or poorly sourced, potentially libelous postings. In this case it is unproblematic to defend the interest of the person or institution involved."

In my case, the edits for which I am being indicted had to do with my objection to defamatory material including raw epithets (“nonsense,” “crackpot,” "psedoscience") characterizing John Hagelin and his ideas. Although I have not edited the core TM articles, there the situation is worse.

Many of the TM pages are currently defamatory, including two pages [38] [39] whose sole purpose is to promote “a negative image” of the TM program. (See WP’s article on Defamation. [40]) I have no objection to WP articles discussing controversies and negative opinions in an unprejudiced, neutral manner. But the problem with the TM articles is that defamatory terms appear so frequently, and are so poorly sourced, that a reader cannot avoid the impression that Wikipedia is endorsing them. In objecting to defamatory material and attempting to make these pages more neutral, an editor is not engaging in COI. Hickorybark ( talk) 19:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The articles that Hickorybark lists as defamatory have been edited extensively by the other TM editors. Apparently any negative material, no nmatter how well-sourced, is considered defamatory by this user. The John Hagelin article is indeed a "core TM article", given his leadership role within the movement.   Will Beback  talk  20:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support. It is true that Fladrif and The7thdr have received blocks for incivility, but that is not the point of this finding, which concerns the TM editors. This finding accurately summarizes the editing behavior of the TM editors. Collectively and individually, they have misrepresented sources, engaged in circular arguments, and have made unsupported charges against other editors. Many attempts at dispute resolution have been tried. When outside editors have given clear responses the TM-editors have ignored them, examples of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. They have failed to follow advice on how to alter their behavior. Considering that the editors are all part of a small-subpopulation of a small town, that several of them have the same employer, and that the movement strongly promotes group practice, it is very likely that the editors all know each other personally and see each other frequently.   Will Beback  talk  20:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose This statement is untrue. From my observations, the tendentious behaviors have come primarily from anti-TM editors like Fladrif, The7thdr, and those that have been charged as sockpuppets of The7thdr. At times there have been arguments and even battles, but these always are precipitated by the actions of an editor such as these who have been blocked for incivility. It is clear even to a casual observer that these editors are set on imposing their personal POV on the article and are not supporting the primary interests of WP. ChemistryProf ( talk) 08:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose I have to admit, I needed to look up "tendentious" in the dictionary. What I found was "tendentious, tendencious [tɛnˈdɛnʃəs] adj. having or showing an intentional tendency or bias, esp a controversial one". Based on this definition, I do not engage in tendentious editing. -- BwB ( talk) 10:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. Durova ⁴¹² 21:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Bigweeboy may have done better to look up tendentious editing in Wikipedia than in the dictionary WP:TE; he could have read there that "On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors." Durova's description in the proposal itself is also a good description of tendentious editing. The discussion on this proposal has been muddied and sidetracked by inexplicably dragging Fladrif in; this confuses the issue, conflates tendentious editing with incivility, and deflects attention from the key problem in these articles.

Tendentious editing is the main problem that I've encountered on the two TM articles I've watched and edited, and I'm not sure the tendentious editing is as well shown on the evidence page as it should be, given its importance. The problem is that to demonstrate a pattern of tendentious editing, you have to go through the history of an article and show how again and again and again and again, the same editors delete or add the same information repeatedly in a way that compromises NPOV; just providing a few diffs doesn't get to the heart of tendentious editing. This following an issue through pages and pages of history is a very tedious task that apparently no one had the time or energy to do, but that doesn't change the fact that tendentious editing is the problem here. Woonpton ( talk) 16:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Hickorybark's argument, repeated above and many other places in this case, that citation of reliable sources critical of TM-generated research constitutes "defamation" is a tendentious argument by both definitions, and while most TM editors are more subtle about it than to cry "defamation" when critical sources are cited, the central theme of the tendentious argument re research criticism has been that the TM research is by definition mainstream ("600 articles!" "peer-reviewed!") (and by extension, apparently, that any criticism, or nonconfirmation, of that research then becomes FRINGE and should either be deleted or buried in irrelevant ad hoc "rebuttals.")

I watched the TM and TM-Sidhi articles for more than a year before I realized that there are good independent third party reviews and critiques of the research. Before then, I just assumed that the reason the presentation of the research in the articles was so one-sided was that the only available sources were in-universe sources. Imagine my surprise when I finally discovered that there are very good critiques, reviews and meta-analyses that provide a much more encyclopedic view of this topic, but they have been systematically and repeatedly deleted, distorted, buried in "context" or otherwise rendered inaccessible to readers by concerted effort on the part of TM editors. This is what I call tendentious editing.

My original plan, that I wasn't able to fulfil due to medical difficulties, was to submit evidence showing the tendentious efforts to exclude or defuse one especially good recent meta-analysis of meditation research, including a large body of the TM-related research (and please don't be distracted by TM arguments that this is a "flawed" study. Oddly enough, the only criticisms of this study come from the TM camp; I haven't seen any independent criticism of this study. It's one of the best meta-analyses I've ever seen, and I've seen a ton of them and am very hard to please when it comes to meta-analyses).

This study has been the subject of intense tendentious editing by TM editors whenever it has appeared in the article. Doc James provides convincing very recent evidence of such tendentious editing re this study in his evidence section. He writes "My first edits were adding a 2007 review article which was somehow missed in favor of primary research from the 1970s. [190]." Actually, it hadn't missed before, but editors have had great difficulty keeping the study in the article. As I said, I wasn't able to complete my planned task of showing the extent of that difficulty over time, but just one quick dip into the history brought up a small sample from one day in February 2009: Meta-analysis deleted from article four times in rapid succession by olive and TimidGuy taking turns [41] [42] [43] [44] then TG leaves the study in but adds a sentence that misrepresents the conclusions of the study [45] then adds a paragraph of rebuttal from David Orme-Johnson [46]. Then Keithbob in rapid succession changes heading of section from "Medical research" to "Hyptertension research" to "Hypertension and heart disease research" to "Positive effects for hypertension and heart disease" [47] even though the short description of the meta-analysis included under the heading clearly and accurately states that the meta-analysis found no such positive effects. This is just one small addendum to Doc James' evidence, to show that the attempt to exclude or dilute this source has been going on for a long time by the same editors. The dispute between Doc James and TimidGuy over the edits in February 2010 could be dismissed as a "content dispute" that is outside ArbCom's remit, but it should be seen in the context of a long effort on the part of the same group of TM editors trying to exclude or distort this material, and a changing roster of editors on the other side, trying to keep the study in and represent it accurately. Woonpton ( talk) 17:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Woonpton, this is a misrepresention of my argument: "Hickorybark's argument ... that citation of reliable sources critical of TM-generated research constitutes 'defamation' ...." Nowhere do I make this claim, and it absolutely does not represent my viewpoint. I welcome the free exchange of ideas, including criticism. but I strongly object to emotional trigger-words, such as "cult," "pseudoscience," "crackpot," and the like. These epithets are not legitimate ciriticism, they are an attack, and WP should not endorse them. These terms simply do not apply to TM, the TM organization, the TM research and especially not the TM scientists, who have earned their place in the mainstream through decades of hard work and rigorous adherence to scientific procedures. Emotional trigger words are intended to shut off serious debate by making their target seem to be unworthy of serious or respectful consideration, and their application to TM is defamatory. If we are both on the project after the ArbCom proceedings I would be very happy to think through the best way to present the controversies with you, in a way that doesn't whitewash the criticisms, but is not defamatory. In the meanwhile, I wish you a full and speedy recovery. Hickorybark ( talk) 19:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Hickorybark, if I become convinced that I've indeed misrepresented your argument, I'll strike the attribution (although you're hardly the only one who has suggested on this case that including well-sourced criticism of anything related to TM is proof of bias, if not defamation) but so far I'm not so convinced. For example, above, you claim that this is a "defamatory" article "whose sole purpose is to promote 'a negative image' of the TM program." This article is a short description of a book written by three neuroscientists, that does in fact criticize TM research, but the article is written in a very neutral manner and the short critical quotes are all included in quotation marks. I can see nothing defamatory about this article. The article as it now stands, and stood at the time of your above remarks, was written by Cirt; surely you're not charging that Cirt, in editing an already-existing article about a book (an article which has been edited as much by pro-TM editors as by anyone else) is editing with the sole purpose of "promoting a negative image of the TM program." Instead, one is left with the impression that the sole objection to this article seems to be that it cites criticism of TM research. It would be kind of hard to write an article about a book that criticizes TM research without citing some of the critical comments contained in the book, but to do so is hardly defamatory, and cannot reasonably be offered as proof of some sort of agenda to "promote a negative image of the TM program" on the part of editors working on the article.

As for the emotional "trigger words" you are so concerned about, I think they have to be judged on a case by case basis. Certainly we wouldn't ever say, speaking in the voice of Wikipedia, that something is "nonsense" or that a person is a "crackpot;" and I don't believe there are instances in either the TM or TM-Sidhi articles (the only TM articles I've ever looked at) of this kind of editing. But there may well be cases in which an eminent person writing in a reliable source uses words about TM that you wouldn't approve of, and it may serve the reader to include that information. The fact that Carl Sagan has referred to TM research as "pseudoscience" in one of his books may well be helpful in informing a reader's understanding of the topic and giving them a good source to go to for a further exploration of the question. In such a case, I see nothing defamatory about adding that word in quotation marks and citing its source.

As for the TM scientists, no, the TM scientists have not "earned their place in the mainstream through decades of hard work and rigorous adherence to scientific procedures." That's not how scientists earn their place in the mainstream. Scientists earn their place in the mainstream by producing replicable results (replicable by independent researchers) that contribute to the body of accepted scientific knowledge; this outcome has been notably missing from the oeuvre of TM research. Woonpton ( talk) 22:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Do we need a full article on "TM and Cult Mania"? It may be that we are not going to see eye-to-eye on this issue but, if you have time, why don't you look at my discussion of the John Hagelin article [48]. I provide examples of how preventing the inclusion of balancing material can put WP in the position of appearing to endorse defamatory material. Finding sources for slanders does not sufficiently distance WP from appearing to legitimize the defamatory text. Hickorybark ( talk) 00:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Woonpton, in February of 2009 I moved the AHRQ review to the talk page for discussion when it was added by a drive-by editor. It is, as you know, a 200-page report with many different meta-anlayses. Some showed TM was about the same as health education, but four other comparisons found that TM had an effect. The review states in the abstract in the results section that TM lowers blood pressure. See page v. Why was it wrong to move a completely one-sided representation of this review to the talk page for discussion before putting it in the article? Why was it wrong to add the finding reported in the Results section of the abstract, if that's the one result that the abstract highlighted? I simply don't agree with Doc that the meta-anlayses of five studies using health education as a comparator should be the only result mentioned in the TM article. It makes no sense to completely exclude the results in the broad section V of the review, which is what Doc has insisted on, and to exclude the meta-anlaysis of TM and progressive muscle relaxation, as Doc did. And the authors themselves, in their JACM version, discuss whether the Jadad scale is an appropriate tool for assessing meditation RCTs. This is partly because Jadad requires double blinding, and it's not possible to double blind a study on meditation. The researcher and the teacher of Transcendental Meditation would have to somehow not know whether the subject was being taught Transcendental Meditation or health education, and the subject would have to somehow not be aware that he or she was practicing Transcendental Meditation rather than receiving health education. The authors of the review told me that they eventually became convinced that single blinding was sufficient, which is why they raised the scores of the studies in the published version of their review in JACM. I added the authors' comments regarding whether Jadad was an appropriate assessment of quality, and it was removed from the article. This was from the authors of the AHRQ review themselves. Why was that deleted from the article? It seems like NPOV would require it. I agree that the AHRQ meta-analyses are quite impressive. Keep in mind that the review only included research through 2005 and excluded pediatric research. And I defend my addition of the Orme-Johnson rebuttal. It was, after all, published in JACM alongside the AHRQ review. And you fault Kbob for having an incorrect heading because the section on the AHRQ review found no positive effects. The problem wasn't the heading. The problem was the one-sided reporting of the meta-analyses, which did indeed find positive effects. See the summaries on pages 148 and 187. I feel like you've misrepresented the situation. TimidGuy ( talk) 20:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

This is another repeat of an argument that's been repeated many many times on the article talk pages; this is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. All the points in this arguments have been answered many many times by many people; I'm not going to try the patience of arbitrators, or my own, by answering them at length one more time. But no, "rebutting" the overall conclusions of the study (that there wasn't enough good quality research to draw any conclusions from the meta-analysis) by going into the individual meta-analyses and cherrypicking analyses that support a pro-TM position is a violation of MED:RS and not something we should be encouraging. The researchers were correct in not stating those as findings of the meta-analysis and we would be misrepresenting the source if we stated them as findings. As for the rest, see talk pages if you really want to know; this endless discussion is probably repeated in at least ten of the 30 pages of talk page archives. Woonpton ( talk) 22:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I agree with Woonpton completely on this. TimidGuy's display above is a perfect example of the tendatiousness that plagues these articles, and it is this very example (along with the complete misrepresentation of the Malnak decision) which attracted my attention to these articles and got me interested in the subject matter. TimidGuy and olive mischaracterize their tag-team reversion of accurate and reliably-sourced text summarizing the findings of this metaanalysis as just "moving it to the talkpages for discussion" after being added by "a drive-by editor". That characterization proceeds from multiple falsehoods.

• The editor who added that wasn't a "driveby editor" but had been involved on the talkpages and article pages of various TM-related articles for a year and a half prior to the edits in question in February 2009. [49]
• This wasn't a new issue: This AHRQ metaanalysis was first discussed a full year earlier in February 2008 [50] where TimidGuy made a variety of arguments opposing any mention of it, and to specific language proposed at that time by a different editor, including, without sources (i) that there has to be consensus (by which he meant his agreement - characterizing anything else as an edit war) before anything is added to the article; (ii)that the study was flawed (iii)that it wasn't about TM alone and(iv) that it was irrelevant.
• It came up again in March 2008, raised by a second editor and its inclusion was again resisted by TimidGuy, claiming that the metaanalysis had found exactly the opposite of what it actually found, that press reports about it were in error, and that, based on unpublished criticisms from a MUM website, it was unreliable. [51]
• The issue was re-raised in September 2008 by a third editor, and again resisted by TimidGuy and Olive. [52]
• Subsequently, material on the TM-Org sponsored UK metaanalysis was added to the article, but the AHRQ metanalysis excluded.
• TimidGuy [53] [54] and Olive [55] [56], acting as a team, reverted the material added by a fourth editor, four times in the space of a few hours.
• TimidGuy [57] [58] joined by an anonymous IP Editor, [59] [60] [61], then begins to rewrite the material to misprepresent the findings of the metaanalysis, and to add disclaimers and criticisms of it sourced to a TM Org Blog, and to revert any attempts to correct the mispreresentations.
• The Talkpage discussion, [62] which is where I came in, shows clearly that TimidGuy and olive were simply asserting ownership over the article, opposing any addition (particularly one not favorable to TM) that they did not agree to, which is their definition of "consensus". Unfortunately for them, four editors weighed in strongly against their position, and this quickly became untenable. It strains credulity for them to attempt to characterize this as simply moving it to discussion to deal with a "controverial" topic being added to a "stable" article. The only thing "controversial" is that the metaanalysis wasn't favorable to the meditation research, including the TM research. The subject had been up for discussion for a full year. This simply doesn't pass the smell test. They then embarked on the project, which as Woonpton points out, continues to this day, of attempting to mispresent the findings of the report, or to exclude it entirely. And it is also instructive, and typical, that in the middle of this discussion, Olive, for the countless time, takes offense at having her editing questioned "I'm fed up with the comments made here"; "it isn't fair"; "untrue"; "a nasty tactic" "ad hominem attack"; "rubbish"...etc. because, according to her, she and TimidGuy "are both neutral editors"
• The anon IP editor, later adoping the name "Wahwahpedal9" and KBob then argue that the metaanalysis should be excluded from the article because it deals with more kinds of meditation than just TM. [63]
• A later rewrite by KBob, buried in 100 edits without discussion, removes the metaanalysis' finding that there is no basis in the evidence to prefer one meditation method over another. [64]
• TimidGuy tendatiously argues that the meta-analysis shouldn't have used the Jadad scale to evaluate the meditation studies. [65]
• The tendatiousness spills over onto the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, where the uninvolved editors point out that TimidGuy's continued mischaracterization of the metaanalysis is directly contradicted by its actual findings. [66], and olive, once again, complains that everyone is being uncivil to her, and complains that previously uninvolved editors from the noticeboard should not then go to the articles in question and edit them!
• TimidGuy, undeterred, soldiers on with the mispresentations of the metanalysis. [67]

ArbCom should see this process for what it is, and not be snowed by TimidGuy and Olive's "oh, we weren't edit-warring; we just wanted to discuss it first" fairytale. Fladrif ( talk) 16:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Perhaps you'd like to explain this edit, in which you leave in the finding regarding quality but omit the finding in the abstract that TM lowers blood pressure. [68] It simply wasn't obvious to me that it was inappropriate to mention this finding from the abstract. And it's still not. Why didn't this bear discussion? Why was it so unreasonable to want to discuss the finding of one of the peer reviewers (who had no connection to TM) that the report had errors? He looked at a specimen of the TM data and found that there were transcription and coding errors, among many other things. [69] He was one of the 7 peer reviewers. Why was that dismissed as "silly"? Why couldn't we have discussed this for a day, rather than simply edit warring it into the article? Why was it unreasonable to discuss the fact that this report went through an unusual peer review process, very unlike academic journals, in which the peer reviewers have the opportunity to determine whether the article authors have satisfied the concerns raised? Why was it unreasonable to discuss the fact that the same review was subsequently published in a different version in a peer-reviewed journal, and whether we might defer to that revised version? And frankly, I did hesitate to put in the report earlier, because I new that the version released online was being revised for publication in peer-reviewed journals. They ended up only publishing the overview and abandoning their plan to publish revised segments. They had the segment on hypertension drafted, but couldn't agree on what studies to include. And then the meta-anlayses of Rainforth and UK came out, and they felt like those pretty much covered the territory, so they abandoned the effort. If they felt that these subsequent meta-anlayses superseded what they did, why was it so unreasonable that I felt the same way? And why is it unreasonable to consider whether their finding on quality represents a point of view? Jadad isn't some absolute standard. In fact, the authors eventually changed their point of view and decided that single blinding was sufficient. These are things that should have been discuseds and consensus arrived at. Instead, a particular version was edit warred into the article. And you deleted the positive finding mentioned in the abstract. TimidGuy ( talk) 11:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Here is a typical example: Fees. The Maharishi and the TM-Org have been criticized in the past over the level of fees. Some devout Hindus and other yogis believe it is wrong to charge fees for teaching someone to meditate. The fees were originally set at a week's salary, or something approximating it, until two major fee increases in the 1990s and 2000's. Some people who have no problem with charging a fee complained that fees were too high. The fee increases led some teachers to break away and start their own meditation programs, charging lower fees. The TM Org has provided explanations for why it believes that the levels of fees are appropriate. This is all well-documented in reliable secondary sources, and is the sort of information that one might reasonably believe is appropriate, and non-controversial to include in the TM article, as it is now. [70] Yet, from practially the inception of the TM article, through page after page of talkpages, the TM-Org editors tendatiously resisted any mention of fees or controversy over fees, offering an ever-changing litany of rationales for why the material must be removed.

• It's just whining POV (PeterKlutz)(June 2006) [71]
• Info on breakaway teachers is irrelevant and advertising (Sparaig)(July 2006) [72]
• Unsourced (incorrect) advertising (TimidGuy)(September 2006) [73]
• Unsourced again. (TimidGuy)(September 2006) [74]
• Fact tag (Jeffire, TimidGuy) (November 2006) [75]
• Editwar over the material, charges of ownership. (TimidGuy) (November 2007) [76]
• Promotional (TimidGuy) (Aug 2007) [77]
• Commercial,POV, sources (TimidGuy, Olive, Uncreated) (November 2008) [78]
• Various objections. (Olive, KBob, Uncreated) (March 2009) [79]
• More of the same. (KBob, Olive, Bigweeboy, LukeWarmwater)(April 2009) [80]
• Ditto. (Olive, BigWeeBoy, KBob, LukeWarmwater) (August 2009) [81]
• Discussion regarding the current text. [82] Now, to be perfectly fair, I would agree with olive's assessment that some text on fees has been in and out of the article from time to time, with arguments being made by various people as to why is should or should not be discussed. But any mention that there has ever been any controversy about fees has been systematically deleted by various TM-Org affiliated editors until now, and as Will pointed out, it took a year of discussion to get this in the article. And, I was not kidding when I observed that I expected, based on past experience, that the addition would be reverted and subjected to an additional month of contentious discussion at least.
• I need to look for the reference, and will supply it when I find it, but one of the TM-Org editors has posted in his or her evidence or comments that the inclusion of this material on fees is evidence of how the TM article has been skewed to a negative perspective, and is evidence of the bias of the other editors! Fladrif ( talk) 18:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• You can't have it both ways. At one point criticism is leveled because there are fees listed in the article that sounds like advertising, so the fees are removed. Then editors are accused of hiding information because the fees are not in the article.( olive ( talk) 17:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)) reply

Olive, who said that covering the controversy over the cost of training sounds like advertising?   Will Beback  talk  20:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Not sure why discussion at this proposal is still ongoing. It was drafted at a time when the onsite evidence appeared to point toward a specific nexus of checkuser-connected editors. Further input from the arbitrators indicates that the nexus (to the extent that it exists) is not nearly as cohesive as early indicators suggested. The arbitrators have recommended that individual proposals be made with regard to particular editors. So there isn't really any good reason to continue a bundled discussion here. I have withdrawn the first of my proposals. Others that proceed from it have not been withdrawn (mainly because they might be some use in developing better/more refined proposals). But lengthy back-and-forth makes this page difficult to load and read. So I am considering withdrawing and collapsing several more proposals. Durova ⁴¹² 21:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply

LISCO ISP

LISCO is a small ISP that serves the Maharishi University of Management and has been heavily used by the nexus of checkuser-connected accounts. A survey of edits to Wikipedia from unlogged LISCO IP users determined that the overall edits of LISCO IP users was significantly different from that of the nexus, in which several accounts have been single purpose accounts: unlogged LISCO IP edits have contributed to a broad range of topics. This differs from the Scientology arbitration case, in which the Church of Scientology itself had dedicated IP addresses.

Per this. Due to the small size of this ISP and its owner's purported links to the TM movement, there have been editors at this case who suggested that LISCO was synonymous with the TM movement. Unlogged edits from LISCO IP ranges cover too broad a range of topics to justify that assertion. Remedies (if any) would more appropriately be crafted around editor behavior rather than upon this small business.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Again, I'd generally rather avoid "negative" findings of fact. If the LISCO stuff is insufficient on which to reach findings, then we just shouldn't reach findings based on it. Steve Smith ( talk) 07:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Oppose This intent focus on IP addresses is a "red herring." It is a distraction from the most important issue, which is the degeneration of the TM pages under the single-minded "cult/pseudoscience" advocacy of the anti-TM editors. Hickorybark ( talk) 20:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Retracted per Durova's clarification, below. Hickorybark ( talk) 22:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support LISCO is almost an in-house ISP. All of the TM editors here have used it as their network.   Will Beback  talk  20:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. Durova ⁴¹² 20:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The point of this finding is to specify that LISCO is not an in-house ISP. The comments of the first two responders (Hickorybark and Will Beback) seem to be out of touch with that; perhaps something wasn't sufficiently clear about the wording of the proposal? Durova ⁴¹² 21:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Sorry Duroval, could you link to that evidence please? There is so much information across the pages here it is difficult to keep track. This maybe the problem above. Also, if your analysis is correct then this would of course make the claims by SPI identified fairfield TM editors even less believable Tucker ^talk 21:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

It's the bottom subsection of my evidence to this case, posted shortly before this proposal. Took a few days to double check the technicals. The link for the Soxred report on LISCO IP range edits (especially from the 69 range) shows that overall, TM subjects are a minority of unlogged LISCO edits. Durova ⁴¹² 22:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Proposed Principles

Wikipedia's Purpose

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 or to publish or promote original research is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Basically correct, and relevant here. Steve Smith ( talk) 07:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Proposed Keithbob

Support Hickorybark ( talk) 19:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support, except for the "camaraderie" part.   Will Beback  talk  02:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support I think it's important to broaden the issue, as this does, to include personal agendas. If an editor has a personal agenda to the point that he deliberately misrepresents sources and violates NPOV, this is every bit as much a problem as COI. TimidGuy ( talk) 11:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Perhaps collegiality would be a better word.( olive ( talk) 17:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)) reply

Support This important goal often seems to be missed by some editors. "Collegiality" is a better word. ChemistryProf ( talk) 03:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support Agree with Will - the "camaraderie" sentiment is understood, but not the appropriate word to use, I feel. -- BwB ( talk) 10:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Behavior

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith and harassment is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

All of this is accurate, but I'm on the fence about the relevance of all portions except AGF, which I think is certainly applicable here. Steve Smith ( talk) 07:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Proposed Keithbob

Support Hickorybark ( talk) 19:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support This has been a serious problem in these articles, and needs to be addressed. Evidence includes the several blocks that have been issued against abusive editors. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support, though I haven't seen evidence of actual harassment or personal attacks.   Will Beback  talk  02:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support, though I agree with Will's comment and would add that WP:AGF does not require that one continue to assume good faith after the bad faith exhibited by an editor makes the assumption unwarranted. Fladrif ( talk) 15:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support One doesn't have to read far on the discussion pages for TM articles before finding examples of abuse. ChemistryProf ( talk) 03:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support I don't think KB is saying that there has been harassment and attacks, only that Wiki prohibit such behaviour. -- BwB ( talk) 10:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Single Purpose Accounts (variation of Cirt's version)

3) Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally and 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 not compatible with the goals of this project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Keithbob

Support Hickorybark ( talk) 19:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support, though that applies to all editors, including the many "primary purpose editors" involved in this topic. Note also that Keithbob has discouraged the inclusion of a non-neutral SPA in this RfAR. [83] If Kbob believes in this principle then I don't understand that objection.   Will Beback  talk  02:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Reservations WP:SPA is an essay, not a policy or guideline. As long as one follows policies and guidelines, is civil and cooperative, and shows evidence of a commitment to Wikipedia's principles, then it shouldn't matter which articles one edits. SPA is frequently used to browbeat editors whose view is opposed to one's own. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Agree with TG. For example an artist might only edit articles on art and a scientist on science. Even editing one article is not prohibited and why should it. Volunteers may come in with only a certain amount of time and interest, and may spend that on one article. As long as policies/guidelines are being adhered to there is nothing wrong with such editing patterns.( olive ( talk) 17:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)) reply

Support ChemistryProf ( talk) 03:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support -- BwB ( talk) 10:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Sock and Meat Puppets

4) In some instances it may not be possible to determine with complete certainty whether multiple editors with the same or different IP’s are sockpuppets or meat puppets. In such cases, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity. The Arbitration Committee may determine that editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of edits be treated as a single editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Accurate and applicable. Steve Smith ( talk) 07:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Proposed Keithbob

Support Hickorybark ( talk) 19:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose Even if "The Arbitration Committee may determine that editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of edits be treated as a single editor" is an approved WP guideline, I greatly disagree. While reasonable on the surface, the problem is determining "edit with the same agenda and make the same types of edits". No method for doing this is given, and I doubt that it can be done in general (or specifically for the TMM articles). Suppose one person writes, "TM is nonsense" and another writes, "TM is unscientific." Are they the same person or not? How about a simpler example. If one person writes, in many comments, "TM is nonsense," and another person writes, in many comments, "TM is nonsense," (the same thing), are they both the same person? Even in this simpler example, we cannot conclude that it's written by the same person. Two different people can use similar language to express their similar POVs. Durova, I think this is an important point and I'm looking forward to your reply. "It's obvious when two users write in the same style and have the same POV" is not deterministic. David Spector 16:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support. This seems to be applicable here, since we have many editors with the same POV using the same IP networks.   Will Beback  talk  02:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Reservations This is skewed toward a particular group of editors with similar IPs. But if a group of editors with diverse IPs invariably act in concert, then it seems equally an issue. It would be nice to generalize the scope of this. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

"make the same types of edits and same agendas" is a highly subjective way of judging. Given recent experiences something more objective would cause less difficulty in the event of disputes.( olive ( talk) 17:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)) reply

Reservations The scope and wording of this are not sufficiently clear that I can give my support. Sockpuppetry and Meatpuppetry are real phenomena, but they are not easy to prove or disprove. Especially is it clear that while having the same ISP can lead to "false positives" in determining sockpuppetry, the other side is also true, that is, having different IPs obviously does not prove that a person is innocent of these charges, a "false negative" situation. I can support a principle along these lines only if the wording and concepts take these facts into consideration. ChemistryProf ( talk) 04:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Unsure Agree with Olive and Spector that the wording "editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of edits" is subjective and ambiguous enough to cause problems. -- BwB ( talk) 10:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Casting Aspersions

5) It is unacceptable for an editor(s) to continually accuse another editor(s) of misbehavior or conflict of interest in an attempt to besmirch their reputation. Concerns should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I tend to agree with Durova here. Steve Smith ( talk) 07:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Proposed Keithbob

Support David Spector

Disagree. If problems persist then they need to be raised repeatedly. User talk pages are appropriate places to raise concerns about editing. However, note that Olive has repeatedly made accusations about my editing and has refused to substantiate those claims. Making unsubstantiated or false accusations is a form of incivility.   Will Beback  talk  02:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support. Raising the same issues repeatedly can be a form of harrassment. It's better to keep the discussion focused on the content of the article, and not revert to ad hominem. This has been the basic premise of scholarly debate for millennia. Hickorybark ( talk) 14:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose If an editor persists in repeated violations of WP policy despite numerous warnings, other editors have no other option but to repeatedly raise the issue, particularly where, as here, the matters such as WP:COI had already been dealt with on the appropropriate noticeboards, administrators had already instructed editors not to edit these articles, and those instructions are openly defied. The same for WP:MEDRS. When tendatious editing and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is rampant, the fault is on the editors violating the rules, not on those pointing it out. Fladrif ( talk) 15:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

COI accusations are improperly used on an ongoing basis when used as disputes about edits arise. COI accusations concerning comments on the COIN are improperly used when first, the COIN is mischaracterized, and second when this mischaracterization is used to deflect discussion away from the editing and focuses on the editor.

Reword: It is unacceptable for editors to accuse other editors of misbehaviour or COI if doing so moves discussion from the edits to attacks on an editor , deflecting and disrupting the editing/discussion process. The process of dealing with misbehavioiur and or COI belongs on Noticeboards after an initial comment on a user's page. If editors persist in inappropriate editing behaviour further dispute resolution may be necessary.

Support if reworded to more closely follow WP:COI proscription against harassment: "Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban."

Support with reservations The reworded version above is more acceptable than the original version. When the COI accusations are repeated incessantly and toward a whole group of editors for whom no COI has been shown, these invariably drive the article away from the content and onto the editors. In that case, there is need for some action other than the ones recommended at Wikipedia:COI#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest. ChemistryProf ( talk) 04:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose This seems to re-write many policies and guidelines. User talk pages are appropriate places to discuss issues with individual editors. When COI issues haven't been addressed it is inevitable that they will come up repeatedly. In this case, the "COI accusations" have proven to be true. TM editors have regarded any mention of their connections to Fairfield, MUM, or related people as personal attacks and harassment, and they've ignored COIN threads, so this remedy wouldn't allow any reasonable recourse for editors who are concerned about chronic COI issues.   Will Beback  talk  22:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support reworded version. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Case in point, WillBeback has repeatedly used terms, in this RFARB, like 'TM editors', in order to make sweeping and inaccurate claims that "besmirch their reputation". (see his comment above) WillBeback is fully aware that only TimidGuy and Littleolive oil have been the topic of COIN threads and they participated fully. The results of those COINS proved vague and with no enforceable sanctions and is one of catalysts for this RFARB. To imply that other editors like myself, have "ignored COIN threads" is damaging to my/our reputation and demonstates the relevance of the proposal above.-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Oppose. This proposal asks the Arbitration Committee to override Wikipedia:COI#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest, which recommends direct discussion as a first step in resolving suspected conflicts of interest. Durova ⁴¹² 05:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose rewording. Still asks the Committee to overrule a site guideline. The COI guideline recommends dispute resolution as the second step. This proposal isn't tenable; it would step outside the Committee's remit. Durova ⁴¹² 04:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Harassment

6) Harassment is a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting one or more targeted persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating them. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for targeted persons, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is not relevant to this case. Steve Smith ( talk) 07:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Proposed Keithbob

Oppose Haven't seen any evidence of this extreme behavior. David Spector 02:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose There is no sign of any behavior like this in this case.   Will Beback  talk  02:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support The regular COI accusations and frequent demand that certain editors reveal personal information is a form of harassment. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support. Hickorybark ( talk) 14:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose There is no credible claim of harassment, and no editor claims to have been frightened, intimidated or discouraged from editing by any alleged harassment. None of the TM-Org editors have been the least bit shy about editing, even when told by 3 admins not to at COIN. Other editors have been driven off in frustration with the utter futility of dealing with the TM Org editors, which is another problem, but not harassment. Fladrif ( talk) 15:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support. Other than KeithBob himself and editors LittleOliveOil and BwB, I have not seen this as a general condition of editors. I will note that often KeithBob points fingers at others for the very thing he appears to be guilty of himself (e.g. sockpuppetry). Often such harassment is veiled under a veneer of faux civility. This is esp. the case with LittleOliveOil.-- Kala Bethere ( talk) 16:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• That editors attempt to keep editing is not an indication that harassment is not occurring. Repeatedly badgering an editor to reveal personal information is a form of harassment. As well, as with any kind of harassment in real life, effects may be felt in the long term rather than immediately. At the same time unless one follows the actual pattern overtime of harassment, the behaviour may be difficult to describe or document, as again is the case in real life. As well, the person doing the badgering on multiple pages and over a period of time with what they consider to be the best of intentions may not be aware that their behaviour is causing distress. Finally, in some cases discussion on the badgering behaviour may only lead to more badgering. If that has become the pattern, the person being harassed may choose to walk away from any further contact, and the potential for further distressing situations. Certainly a remedy is needed on this, but not sure at this time what the wording should be.( olive ( talk) 18:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)) reply

• Editors have been asked to either disclose their connections to the topics they're editing or to recuse themselves from actively editing, as specified by WP:COI. That editors from Fairfield and MUM refuse to acknowledge any COI, and continue to edit articles about their neighbors, their employers, and the local heads of their movement in a partial fashion, is why this case came to the ArbCom.   Will Beback  talk  21:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

This intent focus on COI is a "red herring." It is a distraction from the real issue, which is the degeneration of the TM pages under the single-minded "cult/pseudoscience" advocacy of the anti-TM editors. Per WP:COI, conflict of interest occurs when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia. You have yet to make the case that the repugnance I and some of the other editors feel toward turning WP pages into a litany of sourced smears is a COI. I would work to right that wrong on any page I edited, TM-related or not. I have no objection to noting that there is hostile criticism of TM, the TM research, the TM organization, etc., provided it is done in a balanced, neutral manner. But the anti-TM editors are not satisfied until the page reads like Trancenet or one of the other anti-TM blogs. This is unacceptable to me, and it ought to be unacceptable to you, also, and to any intelligent, fair-minded person. It is not COI on my part to expect more neutral editing. If TM were really a cult, and having an affiliation meant losing one's integrity and capacity for independent thought, maybe you would have a point. But that perception of TM is so far from the reality as to be risible. Hickorybark ( talk) 03:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

You haven't added any evidence of me adding excessive "anti-TM" material. I don't know what Trancenet is, but it looks pretty mild. [84] In contrast, you, Hickorybark, have been adding text directly plagiarized from a pro-TM blog. [85] [86] When confronted, all you said was "I'll be more careful in the future." [87] So for you to claim, without evidence, that editors including me are making the topic look like an anti-TM blog while at the time you are copying material off of a pro-TM blog does not seem be an honest concern. Of course, to someone within the movement even slightly negative material might seem outrageous. It's that lack of objectivity which is why COI is a problem.   Will Beback  talk  04:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Such as ChemistryProf, who, in one of his very first posts, claimed that it was a violation of NPOV for someone to have included in the article a statement that the TM Movement's research and organization have been questioned, and a further violation of NPOV to use the term "TM movement". [88] Fladrif ( talk) 14:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I also don't like the term "TM movement," mainly because it's too vague. I don't know what it means. Hickorybark ( talk) 15:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

One may dislike the term for a variety of perfectly legitimate reasons, but claiming that using the term shows bias isn't one of them, since the term is widely used by reliable sources, and used even on offical TM Org websites. [89] Fladrif ( talk) 15:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support with reservations There are definite instances of harassment in the TM articles, although these have not often been brought to a notice board or otherwise adjuticated. One reason for the lack of complaints is probably that some editors have only a little time to edit. They are therefore hesitant to become involved in a drawn out conflict, choosing instead to just do the best they can under the oppression. Or they may simply refrain from editing, which seems to be a primary objective of the oppressors. For this principle to be fully supported, the definition of conditions may need to be made clearer. ChemistryProf ( talk) 05:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose Too vague and too much room for subjectivity. -- BwB ( talk) 10:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Oppose too much of this hinges upon subjective factors and too much of the rest is weakly defined. A report for 3RR violation undermines a person's standing within the community; it may be done with the intention of causing the adverse and unpleasant effect of a userblock which can discourage a person from editing; and afterward the threat of another 3RR report may intimidate that person. All of these things are acceptable if 3RR really was violated and the individual resumed edit warring after a block. This propoal's wording could be used to construe harassment from any legitimate whistleblowing at all. Durova ⁴¹² 05:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

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:

Template

2) {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:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Wikipedia by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Wikipedia through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif ( talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support Tuckerj1976 ( talk) 18:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support I think this principle is important in this case.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose in its current form. Again, we need proposals that accurately reflect the needs and specific characteristics of this case which has distinctions from the Scientology case. For example Scientology is a self proclaimed religion and ideology. Transcendental Meditation is a mental practice and although there are related organizations and philosophies, they are not necessarily (individually or combined) ideological, philosophical or religious. This point is debatable and both sides of the debate could cite many reliable sources. It should be noted that the TM organization does not characterize itself in that way, while Scientology does. So while I accept the fact that TM and its organizations and related philosophies have been lumped together and referred to as Neo-Hindu, a New Religious Movement and a cult by various authors etc., this is not a universally held conclusion or fact. Therefore this issue should be addressed in a separate proposal. If the above proposal read: "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 or to publish or promote original research is prohibited" I would support it. I will propose this in my own section-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support Hickorybark ( talk) 19:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support with reservations I agree with Keithbob on the specifics of this proposal for this situation, with one exception. While the TM technique and other TM related articles are quite distinct from Scientology and other topics with ideological, philosophical, or religious content, the existence of personal agendas opposed to TM is obvious in this case. Several of the frequent editors of these articles exhibit their strong biases on discussion pages, yet they claim to be neutral in their edits. This needs to be looked at systematically. ChemistryProf ( talk) 06:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support -- BwB ( talk) 10:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed, as applicable and relevant to this case. From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Purpose_of_Wikipedia. Cirt ( talk) 07:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Looks like a reasonable and uncontroversial application of a principle from a previous case. Durova ⁴¹² 19:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Decorum

2) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Wikipedia by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Wikipedia through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif ( talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support Tuckerj1976 ( talk) 18:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support. It's worth noting that the expectations include, but are not limited to, civility. In this case there have been repeated unsupported charges of misconduct, for example.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose in the current form. I would enthusiastically support a proposal that cited behavioral issues such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith. Significant evidence of these forms of disruptive behavior have been presented on the Evidence Page so it is certainly relevant. However, despite some superficial parallels to Scientology, this case has its own distinct dynamics and characteristics. Therefore the carbon copying of proposals from Scientology to this page is problematic in my view. In particular this proposal's mixing of many guidelines, some of which are not prominent in this case makes this proposal one I cannot support in its current form.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support Hickorybark ( talk) 19:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Refusal to engage in further discussion on whether editors have been badgered or harassed does not mean such behaviour has not occurred . Nor is a subjective judgement by an editor looking in a convincing argument that harassment has not occurred. Discussion that opens a door on a topic that has caused distress over a long period of time is not easily dealt with when the opening comment is, I don't see harassment how about changing your wording. Discussion on such issue may require trust that the editors in the discussion are truly interested in the discussion and both sides of the argument. If that is not the situation editors should not be surprised when when conversation breaks down, and the harassed editor walks away unwilling to deal with more of the same.( olive ( talk) 18:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed, as applicable and relevant to this case. From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Decorum. Cirt ( talk) 07:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

It is worth noting that the allegations surrounding this case appear to be considerably less extreme than the allegations surrounding the Scientology dispute, where one editor had used a sockpuppet account to make wholly unfounded accusations regarding controlled substances and prostitution. The current case could bear a little bit more time to see whether its misconduct allegations will actually be supported: one editor made strong assertions (but theoretically supportable allegations) at RFAR and then added she would be unavailable for evidence until today. So without prejudice as to the factuality of those assertions, as a principle this is reasonable. Perhaps modify with the caveat that WP:AGF defaults to good faith misunderstanding in non-extreme situations. Durova ⁴¹² 19:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Updating. The evidence for claims of harassment is completely unconvincing. I have attempted to discuss the problem on the evidence talk page without success. Additionally, another evidence presentation mistakes normal inquiry about conflicts of interest for harassment. Durova ⁴¹² 17:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Single purpose accounts

3) 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 not compatible with the goals of this project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Wikipedia by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Wikipedia through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif ( talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support. This case has both single purpose editors (both "pro" and "anti"), and even more "primary purpose editors", those who devote 50% or more of their edits to a topic. Both are allowable, but they need to edit neutrally.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose in current form. I would support the proposal if the phrase "instead of following their own agenda" was removed. That phrase is very vague and could be interpreted in many ways. Editors on WP may have many agendas ie. to improve their copy writing, improve their social skills and on and on. -- — Kbob • Talk • 18:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support Hickorybark ( talk) 20:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

This is a common sense statement and supportable.( olive ( talk) 18:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)) reply

Support in principle, but it should be noted that these articles have had far more accusations against those who have been labeled proTM simply for trying to keep the article neutral than against those who have jumped at every possibility to insert material, often extreme and from clearly questionable sources, that denigrates the topic. ChemistryProf ( talk) 06:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support and second Prof's comments above. -- BwB ( talk) 10:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed, as applicable and relevant to this case. From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Single_purpose_accounts. Cirt ( talk) 07:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Reasonable at any arbitration where single purpose accounts are involved. Durova ⁴¹² 20:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Multiple editors with a single voice

4) It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several editors from the same IP or corporate server are sockpuppets, meat puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity. The Arbitration Committee may determine that editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of edits be treated as a single editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This one is true, and it's relevant in my view—whether there is enough evidence or not is less certain. Cool Hand Luke 21:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Agree with Luke. Steve Smith ( talk) 07:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Wikipedia by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Wikipedia through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif ( talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support Per comments above and below Tuckerj1976 ( talk) 20:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support This is a key principle in this case. The POVs of the nine TM editors are indistinguishable, they edit the same articles to promote the same agenda, and they all use the same IP networks.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support However, IMO, note that this also applies to editors Fladrif, Doc James, Kala Bethere, and perhaps others, who, although clearly different people in both their specific concerns and writing styles, appear to have a single and equally strong POV in opposition to the validity of TM. If the editors in opposition to the pro-TM editors were less convinced that TM has no value, I doubt that this RfArb would have occurred. For example, in past years I have several times raised the issue of high course fee (and even mention of less expensive alternatives to TM) as being notable for inclusion and have been opposed by pro-TM editors, yet no problem resulted because we discussed these issues cooperatively without UNCIVIL (pretending to be BOLD) deletions or reversion prior to consensus being reached. Many current active editors on both sides (not just pro-TM) use BOLD to hide POV. I feel that progress in creating a better article has been impeded roughly equally by editors who are admirers and critics of TM. I don't care if editors have a strong POV; I do care if they are incapable of cooperating in creating an NPOV article. David Spector 22:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support Wikipedia needs to be evidence based and based on the best available evidence. Using the highest quality reviews on a controversial topic is a must. As well extraordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence. The fact that this same organization claims that TM can give one eternal life, allow one to fly, and become invisible at will should make all of use skeptical of their claims. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose in current form. Will propose an amended version in my own section.-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support I support Cirt's principle, but not the partisan comments by User:Fladrif, User:Will Beback and User:Doc James, above. Hickorybark ( talk) 20:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• As I stated above, way to subjective to be fairly enforced. As is the case with remedies that rely more closely to subjective criteria, opens the door to abuse.( olive ( talk) 18:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)) reply

Oppose Sure the Arb Com "may determine that editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of edits be treated as a single editor". But I strongly suggest that each editor is investigated as an individual editor and judged by the ArbCom on the sole merits of his/her edits and behaviour and not allow individual editors to be tarred by the same brush. -- BwB ( talk) 10:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment to Cool Hand Luke In assessing what it means to speak with one voice, an abstract and nebulous idea, please consider these points. In a larger overarching sense there are two groups of editors: The so called accused TM editors and those who consistently attack those editors. Is there negative and pejorative content on the TM org that should be in the articles... absolutely, yes, but the standard for what is the TM organization cannot be set by one group or another, but is a constant balancing act of content that must be moved in and out of article in a civil environment. There is no definitive definition of the TM org but some editors feel there is. One says its a cult, and an article has to say so, and he proceeds to make the article, say so, as he did in Transcendental Meditation removing primary studies and deleting secondary sources/reviews then adding cult comments so that a technique that has been widely researched looks like nothing more than ...well... a cult. It might be worth noting when the so called TM editors accused here, began to move away from editing the Transcendental Meditation article, the article achieved the state it is in now, as per this outside comment [90]. Is there a single more personal voice these editors speak with. No. All have different skills and abilities in terms of editing, and do not always agree, or agree and disagree for different reasons. All of this doesn't point to a single voice, but to a single highly contentious, editing environment. As easily as I've just commented here, this entire argument could shift to describe an anti TM group editing with one strong, pejorative voice. Either view with out the other, and with out an understanding of what underlies the editing environment would be single sided and inaccurate. Just something to consider.( olive ( talk) 22:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)) reply

That's an interesting division: "The so called accused TM editors and those who consistently attack those editors." It shows the battleground mentality by one "so-called TM editor". Which editor says that TM is a cult? If anyone did say that they'd be able to source the comment, since TM has been included in many scholarly papers and books on modern cults. I see that the "PsychCentral" blog is being mentioned again. That is not an impartial website based on the fact that it has previously published MUM press releases. There many blogs that have written opinions of the TM movement and of Wikipedia's coverage, so if we're going to start bringing those in this could get messier. A group of editors, using IPs in Fairfield, have consistently promoted the same POV and have used tag-teaming techniques to control the TM-related articles. I haven't seen any significant differences of opinion between them.   Will Beback  talk  23:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Evidence: There have been multiple editors making the same edits: [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] (The inclusion of these links is debatable - the point here is the team editing: [96] [97] [98]) There is the " Saga of Sexy Sadie", in which TM editors have repeatedly removed the same information. The TM editors have agreed to remove negative material or keep positive material too often to list here but already in the evidence. And that's just what I added. Other editors could perhaps review their evidence here as well.   Will Beback  talk  08:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

There is a distinct difference between having an opinion that an org is a cult and suggesting an article should say that, [99]and adding legitimate content to an article in which sources describe an org as a cult.( olive ( talk) 18:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)) reply

Olive, weren't you one of the editors who sought to remove any mention of the cult accusations from the TM article, on the grounds that the article should only discuss the technique and not the organizational aspects? [100] And weren't you one of the editors who then turned around and opposed having an article about the organizational aspects, [101] meaning that the cult allegations would not be mentioned in any article, despite the numerous sources covering that issue? While you've declared on at least nine occasions that you're a "neutral editor", that doesn't seem like neutral editing.   Will Beback  talk  22:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I was just emphasizing the opinion of the French government and many religious scholars whose opinion seemed to have been suppressed on the TM page. It is their opinion that TM is a cult and seeing that these are reliable third parties their opinions hold more weight for me than press releases from the movement denying this fact.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed, as applicable and relevant to this case. From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Multiple_editors_with_a_single_voice. Cirt ( talk) 07:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Actually this originally came from the Starwood arbitration. A necessary functional solution to a difficult problem: without this it would become too difficult to remedy exploitive conduct at certain topics. Durova ⁴¹² 20:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Use of accounts

5) Creating accounts (" sockpuppetry") or coordinating accounts (" meatpuppetry") to manipulate the consensus process; to create alliances to reinforce a particular point of view, to engage in factional or tactical voting; to create "ownership" of articles; to evade topic bans or blocks; or to otherwise game the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Applicable and accurate. Steve Smith ( talk) 07:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Wikipedia by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Wikipedia through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif ( talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Fully support Tuckerj1976 ( talk) 18:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support It's impossible to determine whether it is one person or several using a computer. Collusion between editors to promote a POV or exert ownership of a topic is harmful to the consensus model of Wikipedia editing.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Supported as a principle, but agree with Will that pinning down SOCK or MEAT is difficult. Even OWNing is hard to show, since long-term editors have more knowledge and experience about the article and its history, giving them a naturally more authoritative position than newcomers. In this case, both pro-TM and anti-TM editors have frequently shown OWNing behaviors toward more neutral editors, such as Will and myself, not only to each other. David Spector 00:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support Hickorybark ( talk) 20:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support-- — Kbob • Talk • 21

49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Standard.( olive ( talk) 18:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)) reply

Support ChemistryProf ( talk) 04:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support Is this not how it is currently on Wiki? -- BwB ( talk) 10:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed, as applicable and relevant to this case. From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Use_of_accounts. Cirt ( talk) 07:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Supporting as a principle. Durova ⁴¹² 20:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I would prefer the word "disruptive" rather than "prohibited". Although it amounts to the same thing. Taemyr ( talk) 03:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Feuds and quarrels

6) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Generally agree with Durova that the reason that this was relevant in Scientology may not apply here. Steve Smith ( talk) 07:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Wikipedia by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Wikipedia through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif ( talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Fully Support The article has grown far to "heated" and this principle must be applied Tuckerj1976 ( talk) 20:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support The same set of editors keeps getting into similar disputes with a succession of other editors.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support Note that this applies to all problem editors, not just pro-TM editors. David Spector 03:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose because there has been no evidence presented thus far that indicates that this kind of situation has occurred in the current case. Rather there have been accusations of disruptive behavior, incivility, harassment, personal attacks and edit warring and we should draft proposals that address those issues and avoid ones (like fueding) that don't seem to apply specifically to this case.-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support In the present case, however, I think it will be too difficult to fairly and judiciously administer blocks and restrictions to individual editors or IP address ranges, in a way that will enhance the contested pages. Hickorybark ( talk) 21:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Unsure -- BwB ( talk) 10:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed, as applicable and relevant to this case. From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Feuds_and_quarrels. Cirt ( talk) 07:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

May I ask the specific relevance to this case? In Scientology there was one administrator who had followed a particular editor to multiple articles, etc. and had been through ten formal dispute resolution attempts with that editor (it was entirely one-sided; the editor had never followed the administrator). Shortly before the arbitration began that administrator showed up at AE, denigrating that same editor without disclosing the history. Combined with other evidence it added up to an obvious grudge. A crucial element is how that grudge carried across multiple subjects for several years. If the TM dispute is contained entirely within the scope of the TM subject, then AGF defaults to normal editorial differences. It would only be appropriate to include this principle if there is evidence of conflict outside the normal scope of shared topical interest. Durova ⁴¹² 20:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Okay, you have a very good point. I think this is just simply a very good thing to have as a more generalist principle. I leave it up to the judgment of the Arbitrators as far as inclusion in a final decision. Cirt ( talk) 20:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

If the evidence takes a certain direction this could become very relevant. Will wait and see regarding that. Durova ⁴¹² 20:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Proposed findings of fact

Transcedental Meditation organization and editors

1) Editors involved with articles regarding the Transcedental Meditation movement (TM) have been tied to IP ranges from Fairfield, Iowa and Maharishi Vedic City, Iowa, which is home to the Maharishi University of Management, who runs the TM movement. Many of the editors appear to be editing as single purpose accounts with likely meatpuppetry and possible sock puppetry occurring at articles within the topic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Below, someone says "IP range proves that all of the pro-TM editors are located at or near the campus of MUM." Without any other comment on this proposal, I will say that's flatly untrue. Cool Hand Luke 21:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Support SPI findings are incontrovertable. Fladrif ( talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Fladrif ( talk) 20:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support. There's no question that these editors are using IPs based in Fairfield/MVC, a small community. TM practitioners and employees of the movement account for at least a quarter or more of its population. It is likely that these editors know each other personally and participate together in the daily group practice sessions. It is possible that they are friends, neighbors, colleagues, housemates, or even spouses of each other.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support Yes obvious with a little examination. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose as stated Maharishi U doesn't run the TM movement. There are TM organizations all over the world. The university has no relationship with them. And the university has no relationship with many of the TM organizations in the U.S., such as Maharishi Ayurveda Products International. Further, my feeling, per my comment below is that there's no solid evidence of sock puppetry, and in particular sock puppet abuse. You won't find an instance of a particular IP accessing two different accounts within the 6-hour lease period. Further, it should be obvious to anyone familiar with the participants that the TM-related accounts have very different editing patterns and manner. Each account began as an obvious newbie, unlike Tucker and Kala. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Maharishi U doesn't run the TM movement. Bevan Morris is the head of the university and the head of the U.S. Country of Peace. The same people run both organizations.   Will Beback  talk  12:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC) reply

It's incorrect as stated. It would be more accurate to say that two individuals associated with Maharishi University of Management also head two TM-related organizations in the U.S. The relationships among all the various organizations in the U.S. are unclear. But in no way, for example, does Bevan Morris oversee The Raj Health Spa in Fairfield or Maharishi AyurVeda Products in Colorado. The whole idea of the TM movement is an artificial construct. There are many independently incorporated organizations. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC) reply

The King ( Nader Raam )of the movement is in the Netherlands yes? [102] This pages seems to explain it a bit Global Country of World Peace -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 12:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC) reply

What's the "U.S. Country of Peace?" Get your facts straight. Hickorybark ( talk) 15:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Sorry, for those of us outside the movement the names are a bit confusing. I meant the " United States Peace Government", of which Hagelin is president and Morris is prime minister. Hagelin and Morris are nominal residents of Fairfield, Hagelin is on the faculty of MUM and Morris is its president, and they are the leaders of the TM movement in the U.S.   Will Beback  talk  03:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, on every article, the factual details can be confusing. That’s why it serves WP’s purposes to retain knowledgeable editors. Hickorybark ( talk) 00:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

All the facts we need are in secondary sources. Experts can suggest improvements from talk pages without actively editing or even owning the articles themselves.   Will Beback  talk  02:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

OpposeThe SPI CU reported mixed technical findings and the matter has been forwarded to ArbCom for further consideration. Furthermore there has been no consideration or analysis of the behavioral evidence by any authoritative person(s) and text is still being submitted on the Evidence page. This premature proposal and voting is the Wiki equivilant of a lynch mob.-- — Kbob • Talk • 03:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose Although the IP range proves that all of the pro-TM editors are located at or near the campus of MUM, that doesn't indicate whether they are paid to edit WP to PUSH their POV. It doesn't indicate which, if any, are merely students or outside TMers, who would not fall under COI. It doesn't imply SOCK for reasons amply explained by TimidGuy, Will Beback, and others. It certainly has nothing to do with MEAT or SPA (SPA is indicated elsewhere in this case, I believe, and there is no way to show MEAT without a sting operation, and it may be too late for that).

Oppose. Hickorybark ( talk) 14:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose MUM is an accredited university with it's own limited roles and responsibilities as an educational institution, but, as far as I know, it does not administer all the TM programs throughout the USA. A point I have made on the talk pages is that the TM related articles seem to be very US centric. TM is taught and practised all over the world and therefore it is not possible to say that MUM runs the TM movement, an international organization. -- BwB ( talk) 11:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

It is certainly possible to say that Bevan Morris and John Hagelin run the TM movement in the US, and even internationally. Morris is president of MUM and Hagelin is both a professor and a trustee. Morris is the Prime Minister of the Global Country of World Peace, and Hagelin is its Raja of Invincible America. Editors who are familiar with the movement yet refuse to acknowledge the connection between these elements appear to be giving disingenuous answers.   Will Beback  talk  23:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed, from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement#Statement_by_MuZemike and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TM editors/Archive. This could likely be changed to be more specific to the accounts and IP ranges involved. Cirt ( talk) 07:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Uncomfortable about bundling two communities in Iowa with the Maharishi University itself. If an arbitration arose about the Princeton-Columbia college rivalry, would we encompass all of Princeton, New Jersey in a finding? All of New York City? Findings ought to be applicable to any comparable situation. This one needs refining. Durova ⁴¹² 20:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

FWIW, Fairfield and MVC are essentially one community due to their proximity. The total settlement is quite small (about 11,000), in the middle of a sparsely populated farm region. It's quite different from universities or movementets based in larger communities.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I will probably be posting another, more specific one, at some point soon. Cirt ( talk) 20:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Within the scope of the privacy policy I'm wondering what's possible here. Back during the COFS arbitration one set of editors made specific claims about the Church of Scientology IT configuration. It would have strengthened their argument if they had provided a letter from the IT management to confirm what they were saying (several times I invited them to do so, but they ignored the suggestion--ultimately it appeared their claims were not very credible). A relevant question to this case is what the viable range of Internet connection options are for small midwestern communities. Some of the editor posts at RFAR and evidence imply that a single provider dominates nearly the entire market for the university plus two nearby communities, and assigns a narrow range of IP addresses randomly within that geographic area. I wonder how true that bears out. The local Chamber of Commerce should be able to provide basic information, and if the Maharishi University IT department is cooperative it might be possible to make better sense of things. Durova ⁴¹² 21:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

It has been noted that it is not the ip range of an area but the ip range of a specific internet service provider with clear links to the TM org (Lisco) This has been found not just by the sockpuppetry case that started these proceeding but by the involved editors themselves [ [103]], [ [104]]. It has also been noted by the "TM editors that Lisco provides free wireless access in the town of Fairfield [ [105]]. Thus any IP "ban" or restriction could be based on this service provider and in connection to TM article specifically. Such restrictions are already in place with existing service providers due to abuse of their highly dynamic IP address assigning. This could easily be imposed here in a manner such as I have suggested above [ [106]] Tuckerj1976 ( talk) 20:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Per your input, Tuckerj1976, I have researched free LISCO WI-FI availability in Fairfield, Iowa. The local public library appears to be using a different service, which leaves three to five local coffee shops and restaurants. Am not aware of whether LISCO reassigns IP addresses randomly throughout that geographic area. Durova ⁴¹² 22:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

(un-dent) Thank you Durova. That is surprising given the statements of claimed sockpuppets/Lisco users [ [107]]. Perhaps I am simply to believing and naive. It makes things a little more difficult . I think I should simply step-back and leave this WIKI itself. I thnk you may have more expertise than me in this area. Tuckerj1976 ( talk) 22:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

According to the 2000 census the city of Fairfield, Iowa had a population of slightly under 10,000 people. It wasn't likely a community that size would have a very large number of public wi-fi locations and some of those would use other carriers. The assertion didn't pass the sniff test. A few Google searches and phone calls took care of the rest. Durova ⁴¹² 00:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply

In case it helps, the two fixed IPs used by Maharishi University of Management are 69.18.50.85 or 209.152.117.83. Any Wikipedia editing from campus would be from one of these two IPs. There are four Internet providers in Fairfield: Mediacom, Iowa Telecom, Natel, and LIsco. Of the approximately 2,500 people in Fairfield who practice Transcendental Meditation, I would estimate that 200 at most are employed by Maharishi U and other Maharishi-related institutions. And that estimate would be high. Somewhere someone gave a figure of 200 staff at Maharishi U. That seems way way high. Plus, a large number of staff don't practice Transcendental Meditation, such as food service and maintenance personnel. Yes, Lisco was started by someone who practices TM, as many other businesses in Fairfield have been. When meditators moved here, they had to create their own jobs. Fairfield has received national recognition for being a center for entrepreneurial activity. Most of the employees at Lisco aren't meditators. Anyway, the upshot of this is that I think you can assume that someone editing Maharishi-rellated articles from a Fairfield IP may practice TM, but beyond that I don't know that you can make any assumptions. Also, because Lisco's DHCP server atypically assigns a new IP when the lease time is up, I don't think there's solid evidence for sock puppetry. I wish that allegation could be dropped. I don't think you'll find a single instance of a particular IP being used to access two different accounts within the 6-hour lease period. Please let me know if you'd like me to get a statement from Lisco or any of the other service providers here in Fairfield regarding anything. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Unsourced assertions do not help. Substantiation would be very useful. Durova ⁴¹² 17:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Would it help if I forwarded the e-mail from the campus IP department that gave the info about the dedicated IPs used by MUM? Here's an article from 2006 that gives info about a quarter of the population doing TM. [108]. Here are articles in the New York Times and Wired magazine about the entrepreneurial activity in Fairfield, which is sometimes referred to as Silicorn Valley. [109] [110] An interesting case study on Fairfield being one of the nation's most entrepreneurial small towns. [111] These sorts of sources support the idea that someone living in Fairfield isn't necessarily employed by MUM or a Maharishi-related organization. I could get a statement from Lisco about the behavior of their DHCP server. But even absent that, the principle behind dynamic allocation is that it allows ISPs to have fewer IP numbers than they have customers. The DHCP server reclaims and reallocates IP numbers after the lease time expires, such that a single IP number can be used by different customers. I'd like to do anything that can help clarify. Please let me know what that might be. Thanks. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

It's up to the arbitrators to make the determination. Several of those things appear potentially useful; it would depend on the details. A statement from the campus IT department? Probably yes, if it speaks on point. An article comparing Fairfield to Silicon Valley? Probably less so; that's likely to stall at the comparison of Silicon Valley's 2 million residents to Jefferson County's stable population of 16,000. Best to focus on the items that would be most convincing. Durova ⁴¹² 04:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Where would I present a statement from campus IT? The point of the articles was to establish the number of meditators in Fairfield and the fact that most are not employed by TM-related organizations. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia policies do not allow the republication of full copyrighted texts. So for that the thing to do would be to email the arbitration committee. Short excerpts may be quoted, same as with quotes from any other copyrighted text. Procedural questions of this sort would be better directed to the arbitrators and clerks, though. Durova ⁴¹² 05:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I just counted the names in the MUM directory. There are 339 faculty and staff listed there. [112] The associated lower school on the MUM campus, MSAE, reportedly has another 49 full or part-time faculty, and presumably has at least a dozen staff members, so that brings the total to about 400. TimidGuy has said that there are 2,500 TM practitioners in Fairfield, meaning that 16% of them work directly for MUM or MSAE. If we exclude children the number is perhaps closer to 20%. Fairfield/MVC is also the home of other TM-related businesses such as MAPI, which sells $26 million in herbal supplements annually. The TM editors have been extensively engaged in editing the article on those products, MVAH.   Will Beback  talk  23:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Note that MSAE uses the same LISCO network too. [113]   Will Beback  talk  23:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Also this sentence "Many of the editors appear to be editing as single purpose accounts with likely meatpuppetry and possible sock puppetry occurring at articles within the topic" from the proposal is way off the mark. ChemistryProf is the only SPA and since the Committee has indicated that analysis of editing behavior does not indicate puppetry this sentence is grossly inaccurate and unacceptable in my opinion.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Template

2) {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.

Scope of Transcendental Meditation movement topic ban

1A) Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Transcendental Meditation movement or practitioners of Transcendental Meditation movement, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles, including as examples but not limited to, articles for deletion, reliable sources noticeboard, administrators' noticeboard and so forth.

1B) Editors topic banned under this remedy may apply to have the topic ban lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. The Committee will consider each request individually, but will look favorably on participation in the featured content process, including both production of any type of featured content, as well as constructive participation in featured content candidacies and reviews. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done no more frequently than every six months thereafter.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Wikipedia by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Wikipedia through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif ( talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose Scientology was a different situation. Topic-banning only the pro-TM editors ignores the almost-equal infractions by the anti-TM editors. David Spector 16:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

How was that case different? As for the anti-TM editors, one was banned last summer and another has been blocked twice, so their behavior has not been excused.   Will Beback  talk  21:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose as currently worded. This phrase is much to vague and problematic. "practitioners of Transcendental Meditation movement, broadly defined," A specific list of existing articles should be specified. At present there are 35+ BLP's list in the Practitionars of Transcendental Meditation category. This group of articles is arbitrary and with no criteria for inclusion or deletion. It ranges from the Maharishi to Shirley MacLaine to Igor Kufayev (who?). -- — Kbob • Talk • 19:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support This is indeed very similar to the Scientology case. As for Kbob's objection to including TM practitioners in the scope of the remedy, I'd ask what these articles all have in common: Andy Kaufman, Clint Eastwood, Franklin M. Davis, Jr, Ben Foster (actor), Joaquim Chissano, Merv Griffin, William Scranton III, Jeff Peckman, Ron Parker, Doug Henning, Ramani Ayer, Shirley MacLaine, Nat Goldhaber, John Gray (U.S. author), and Leon MacLaren? They all have two things in common: they are biographies of TM practitioners that have been edited by Kbob. I would guess that Kbob or other TM-editors have worked on the majority of articles in category:Transcendental Meditation practitioners.   Will Beback  talk  21:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support. An an analysis of the articles in question would suggest this would be the only remedy (I will post evidence shortly as to how long these COI has been taking place). I hate to use these words but there are editors here who seem to be "true believers" in the TM movement. The evidence is clear, they will stop at nothing (including manipulation, harassment, off and on wiki collusion, etc to advance a certain positive spin on the movement. The history of the TM article alone is littered with instructions and advice from admins and others to stop but none of this has ever been successful. The history of these articles shows that only a full topic ban will work. I have already said (and will repeat here) I would be happy to be topic banned from this article also if I felt this would help redress the mess that this article is in) Tucker ^talk 02:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose There is greater evidence for violation of policies and guidelines on the part of those who oppose TM. Please see the evidence page. This evidence includes deletion of secondary sources, misrepresentation of sources, using sources that are clearly disallowed, and incivility. Such a one-sided solution as proposed here is problematic. Plus, all the evidence suggests that putting these articles in the hands of editors who oppose TM would not be in the best interests of Wikipedia. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC) reply

There is greater evidence for violation of policies and guidelines on the part of those who oppose TM. - Really? Which evidence are you referring to, exactly?   Will Beback  talk 

Compare the number of blocks/formal warnings issued. Editors opposed to TM have been blocked and have received formal warnings a number of times. No so-called TM editor has been blocked. And I can only think of one or two formal warnings (a 3RR for Olive and your warning to Kbob regarding plagiarism). TimidGuy ( talk) 11:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC) reply

One of the advantages of tag team editing is that there's never a need for a single member of the team to engage in edit warring, though you've done so anyway while editing logged-out. The "Blogging tips" distributed by someone in the TM movement explained how to avoid getting into heated disputes by switching persons. [114] If the negative blogger responds to your post from another angle, coming back with another attack, it is better NOT to engage in an exchange with this person or with other negative bloggers who come to defend their cohort (who may well be the same person now posting under a different name). Instead, pass the link on to another of our bloggers or to your blog team captain, so that another positive blogger can be assigned to respond. This way, there will be more supportive, positive people joining the discussion and standing up for the truth — outnumbering the naysayers — and you will avoid getting involved in a personal interaction with the negative bloggers, which can be VERY DRAINING. ... Also, we never want to get drawn into a heated debate, because that can make us look fanatical. Since the blogging team seems to have included people using names like "TimGuy" and "Kbob108" it's likely that people who are familiar with those tips are now editing here. And as for the assertion that "no so-called TM editor has been blocked", that's simply false. A whole team of editors (or one with multiple accounts) editing from the Dutch HQ were blocked a couple of years ago. It appears that we're dealing with their replacements.   Will Beback  talk  07:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The jumps in logic here are quite... well... illogical. Tips on tag teaming are supposedly leaked and described by some blogging site, posted on a negative to TM site, then this is connected to a group of blocked Dutch editors who then must be replacements for the editors accused here.( olive ( talk) 16:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed, as applicable and relevant to this case. From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Scope_of_Scientology_topic_ban. Cirt ( talk) 07:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Discretionary topic ban

2) Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, ban any editor from editing within the Transcendental Meditation movement topic. Prior to topic banning the editor, the administrator will leave a message on the editor's talk page, linking to this paragraph, warning the editor that a topic ban is contemplated and outlining the behaviours for which it is contemplated. If the editor fails to heed the warning, the editor may be topic banned, initially, for three months, then with additional topic bans increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

All topic bans and blocks arising out of this sanction are to be recorded at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement#Log of topic bans and blocks. Appeals of discretionary topic bans may be made to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not sure that this is the way to go, here; there are well-established patterns of behaviour on both sides that we can reasonably expect to continue; to punt it over to uninvolved administrators would seem to be an abdication of ArbCom's responsibility (though this remedy may be appropriate in conjunction with other, more user-specific remedies). Steve Smith ( talk) 07:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

In Scientology, this was meant to handle ongoing issues. Batches of accounts were blocked and topic banned in that case, and this remedy was meant to handle new issues (possibly new hydra heads) on an ongoing basis. If we sanction several editors for their conduct, this might be a useful finding to handle other conduct issues that emerge in the future. On the other hand, the Scientology remedy was meant to be flexible because the same content issue had gone up to ArbCom on an almost annual basis—it was meant to provide more lasting relief. Maybe that's not appropriate for less persistent disputes.

In any event, this would be grossly inappropriate in the absence of any actual decisions on our part. Like you, I think this case calls for individualized findings rather than lumping together, for example, the "Fairfield editors." Cool Hand Luke 15:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Wikipedia by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Wikipedia through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif ( talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose Scientology was a different situation. Topic-banning only the pro-TM editors ignores the almost-equal infractions by the anti-TM editors. David Spector 16:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

This remedy does not distinguish between "pro" or "anti" editors. Any editor who is consistently unhelpful may be topic banned after warning.   Will Beback  talk  22:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Absolutely not. My experience with two administrators on these articles, has been that within very short periods of time and with no accurate evidence, wildly inaccurate judgement calls were being made. These are contentious articles and topics, and experience shows that admins have as many misconceptions, agendas as any editor who has no tools. No admin should have the power to make this kind of decision and take subsequent action in such highly contentious situations and very often, agenda- driven, editing environments.( olive ( talk) 19:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)) reply

Support, though I think in this situation it may be better to go through the more careful process at WP:AE. That should address Olive's concern.   Will Beback  talk  22:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose I do not support this as a remedy. We should apply the standard Wiki policies to the so-called TMM articles and editors as would be applied in any other situation. While there seems to be contention on these articles, I believe consensus and progress can be made. -- BwB ( talk) 05:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support and for reasons see my comments above. Given the manipulation that has already taken place (and sock/meat puppetry involved) it would appear that once the existing editors are topic banned they will be replaced. This will need to be monitored and any future editors closely monitored. It is a sad state of affairs but I think necessary in this instance. Tucker ^talk 03:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose The Scientology case may not be parallel, especially now that the sock allegations have been dismissed. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Not appropriate. We should use standard ArbCom enforcement methods and not be giving such important and delicate responsibilities to such a large and indiscriminate group of people.-- — Kbob • Talk • 12:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support: There is a very long history of the same type of behavior on all of the TM articles by the same editors (both "pro" and "Anti"). Despite many, many, many discussions and administrative interventions, this has continued for at least 4 years. Topic banning is the only way to prevent this. I would be happy to included in this topic ban (and believe a number of other "anti" TM editors should consider such a voluntary ban themselves). The reason? Due to what has taken place here over the years, with the obvious "pro" manipulation, so called "anti" TM editors grow "battle weary" and become "hardened" in their outlook to the "movement. (I think this can be seen from the comments and behavior of people as they spend more time on the article. One can actually see people develop from slightly interested editors, to begin to take a stance this is certainly slightly less NPOV then when they start). Indeed, I feel this happening to myself as I grow more and more frustrated with the insults, innuendo and web wide manipulation (there is plenty of evidence here to suggest that a number of the so called pro TM editors do not confine their behavior to just WIKI articles). Indeed, sensing this in myself is one of the reasons I have limited my activity to the talk-pages. In the initial page of this ARBCOM thing, an advanced TM (er?) said that she was embarrassed by what the pro-TM editors had been doing here [ [115]] Among TMers I would suspect that she is probably not alone in these thoughts. A search of the internet would prove that it seems to be the same small core group of TMers who manipulate articles (one assumes that it is always the same person using these accounts and there are enough similarities in style to support this I think). Banning the Core TM "extremists" (yes Kbob will take this out of context and add it to his evidence section but I grow weary) may not only be good for the wiki articles but also the Movement itself. I think an equal ban of so called extreme anti TM editors might then restore balance to these articles.

However, on both sides there is obviously a lot of detailed knowledge of these subjects so could I recommend that they are only banned from editing directly to the articles themselves and not the talk-pages? This would then allow them to present both side of debate to future NPOV editors (although they should not be allowed to waste peoples time with future frivolous ARBCOM processes, etc).

Final comment (I am not interested enough in to comment anywhere else on any TM issue): despite what many editors have tried to suggest Will Beback has shown amazing restraint while being involved in these pages. While there has been a combined effort to show him/her as otherwise, I think it is plain that he/she is a neutral editor (there must have been many occasions where they had to struggle not to use their administrator tools) and should not be included in any such topic ban. It would be very important that he/she stays as it is highly likely that some of the editors will use libraries, friends internet accounts, etc, to create new accounts to start this process all over again. Because this is different to the Scientology case (where WIKI had a tight IP range to topic ban) allowing an interested but neutral editor to be allowed to closely monitor these topics is very important. I think Will fills this role well. Tucker ^talk 06:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed, as applicable and relevant to this case. From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Discretionary_topic_ban. Cirt ( talk) 07:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Single purpose accounts with agendas

3) Any editor who, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Transcendental Meditation movement or practitioners of Transcendental Meditation movement and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda may be topic-banned for up to one year. Any editor topic banned under this sanction may be re-blocked at the expiry of a topic ban if they recommence editing in the topic having made few or no significant edits outside of it during the period of the topic ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Wikipedia by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Wikipedia through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif ( talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support Seems like this would solve the problems.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose Scientology was a different situation. Topic-banning only the pro-TM editors ignores the almost-equal infractions by the anti-TM editors. The wording of this section only addresses infractions by pro-TM editors. The problems interfering with productivity related much more to CONFLICT among all editors, not POV-PUSHING by only the pro-TM editors. David Spector 16:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Some of the "anti" editors have been SPAs, so this would apply to them as well.   Will Beback  talk  22:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose It has very problematic wording such as "focused primarily on Transcendental Meditation movement or practitioners of Transcendental Meditation movement" what constitutes "primarily focused"? The category of articles: "practitioners of Transcendental Meditation movement" is far too vague and grammatically incorrect (who practices a movement?) to do anything but cause future arguments. This phrase "having made few or no significant edits outside of it" is also far to vague. We want to create remedies that are clear cut, easily recognized by all parties and easily enforced by Administration.-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• This is based on a judgement that hasn't even occurred, that there is non neutral, agenda driven editing. The wording is general, inaccurate, and problematic.

-Practitioners of the technique are numerous, and mostly unknown.

-There is an underlying, incorrect assumption that the technique is something practiced as a part of a movement with a guru intact, an assumption that is at the heart of much of the contention on these articles.

-those with some knowledge of the technique and other programs may be knowledgeable and useful editors.

-focused primarily... too subjective

-identifiable agenda... subject to underlying biases

-No admin should have this kind of power as stated above especially on contentious articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil ( talk • contribs)

Support. This is a standard remedy for problem topics. Note that it is not concerned with editor who are TM practitioners, but rather with editors who are solely or primarily engaged in editing articles about TM and TM practitioners.   Will Beback  talk  22:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose Wording way to general and subjective. What is an "identifiable agenda"? What are "practitioners of Transcendental Meditation movement"? -- BwB ( talk) 05:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose There should be a place in Wikipedia for someone who has particular expertise on a topic, as long as that person adheres to the policies and guidelines. Part of the problem is that someone with specialized knowledge in all likelihood has a profession and a job, and may not have the time to get as widely involved as the Wikipedia full-timers. We should move away from stigmatizing SPAs, since it actively discourages participation by experts. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC) reply

A good place for someone to show their expertise is on the talk page. However I'm not aware of any acknowledged experts who've been involved in this topic. To whom are you referring?   Will Beback  talk  07:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed, as applicable and relevant to this case. From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Single_purpose_accounts_with_agendas. Cirt ( talk) 07:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

The "practitioners" clause conflicts with a principle I authored above. Durova ⁴¹² 05:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Account limitation

4) Any editor who is subject to remedies in this proceeding, or who wishes to edit from an open proxy, is restricted to a single current or future account to edit Transcendental Meditation movement-related topics and may not contribute to the topic as anonymous IP editors. They are to inform the Committee of the account they have selected, and must obtain the Committee's approval if they wish to begin using a different account. All other accounts showing the same editing patterns are to be blocked indefinitely.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Wikipedia by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Wikipedia through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif ( talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support Scientology was a different situation, so it is irrelevant. However, there is clearly more than ample abuse to prohibit IP address editing of this controversial article. David Spector 16:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose as worded, because it is again vague. There are at present 80 articles listed in TM Movement category. Also what kind of remedies? Admonishment? Disruptive behavior? Incivility? temporary blocks?-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support. This is necessary to make the remedies enforceable. Note that for several weeks last summer one of the main TM editors, TimidGuy, refused to log in or to acknowledge that he was a registered user and instead sought to give the impression that he was a new and different editor, a violation of W:SOCK. Note that this also covers "anti" editors like the now-banned 7th who used a succession of accounts.   Will Beback  talk  22:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support This seems reasonable. Will, there is no evidence that I was trying to give the impression that I was a new a different editor. And one reason I was reluctant to log in and begin participating as TimidGuy after having been gone for five months is the constant bigotry and abuse that I had faced in the past. Please note that several civility blocks were issued during this very period. I was largely correcting errors and falsehoods and for the most part was avoiding the Talk page and more direct involvement by logging in exactly because of the constant abuse. Fortunately, after months of this, Admins finally took action, no thanks to you. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed, as applicable and relevant to this case. From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Account_limitation. Cirt ( talk) 07:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support Sufficient technical evidence exists to justify this, and this proposal would not be impacted by the differences between this CU result and the Scientology CU result. Durova ⁴¹² 05:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Editors instructed

5) Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to any Transcendental Meditation movement-related articles or discussions on any page is directed:

(A) To edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account, unless the user has previously sought and obtained permission from the Arbitration Committee to operate a legitimate second account;

(B) To edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration;

(C) To edit in accordance with all Wikipedia policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding; and

(D) To disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page.

Any uninvolved administrator may on his or her discretion apply the discretionary sanctions specified in Remedy "Discretionary topic ban" to any editor failing to comply with the spirit or letter of these instructions.

A note concerning these restrictions shall be placed on the talkpage of each of the affected articles. In case of any doubt concerning application or interpretation of these restrictions, the Arbitration Committee may be consulted for guidance.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Wikipedia by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Wikipedia through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif ( talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support fully and applicable to what has become "both sides" (pro and so called "anti" TM. While I really do believe that the "anti" camp are simply depicted so due to the enormous astroturfing that has taken place by the TM organization (and thus editors who have stayed with this article and argued so bravely against it should be applauded) there is always the possibilty that editors may arrive who really do have a negative POV against TM and will ignore any positive findings that might exist or arise. Tuckerj1976 ( talk) 18:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support This restriction is reasonable (but has nothing to do with Scientology, for reasons I have already stated). David Spector 03:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support. This is mostly an extension of #4. It further includes a requirement to make general disclosures of connections that could be seen as creating conflicts of interest.   Will Beback  talk  22:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed, as applicable and relevant to this case. From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Editors_instructed. Cirt ( talk) 07:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support. Goes hand in hand with 4. Durova ⁴¹² 05:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should any user subject to a topic ban in this case violate that 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, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Wikipedia by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Wikipedia through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif ( talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support fully. Tuckerj1976 ( talk) 18:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support This sanction is reasonable (but has little to do with Scientology). David Spector 03:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Seems OK as long as the topic is clearly defined. So far no proposal has given a clear description of the "TM related articles" consist of. At present there are over 80 "related" articles listed in the TM Movement template. This template, at present, has not clear criteria for inclusion and new articles can and will also be created as time goes on.-- — Kbob • Talk • 12:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

It is standard in ArbCom cases for topic bans to cover related articles "broadly defined". That is intended to keep editors from testing the boundaries. In your case, you have edited many articles of TM practitioners, apparently for the purpose of including their TM-affiliation. That type of editing would be included, obviously. If new articles related to the TM movement are created then those would be included too. I'd imagine that articles on topics like meditation and the Bhagavad Gita would also be included because they're likely to mention TM or MMY. If in doubt, avoid the topic or ask for guidance.   Will Beback  talk  01:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

"For the purpose of including their TM affiliation" is an assumption. I have big concerns with an editor and admin. who implies here that another editor is already convicted and banned. Will Beback did the same to me when he said, that since I won't reveal personal information revealing my assumed COI, then that's too bad and he hoped I'd stick around and edit other articles. [116] This is intimidation. Not good.( olive ( talk) 16:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)) reply

It's no an assumption, it's a deduction. I'll copy here text I posted somewhere below: As for Kbob's objection to including TM practitioners in the scope of the remedy, I'd ask what these articles all have in common: Andy Kaufman, Clint Eastwood, Franklin M. Davis, Jr, Ben Foster (actor), Joaquim Chissano, Merv Griffin, William Scranton III, Jeff Peckman, Ron Parker, Doug Henning, Ramani Ayer, Shirley MacLaine, Nat Goldhaber, John Gray (U.S. author), and Leon MacLaren? They all have two things in common: they are biographies of TM practitioners that have been edited by Kbob. So, Olive, if my deduction is wrong can you please correct me? Why would Kbob edit all of those articles if not to discuss their affiliation with the TM movement? What other common trait connects them?  Will Beback  talk  08:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed, as applicable and relevant to this case. From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Enforcement_by_block. Cirt ( talk) 07:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Uninvolved administrators

2) For the purpose of imposing sanctions under the provisions of this case, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict and is not mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee decision in this case. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any disputes about whether an administrator is involved or not are to be referred to the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Wikipedia by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Wikipedia through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif ( talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support for reason stated above Tuckerj1976 ( talk) 18:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support This is reasonable (but has little to do with Scientology). David Spector 03:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support -- BwB ( talk) 05:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed, as applicable and relevant to this case. From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Uninvolved_administrators. Cirt ( talk) 07:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support. Reasonable transfer of an effective provision. Durova ⁴¹² 05:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Edited: Moved here from incorrect section noted by User:Durova. I hope this is now correct.

Overview

So called "Extremist pro TM editors (where data and facts are highly manipulated to make it appear that TM is the answer to the worlds problems (Issues in diverse arenas as: health, wealth, politics, terrorism, crime, education, the paranormal, and world peace). These "extremists" will only accept any edit that places TM in a highly positive light and include (after a quick review by myself):

• TimidGuy ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ChemistryProf ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Littleolive oil ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Roseapple ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Bigweeboy ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Keithbob ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Luke Warmwater101 ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

(There maybe more, I simply note the presence of the above as the most persistant on the main TM article (although the investigation that started this suggests others maybe sockpuppets of the above and indeed of each other)

There is also one Administrator that seems to have an unusually friendly relationship with the "extremist" pro TM lobby Dreadstar (However, this maybe incorrect and would require wiki admins to investigate, although already mentioned I believe by others)

Editors

Above users should be topic banned from any article related to TM or the TM movement. This would mean that they could continue to use their obviously detailed knowledge of WIKI editing in other areas of WIKI. Thus helping to benefit other articles with their obvious editorial skills while those concerned about their POV maybe able to breath easier. At the same time, this would diminish fears by some (and the editors conduct) that these editors are part of a large organization with clear social, political and educational agendas allowed to propagate those agendas here unrestricted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I believe that this overstates things and is consequently overbroad. Steve Smith ( talk) 07:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Support Fladrif ( talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I generally agree that these seven accounts constitute the main "pro" group. However I'd disagree that they "only accept any edit that places TM in a highly positive light". I think this group is aware of Wikipedia policies and practices and know that at least token acknowledgement of criticism is required to avoid looking like blatant POV pushers. However they have consistently removed critical or non-positive material, minimized it, or buried it with excessive amounts of rebuttal or "balancing" material.   Will Beback  talk  00:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose The problems here are not caused just by the obvious POV-PUSHING by pro-TM editors, but by the many infractions by most of the active editors, as I discuss in my Evidence section. I suggest that most sanctions should apply to all editors engaged in edit warring or other continuing infractions of WP policy, regardless of their POV. Adoption of this Proposal would result in the virtual elimination of those with knowledge about TM, leaving those with an anti-TM POV to redo the article to have that POV. The unreasoning prejudice for TM among some editors is balanced by an unreasoning prejudice against TM among others. David Spector 03:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose' Evidence is still being submitted and there is mounting concern that the POV pushing and problematic behavior exists with several editors not listed above.-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Thank you for moving the proposals. These procedures can be confusing. Will give the evidence more time before commenting upon proposed remedies. Durova ⁴¹² 20:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

IP addresses

It has been noted already that most of these editors live in the same area and seem to use the same service provider as the TM movement LISCO. We are aware that people using other service providers (perhaps due to highly dynamic IP addresses (such as certain mobile internet providers) have restrictions placed on them when editing wiki articles without a registered user id and indeed have to go through a check process while generating a new user account. It would not be difficult, given the findings here [ [117]] to do something similar with LISCO users. This would thus not restrict all users of these IP group completely from editing most WIKI articles

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. Banning all LISCo IP addresses from the TM-related articles, subject to specific exceptions on application to ArbCom, would impose no undue hardship on any Fairfield area editor. Fladrif ( talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support Remedies should be focused on editing TM-related articles. No one has identified problems with the editing of unrelated topics.   Will Beback  talk  00:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support, in principle, though this needs to be reworded in somewhat clearer language. Cirt ( talk) 20:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose Blanket banning of all LISCO IP addresses is too broad. It excludes a major community having unique knowledge and experience with the topic, not just those editors who are a source of problems here. David Spector 03:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose this a sweeping and prejudicial proposal that would unfairly target thousands of Fairfield residents who happen to choose Lisco as their IP provider. I much prefer Timid Guy's proposal that selected editor who are Fairfield Lisco users be required to obtain a dedicated IP.-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

But the evidence provided by Durova shows that Lisco IPs are involved in editing other articles and apparently successfully and without issue. The only problems arise when Lisco IP users edit TM org articles (although all seem to be the same set of editors). This is complying evidence as to why LISCO IP users should be topic banned. This is supported further due to the close connections between Lisco and the TM movement (it needs to be noted that not only is LISCO's main client the TM org and that it's founder is a TM mediator but that the company has been a continued contributor the political aspirations of the movement [ [118]]. Of course it should be that the "problematic" editors are topic banned anyway, but given that the supposed dynamic ip range of LISCO users (And the fact they can buy permanent IP addresses there is nothing stopping them registering new User Ids and starting the whole issue all over again (although I would suspect that Checkuser relies on other factors than just IP address) Topic banning LISCO ip ranges would help reduce this as an issue. Tucker ^talk 23:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

IP addresses directly owned by any part of the TM movement

Any to IP address connected directly to the TM movement should not be allowed to edit any TM related articles)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. Fladrif ( talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support. Clearly a conflict of interest. This could be reworded to be a bit more direct and specific, as per WP:ARBSCI. Cirt ( talk) 20:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Unsure I'm not sure that everyone at an 'official' IP address would necessarily be a problem editor. David Spector 03:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose Durova has already made a proposal that contains better wording and a more universal application.-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Comment Re: Keithbob's comment, I haven't made any remedy proposals at all. So nothing I've put forward is an alternative to this proposal. It's possible that I might propose remedies at some future time. Durova ⁴¹² 05:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

TM movement should not be allowed to edit based on religious or "spiritual" grounds

It has been noted by some editors that people from the TM movement should be allowed to edit TM articles based on religious or spiritual grounds and this leaves us in something of a difficulty. However, it must be noted that the TM movement itself claims that it IS NOT either a religion or a spirituality. Instead it claims the following:

What is Transcendental Meditation?

Transcendental Meditation is a simple technique which gives a unique quality of rest to mind and body. It allows stress and tiredness to be released in a natural way, resulting in greater energy, clarity and enjoyment of life. [ [119]

Will it interfere with my existing beliefs?

No. Transcendental Meditation is a simple technique that aids relaxation, relieves stress and provides physical and mental energy. The practice does not conflict with any existing beliefs, religious or otherwise; yet at the same time people often find that regular meditation gives clarity and perspective to their highest aspirations. [ [120]

Then is TM a spirituality? Again, the TM movement (at least publicly) says no [ [121]]

So what is TM? The organization clarifies itself with this statement:

(Transcendental Meditation) will enhance your religion. Millions of people of all religions -- including clergy of all religions -- practice Transcendental Meditation. They report that the technique, by increasing energy and intelligence and eliminating stress and fatigue, allows them to better follow the tenets of their religion. Transcendental Meditation is a technique, pure and simple. It involves no religion, belief, philosophy, or change in lifestyle. [ [122]

If this is correct then using the argument that TM should be allowed to edit the article on religious or spiritual grounds most be a flawed and is indeed an unusable argument (we cannot claim that an organization is something it says it is not, except in the context of an article and then only using reliable sources) . On this basis it should, and can only, be treated in the same way that WIKI would look at any organization making medical, social political or educational claims (and especially those where an exchange of money takes place). Would WIKI allow a drug company (or its representatives) to edit its own wiki page where it appears manipulate clinical data to suggest that its newest drug will "cure cancer" even when mainstream science says it does not? Clearly it would not. Tuckerj1976 ( talk) 18:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. The posture of this matter is not whether adherents to some religion can edit an article about their religion. It is whether an organization, whether one regards it as a commercial enterprise or otherwise, should be permitted to astroturf Wikipedia. Fladrif ( talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

It is an oddly worded proposal, which I took to mean that "I have a right to edit about my beliefs" is not a reason to excuse an editor from the propsals and remedies that may be adopted here. I did not take it to mean "You may not edit about your beliefs" to be a suggested policy. If it were, I would oppose that, and as the others point out, it is impossible to know what any editor believes. Behavior is what ArbCom should be concerned with. Fladrif ( talk) 22:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I think I am trying to say this: There have been comments that members of religions or faiths should be allowed to edit any article about that faith. In other words, a Christian for example should not be banned from an article on Jesus simply because they are a christian (and are likely not to have a completely NPOV on academic material that says he was not really a god or the literal son of a god)and so on. And this I would agree upon. WIKI should not prejudice against a person based on religious views. However, this guide cannot be applicable to TM because according the TM movement it is neither a religion , a faith or a spiritually. Thus any decision on what groups of people may edit these articles cannot be based on any normal notion of religious "tolerance". Thus the usual allowances (or if you like tolerances) for this cannot be made in this instance. Tucker ^talk 23:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Disagree. We have no way of knowing what people really believe, and belief alone is not the problem. An editor can believe something to be true without using Wikipedia to promote it. The main problems that this case should address concern advocacy and collusion.   Will Beback  talk  00:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support I think the reasoning is sound. There is no 'holy right' to PUSH a POV here. We cannot know that God takes a stand for or against any topic. TM is not a religion. All contributions should be reliably sourced. David Spector 03:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Does that mean you think TM is a religion or oppose for other reasons? Tucker ^talk 22:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

I'm not sure I understand this proposal, but if the idea is that followers of TM should not be allowed to edit the articles, I disagree quite strongly. We don't exclude people for their beliefs, but for their editing behavior. Woonpton ( talk) 21:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Too diffuse. Durova ⁴¹² 05:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Durova: you are not the first person to say that about any attempts I make at "official/officious" writing :-) Tuckerj1976 ( talk) 19:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Proposed principles

Representation of sources

1) Fundamental to creating an encyclopedia is the fair and accurate representation of sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support This is a fundamental principle and relevant to this case since there has been significant dispute over reliable sources.-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support Fair.-- BwB ( talk) 05:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support Weakly: Reasonable but rather obvious. Doesn't really help to clarify things in this dispute. David Spector (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Following policies and guidelines is key

2) Regardless of point of view or conflict of interest, fundamental to the creation of a worthy encyclopedia is adhering to the letter and spirit of Wikipedia guidelines and principles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support -- BwB ( talk) 05:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Standard and I'm surprised this is not being supported by other editors in the ArbCom.-- — Kbob • Talk • 13:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Civility

3) The basis of Wikipedia is an environment of collaboration. Editors who are uncivil create a hostile environment that harms collaboration and discourages participation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support But there is more to the basis of Wiki. -- BwB ( talk) 05:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Important and relevant to this case.-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support This is almost a full half of the problem. Each side antagonizes the other. They are thus both aggressors and victims at the same time. They both hide their wounds from the other side's WP:UNCIVIL and use passive aggression to get back at the other side by a variety of more subtle WP policy violations. This accounts for at least half of the problems (the conflict of POVs accounts for the other half). TM is obviously inherently controversial (especially MVAH, which makes a wide variety of dubious therapeutic health claims; TM itself is sensible, effective, and is enjoyed by skeptics, scientists, doctors, religious leaders, and people from many other backgrounds), but the problem has more to do with POV-energized edit warring than the factual controversies about TM and MVAH. David Spector 03:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Neutral point of view

4) A core principle of Wikipedia is Neutral Point of View. All articles, and especially those that are controversial, must strictly adhere to NPOV.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Standard wiki core policy. We all support this.-- — Kbob • Talk • 13:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support Agree with Keithbob's statement. Part of the problem is that both sides argue over whether each tiny edit is NPOV or not. None of the editors accept the inclusion of both POVs in the articles. They should all be replaced by objective WP editors. David Spector 03:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Dozens of uninvolved Wikipedia editors have stopped by the articles and complained about the pro-TM slant or other editing problems. [123] Any editor who stays around long enough is soon labeled "biased". If they make their neutral changes, but fail to stick around, then their edits are eventually reverted. [124] According to Olive, Kbob, TG, Bwb, and ChemistryProf have each said that they are neutral editors but the non-TM editors are all non-neutral, at least from their point of view.   Will Beback  talk  04:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

An encyclopedia that anyone can edit

5) Editors who have a point of view, or even a conflict of interest, are not barred from editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit — a principle that helps to insure that a neutral point of view is maintained.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support I especially like "...even a conflict of interest...". That undermines much of the anti-TM editors' attacks on the pro-TM editors. David Spector 03:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Wikipedia is not a battleground

6) Wikipedia is not a battleground: "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Standard and should be supported by all.-- — Kbob • Talk • 13:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Misrepresention of sources

1) Some edits to Wikipedia articles have not accurately represented sources and some may be instances of malfeasance. For example, in writing that Transcendental Meditation worsens hypertension (edit[ [125], source p. v Results section [126]) and in writing that some TM researchers retracted their conclusions of earlier studies(edit [127], source [128]), Doc James and Fladrif falsely misrepresented sources. Additional examples can be found on the evidence page: Doc James [129] and Fladrif. [130]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose The proposed finding is unsupported, and contra-factual. The Diff's TG supplied on the Evidence page do not support the proposed finding. The text TG contested was supported by reliable sources. At minimum, this appears to be an attempt to involve ArbCom in a content dispute. Fladrif ( talk) 15:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support I have seen instances of the same and find the stated evidence convincing. ChemistryProf ( talk) 04:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I can't find any definitive discussion about the first pair of edits on the relevant article talk pages. According to whom was this material misrepresented? There are hundreds of studies and numerous scientific reviews, many of which are difficult to fully understand. This is a really a about a content dispute, not a behavioral one.   Will Beback  talk  01:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

In the second case, Fladriff added that material about poorly structure studies, and the in the Time magazine article the outside researcher seems to conclude that "his study is very biased' because it reported only on people who had learned meditation and continued to practice it; there was no control group of others who tried to end their addiction without the aid of TM. Also, Benson is careful to note, the reports of the 1,862 drug users were subjective—they merely answered Benson and Wallace's questionnaires. Benson feels that better-controlled studies are needed." [131] So this doesn't seem to be a clear case of misrepresentation, and should be handled through other content dipsute resolution.   Will Beback  talk  01:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support This does appear to be deliberate misrepresentation and not just a "content dispute." The incessant wrangling, on the TM page, over the quality of preliminary research from more than 30 years ago and consistently under-representing the contemporary NIH-funded research documenting the effectiveness of TM for hypertension does seem to be deliberate. On the TM page, there is no mention of the Rainforth meta-analysis, and the Anderson meta-analysis is disparaged, as in, "The review and its primary author were partially funded by Howard Settle a proponent of TM." But a Google search on "tm hypertension schneider" yields more than a million hits, giving an indication of the mainstream legitimacy of Dr. Schneider and his group at MUM. The anti-TM editors are engaging in advocacy. Hickorybark ( talk) 15:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The reason that there is "incessant wrangling...over the quality of preliminary research from more than 30 years ago" is that TM editors keep insisting on adding old studies, in defiance of WP:MEDRS. Does it disparage a study to say who funded it? That information is contained in the study itself.   Will Beback  talk  01:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Incivility

2) Editors have been uncivil. Fladrif has been blocked twice for incivility and has received additional warnings, and others have been uncivil to a lesser extent, creating a hostile environment in Wikipedia articles related to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support I have observed this behavior on the part of many anti-TM editors. Evidence is solid. ChemistryProf ( talk) 04:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

There are many ways of creating a hostile environment. I've been told to go away twice by the Fairfield TM editors, and other editors both new and old, have also been made unwelcome.   Will Beback  talk  01:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I think this proposal is too broad. Better to draft behavior proposals on a specific individual.-- — Kbob • Talk • 13:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Demands to cease editing

3) Although policy doesn't require that editors with an admitted conflict of interest cease editing, a number of editors have frequently said that policy disallows such editing and have repeatedly asked an editor with an acknowledged conflict of interest to stop editing mainspace. Some of the instances of Will making such demands are documented by Fladrif elsewhere on this page. [132]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support I have seen this many times. Evidence is convincing. ChemistryProf ( talk) 04:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

This appears inaccurate. I've seen cases where editors who are dominating articles and who appear to have conflicts of interest to follow the suggestions at WP:COI: either disclose their connections to the topics they're writing about or stop editing them actively. Perhaps TG could provide diffs for this.   Will Beback  talk  22:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Fladrif has gathered evidence. [133] TimidGuy ( talk) 17:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I think this proposal would be OK if it used text from the COI policy and instead of being accusatory was more oriented towards future prevention of misuse of the COI policy.-- — Kbob • Talk • 13:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Doc James treats Wikipedia as a battleground

4) Doc James treats Wikipedia as a battleground, having already been sanctioned by Arbcom and now engaging in tendentious editing in articles related to Transcendental Meditation. This includes misrepresenting sources, adding noncompliant sources such as a blog, and deleting secondary sources. [134]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Many editors have added non-compliant sources. TG has himself seemingly endorsed "battleground" editing. [135]   Will Beback  talk  22:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I have only really edited the one TM page. What are "these articles related to TM" in which this "tendentious editing" has occured? If one looks at my top one hundred pages [136] only ONE is TM related. I would not exactly refer to myself as a WP:SPA :-) -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I would support an appropriate version of this. Jmh649 (Doc James) has a history as documented by past ArbCom sanctions and his strong and aggressive style in the past 45 days on the TM article(s). There is also clear evidence to support this [137] and there needs to be some kind of sanction.-- — Kbob • Talk • 13:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The material deleted by Jmh649 was not compliant with WP:MEDRS. Should he be sanctioned, or should the sanctions be applied to those who added the material in the first place?   Will Beback  talk  08:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Have you looked at the evidence? He deleted a secondary source and material that cited secondary sources. See [138] TimidGuy ( talk) 15:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Many editors, including yourself, have deleted material based on secondary sources. [139] [140] [141] Are you going to propose the same remedies for them too, or are you only targeting non-TM editors?   Will Beback  talk  22:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Only one of those diffs is an edit from me from, dating to July 2007. I deleted material sourced to magician James Randi's 1982 book Flim Flam criticizing the research. There have been 30 years of research since then. Even if it were current, its use would be questionable, given the stricture regarding use of popular media. Do you think that that deletion is somehow on par with Doc's deletion of material sourced to research reviews that have been published in academic journals in the past several years? TimidGuy ( talk) 11:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply

(I could have devoted an entire section of evidence to the efforts of TM editors to delete all references to James Randi as source. Randi has been deemed a reliable source and a significant point of view in many noticeboard and other discussions, yet the TM editors have consistently argued that he is a mere stage magician, if allowing his views in at all.)

Only one of the diffs I added was from you, but others are from Olive and BwB and occurred in 2009. The material they deleted included a scholarly book and other highly reliable secondary sources. So to answer your question, I think that the deletions by Olive and Bwb were "on a par" with Doc James' deletion, or at least similar enough for this discussion. So if deleting reliable secondary sources is a violation then there are other guilty parties including Olive and Bwb. Shall we expand this finding to cover everyone who has deleted a secondary source?   Will Beback  talk  11:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Kala Bethere treats Wikipedia as a battleground

5) Kala Bethere treats Wikipedia as a battleground. On his first day in Wikipedia, he posts about TM as "junk science" and says, "Many, like recent TM publications, are published in 'junk journals' devoted to paranormal research, UFO's, etc.," [142] despite the obvious fact that the research has recently been published n major medical journals, including Archives of Internal Medicine [143] (put out by the American Medical Association), the American Journal of Hypertension [144] [145] [146], the American Journal of Cardiology [147], the International Journal of Psychophysiology [148], and many more. He not only deletes every mention of individual studies, citing WP:MEDRS, but then also persistently deletes research reviews (which are secondary sources according to MEDRS) that cover this research: [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As TimidGuy knows, the sources he mentions either were not reviews per WP:MEDRS or were lacking for one reason or another. I was actually the person who attempted to introduce independent reviews and to remove inappropriate primary sources, most placed by TimidGuy and LittleOliveOil. That TM research is viewed as junk science is well-known in the scientific community. This is a fact, not an opinion. These facts go back to the beginnings of TM Org research and continue up to the present day. You are well aware of the reasons your sources are lacking. Please stop making excuses for your vandalization of these entries and stop attacking and harassing me. I don't appreciate it.

I also am not transgendered so stop referring to me as such. It is deeply insulting.-- Kala Bethere ( talk) 19:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I think this refers partly to the extensive use of a paper published by MUM faculty members in the Journal of Scientific Exploration which mostly publishes papers on the paranormal. Research conducted by MUM faculty has been criticized in the scientific community and even earned John Hagelin an Ig Nobel Prize. Other studies, which make medical claims, fall under WP:MEDRS and those which don't meet that standard should be removed. The Fairfield TM editors have used that guideline as a reason to remove other non-compliant material but object to it being applied fully.   Will Beback  talk  01:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I trust Arbcom will objectively examine the evidence presented. Will, can you show me where the article in the Journal of Scientific Exploration is referenced in the TM article? I believe you are here deliberately conflating TM research with Maharishi Effect research. Please don't do that. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

That's just wrong, and perhaps even dishonest. The Maharishi Effect is created when 1% of a population practices TM. You know that and it's in the TM article as well, despite the united opposition of the Fairfield TM editors. More generally, the difference between TM and TM-Sidhi is simply that one is an advanced form of the other. The same people research and advocate them. As for this proposal, can TG honestly assert that none of the Fairfield TM editors have treated Wikipedia as a battleground?   Will Beback  talk  21:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I have not treated Wiki as a battleground. -- BwB ( talk) 11:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I see. So do you assert that none of the TM editors have advocated for TM, or used Wikipedia as a soapbox, and that all of the conflict on these articles is due solely to the non-TM editors?   Will Beback  talk  00:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Kala Bethere has a very strong POV“junk-science" [156]“TM junk science" [157]"Advertisement quality research" [158] and clearly stated agenda in regard to the TM articles as indicated by these diffs. Beginning on his first day as an editor: [159] He began to aggressively forward this one pointed agenda from his single purpose account. [160]Also keep in mind that he became an editor on Dec 31st 2009 and boldly forwards his agenda to this day. [161]-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Many of the topics related to TM are viewed by the mainstream as pseudoscience or just plain fringe views. The idea that people can levitate, or that a small group meditating in Fairfield, Iowa can effect the entire population of Canada, or that 95% of the world's buildings need to be destroyed and rebuilt according to the Maharishi's specifications, or that diseases can be treated by blowing on them or by shining colored lights on them: these are not concepts that Wikipedia should present except in the framework established by WP:FRINGE. If Kala was helping to bring the articles into compliance with that guideline then he was helping the project. Any editors who were pushing in the opposite direction were harming the project.   Will Beback  talk  08:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I would have to agree with Will on this. Before coming across this article (and then reading around the subject) I had no idea these rather "strange" beliefs existed within the TM movement (yes I know that Kbob will now cite my comment about "strange" out of context and use it as evidence of my "POV" but I grow weary of being careful what I write and these beliefs are indeed "strange" within the context of empiricism which TM tries so hard to place itself). These views are pseudoscience and if they mean that Kala has a "POV" it is the "POV" of the scientific establishment, a "POV" which WIKI is, rightly, proud to maintain. Tucker ^talk 08:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Will, you obfuscate. Kala wasn't talking about topics related to TM. She says repeatedly on the TM Talk page that TM research is junk science. Journals that have published TM research include Hypertension [162], which is ranked number 1 among all hypertension journals. [163]. This is not junk science. The problem is that Kala arrived with an agenda to paint TM research as junk science and in keeping with her agenda has consistently deleted secondary sources and has repeatedly been uncivil. She is treating Wikipedia as a battleground. TimidGuy ( talk) 10:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

If it's not junk science then why has it received the junk science award ( Ig Nobel Prize)? ;) TM editors have repeatedly added studies to Wikipedia which prove the Maharishi Effect can induce peacefulness from thousands of miles away. TG even added a study which proved that blowing on a diseased part could address its ailment. TG and other TM editors don't see a problem with that type of editing, and they apparently think that any efforts to remove or modify their evidence of the magical effects of reciting Vedic Scripture or the ability of meditators to influence distant populations is evidence of bias. That lack of perspective is one symptom of COI and another is that the TM editors are blaming everyone else.   Will Beback  talk  11:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

If you have an article on the TM-Sidhi program then the research on that program must be included as information. The program itself is a mediation technique not a fringe science. The research may be described as fringe to science. However there are 50 or so peer reviewed studies most of which are reliable [164]. I'm not sure where there violations of policy here. If the research is being used to supply information that could influence health then WP:MEDRS comes into play I would think. If the article itself is not notable it should be deleted. The research, however fringe it may be considered, is part of the topic of the article, and is significant to the topic. Plausiblity is not an issue. Ghosts are not necessarily plausible but we sure do have an article on ghosts.( olive ( talk) 18:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)) reply

The research on TM-Sidhi and Yogic Flying has been conducted exclusively by the faculty of MUM, and has not been replicated by any independent researchers. It qualifies as primary source material. It all promotes a fringe view or pseudoscience. The fact that some studies have been published in peer-reviewed journals does not mean that these are not pseudo-scientific views. Studies on UFOs and ESP get published in those journals too. Nobody is saying we shouldn't have an article on Yogic Flying, or on ghosts. But the idea that we must include all of the MUM research on Yogic Flying, and in some cases devote entire sections to studies that have never been mentioned in secondary sources, is inconsistent with WP:NPOV because it gives too much weight to a fringe view.   Will Beback  talk  01:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Will, you keep changing the subject. This finding of fact relates to Kala's agenda regarding research on Transcendental Meditation and her subsequent deletion of research reviews, which are defined by MEDRS as secondary sources. It wasn't research on Transcendental Meditation that received the Ig Noble, and you know that. It was the admittedly controversial research on the Maharishi Effect. You continue to deliberately conflate these for rhetorical effect. TimidGuy ( talk) 11:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply

TG, you're insisting that an editor is using Wikipedia as a battleground due to a dispute over sources. When we went to the WP:MEDRS and uninvolved editors came to look at how medical studies on TM and MVAH were being presented they objected to the skewed version promoted by the TM editors. That's why Doc James showed up and started clearing out non-compliant sources. As for the research on TM and TM-Sidhi, much of it is conducted by the same people. [165] The man who received the Ig Nobel Prize for his TM-Sidhi-related research also conducted research on TM, and we use him as a source. What's his name....oh yeah - John Hagelin.   Will Beback  talk  12:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The problem is that she also tried to clear out compliant sources -- research reviews. TimidGuy ( talk) 11:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Doc James has self-evidently violated NPOV

6) Doc James has greatly skewed the TM article, to the point that it was self-evident to an outside observer, who wrote on Psych Central that "it’s clear that whoever wrote the section on 'Health effects' in TM research has an axe to grind." [166] The Psych Central article criticizes the editor for cherry picking and gives this content added by Doc James as an example. [167]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Is TG actually proposing to use a blog as a standard? A blog which as repeatedly published press releases from MUM? Shall we look around and see what other blogs say too? Doc James has done a service for Wikipedia by removing a large amount of poor research that didn't meet WP:MEDRS which was added by the Fairfield TM editors. Medical claims are a serious matter, and Wikipedia should always be careful when reporting findings, especially on a topic where there are fringe views and pseudoscience. The Fairfield TM editors should be admonished for having added it in the first place.   Will Beback  talk  20:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that Dr. John Grohol, founder of Psych Centeral and an expert in online psychology resources, wrote about the obvious bias and hostility in the article. I supported Doc's initial editing of the research and deletion of individual studies. [168] I fault him for his subsequent removal of secondary sources, addition of noncompliant sources (blog, website, popular media), and misrepresentation of sources. Also, note that much of that original material was added before MEDRS was a guideline. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Ah yes I made some enemies among psychologists with my edits over at the Rorschach test.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 12:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The Grohol blog does not appear to be a disinterested or neutral observer since he has published verbatim press releases from MUM before.   Will Beback  talk  08:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Perhaps Psych Central has reported on previous studies because they had merit. This research has been widely reported. [169]

Perhaps. But the opinion of one blogger is not a good basis for a remedy in a Wikipedia dispute resolution process.   Will Beback  talk  11:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Kala Bethere is uncivil

7) Kala Bethere is uncivil, creating a hostile environment, such as "Poor Littleolive Oil still is beating her 'peer review' dead horse if as if she didn't hear." [170] and "Littleolive, quick, go look in the mirror! Your nose, it's growing!" [171]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

There seems to be evidence to support this. For example repeatedly calling editors "vandals" [172] [173] [174] [175] and more [176] [177]-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Editors have misused the COI guideline

9) There have been multiple WP:COIN reports without evidence (see summary), suggesting harassment or an attempt to gain an upper hand in the discussion, which the COI guideline prohibits.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. TimidGuy ( talk) 11:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply

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.

Requirement of fixed IP

1) Because Lisco's server atypically assigns a different IP after the 6-hour lease time, resulting in the situation where a given IP that's been used by one editor is occasionally assigned to another, creating the appearance of sock puppetry, Lisco customers are required to pay the extra cost of a fixed IP if they want to continue editing Wikipedia, thereby having a specific IP always associated with a specific account.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. TimidGuy ( talk) 17:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I don't understand how this proposal would solve the problems of TM editors taking ownership of TM-related articles, COI, tag teaming, and non-neutral editing, except that it would make it easier to identify accounts. Further, I don't see how it could be determined easily whether users have fixed or non-fixed IPs short of repetitive and invasive checkuser tests.   Will Beback  talk  21:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose I don't see that this even is a remedy. It is just a statement of fact relevant to determining sockpuppetry, which is not a major issue. David Spector 03:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose This does not address any of the real issues in this case, and would be unduly burdensome to enforce. Is an named and logged-editor with LISCO as an ISP going to be sanctioned because their posts are coming from multiple IP addresses? Is some hapless admin or clerk supposed to monitor that? Arguments that the SPI's finding of rampant sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry is a mistake due simply to LISCO's use of dynamic IP addresses is a red herring. Fladrif ( talk) 18:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support This proposal addresses a specific issue of this case ie. dynamically assigned IP addresses giving the appearance of sock or meat puppetry which is a central point in this case. It gives the CU or Committee a layer of assurance that each IP address is unique and allows the Fairfield editors to be on a level playing field with all other editors and prevents them from being falsely accused of sock puppetry when there is no behavioral basis for it. Other accusations such as ownership, tag team editing and POV have been made by both sides involved in this case, and can and will, be addressed in other proposals. Citing them here as reasons for opposing this proposal seems rather odd.-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Support as particularly relevant to this case. ChemistryProf ( talk) 04:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Not certain of the factuality of this. At any rate, it appears to be outside the scope of normal remedies. Durova ⁴¹² 05:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I could get a statement from Lisco. I certainly wouldn't mind paying the extra money for a fixed IP if it would make the Wikipedia community more comfortable. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Oppose We are an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Even those that are assigned IP addresses dynamically. Taemyr ( talk) 03:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Editors admonished

2) Fladrif and Doc James are admonished for misrepresenting sources. See evidence page: Doc James [178] and Fladrif. [179] All editors are encouraged to be fair and accurate in their representation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. There was no misprepresentation of sources by me or Doc James. See above. Fladrif ( talk) 15:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

This seems uncalled for.   Will Beback  talk  22:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Is there evidence from the Evidence Page to support this? If so maybe it could be linked here-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I've added links to the relevant sections on the Evidence page. TimidGuy ( talk) 15:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Civility restriction

3) Fladrif and other editors are admonished for continued incivility. All editors contributing to articles related to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi are subject to a civility restriction. Any Admin who identifies an instance of incivility can, without warning, restrict an editor from editing articles related to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi for a period of one week. Each successive restriction will be lengthened by one week. If violations continue, an editor can be permanently restricted from editing these articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support This is a fair and appropriate proposed restriction and is particularly relevant to this case. ChemistryProf ( talk) 04:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support Hickorybark ( talk) 18:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support -- BwB ( talk) 11:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Battleground

1) Wikipedia is not a battleground.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Standard.   Will Beback  talk  21:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Correct and relevant as the Evidence page indicates the presence of aggressive behavior-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Standard. -- BwB ( talk) 11:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Inappropriate ways to influence consensus

2) Attempts to influence consensus by threatening, maligning, or ignoring other editors are inimical to the goal of writing a collaborative encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is applicable here. The Fairfield TM editors have acted as a tag team in talk page disputes and article edit wars, serving to override NPOV and skew consensus.   Will Beback  talk  21:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I find this to be a strange combination of adjectives "threatening, maligning and ignoring". Also I fail to see how the alleged edit warring, mentioned above, is the same as "threatening, maligning and ignoring other editors"-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Ownership

1) User:Littleolive oil, User:ChemistryProf, and User:TimidGuy were acting in consort to establish ownership over transcendental meditation articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose I am a sporadic editor on these articles. While some of my suggestions on talk pages have been opposed by most other editors, when this happens I do not hesitate to withdraw the proposal. I have never made significant changes to an article without the support of a majority of editors. ChemistryProf ( talk) 04:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose obviously not so. -- BwB ( talk) 11:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Collectively and individually, the Fairfield TM editors are the dominant editors of the TM-related articles. They have been active on the articles for years, and made tens of thousands of talk page and article edits. They require consensus for material they don't like, and argue endlessly against its inclusion, in one case saying that unanimity would be required before something could be added (See Saga of Sexy Sadie). On the other hand, they simply add material they like then argue that consensus is need to remove it. They make new and old editors unwelcome, and accuse previously uninvolved editors bias and of pursuing agendas.   Will Beback  talk  21:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

There have been accusations of ownership on both sides. This proposal mentions three specific editors. Can you reference the Evidence page section(s) that support this proposal?-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Dreadstar

2) User:Dreadstar used administrative capabilities to help another user avoid scrutiny. ([ [180])

Comment by Arbitrators:

Users have the right to delete their own user page. Dreadstar did nothing wrong here. Cool Hand Luke 21:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Will Beback: Oh, I see. Yes, that's a little different. ArbCom has recently discussed deleting talk pages, and you're right that's generally considered less acceptable than deleting user pages. Cool Hand Luke 05:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

• Oppose as misinformation. I note that I have given the Arbitration committee information concerning my off Wikipedia harassment. My personal information was oversighted to help guard against further concerns. As I originally stated in my evidence, I could have asked a couple of admins to do the job whom I trust, because of their honesty, neutrality, and superior skills when dealing with other editors such as GTBacchus and Dreadstar. Suggestions that I acted dishonestly to hide my editing are unfounded. I suggest SA be more careful when making accusations.( olive ( talk) 21:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)) Complete information is with the arbitrators. ( olive ( talk) 22:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)) reply

• I did not delete Littleolive oil's user page to help her avoid scrutiny; she was harassed off-wiki, and posted a request on my talk page to delete personal information she had previously posted: [181]. Dreadstar ☥ 04:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I disagree that this individual edit was problematic. However the overall histoy of Dreadstar's interaction with the Fairfield TM editors, and his editing of TM-related articles and talk pages, shows that is an involved administrator and should not be using his tools to block editors in disputes with them, as he has done in the past.   Will Beback  talk  21:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I am not aware of anything on the Evidence page that supports this proposal. Also it appears to be a complex issue that has not been explored in this ArbCom.-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I can add evidence if necessary. Dreadstar has had close relations with various TM editors dating back to What the Bleep Do We Know!?, where he, Olive, and TG were among the leading editors and who were all defending fringe views. Since then three TM editors supported Dreadstar's RfA, have given each other barnstars, and have complimented or defended each other. Dreadstar has blocked or threatened to block editors who've been involved in disputes with Olive and TG. His extensive involvement in this case is evidence of his lack of impartiality. I don't think he needs to be admonished for this past behavior, but he should not be viewed as an uninvolved admin on topics related to TM.   Will Beback  talk  00:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment to Cool hand Luke: I agree that deleting the user page was not a problem. However deleting the user talk page is another matter. [182] Reviewing the 257 deleted edits, it's hard to see why they were all deleted. If material needed to be oversighted, then it should have been oversighted.   Will Beback  talk  05:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

There was no reason for Dreadstar to do a poor man's oversight when Wikipedia:Requests for oversight is so responsive to requests. That Dreadstar didn't realize that such actions would be problematic for an involved administrator such as himself to do is very problematic. There is cause to believe that this collusion was inappropriate and those of us who are not administrators have no way of verifying whether what you say is true or false. Besides this, the deletion was done inappropriately as a total deletion of your talk page material rather than removal of the few offending diffs. At the very least, this is a botched job and at the worst this represents an example of a violation of Dreadstar's terms of adminship in the first place, though he changed his requirements for recall after he was granted the mop and bucket. ScienceApologist ( talk) 21:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC) reply

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.

Article probation

1) Pages related to transcendental meditation (broadly construed) are subject to article probation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is a possible remedy, but my experience is that article probations can simply push the decision making about remedies over to the less informed WP:AE. I think that a more effective resolution would be straightforward topic bans.   Will Beback  talk  21:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Dreadstar cautioned

2) User:Dreadstar is cautioned to avoid even the appearance of impropriety when using administrative tools.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree per above, due to Dreadstar's close and very friendly relationship with the Fairfield TM editors.   Will Beback  talk  21:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Not sure where this is coming from. Can you cite Evidence page to support this?-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

SupportThe close relationship is show not only, as noted on the Evidence Page, by Dreadstars' involvement on the "What the Bleep..." article and talkpages, his intervention on behalf of the TM-Org editors at COIN, documented on the Evidence Page [183] Dreadstar's active participation in the talkpages [184] and articles or noticeboards, including not only TM-Related articles [185] [186], some tangentially related, sometimes even those completely unrelated to the TM Articles [187] [188] [189] [190] [191] TimidGuy and Olive involve themselves with, intervening on their behalf when they are involved in disputes, [192] coaching TM-Org affiliated SPA's [193] and, after becoming an Admin with their vocal support, using admin tools [194] [195] or the threat of admin tools [196] [197] [198] [199] to intimidate or sanction other editors who disagree with them, misapplying and misinterpreting rules such as WP:COI, WP:OUTING and WP:3RR. Dreadstar's involvement in the Warnborough article is a fascinating case study. He shows up out of no-where to warn "Degreemill" a SPA who only posted on the Warnborough Talk Page that he was "canvassing" by asking an uninvolved editor's opinion on a point of contention between himself and TimidGuy [200] and asks an admin off-wiki to ban "Degreemill", but is turned down, [201] then intervenes three weeks later on TimidGuy's behalf in a disagreement between TimidGuy and Orlady.[ [202]] No other involvement in the article or talk-pages at all by Dreadstar, other, of course, than to summarily ban me on a bogus outing charge. This sanction is a mild one. A revocation of admin tools would be more appropriate. Fladrif ( talk) 00:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Article probation sanctions

1) Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility, tendentious editing, and assumptions of bad faith. Sanctions imposed may include restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, bans from editing the transcendental meditation pages and/or closely related topics, blocks of up to 1 year in length, or any other measures the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Climate change? I assume this was copied from another case without some necessary editing. As I wrote above, I think that remedies like this place a burden on the community and the other editors.   Will Beback  talk  21:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Better to use WP:AE -- — Kbob • Talk • 21:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Article probation warning

2) Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the article probation provisions; 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

See above.   Will Beback  talk  21:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Appeals of article probation sanctions

3) Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed to the imposing administrator or the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

See above.   Will Beback  talk  21:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Administrative reversal of article probation sanctions

4) Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) arbitration committee approval to do so.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

See Above.   Will Beback  talk  21:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Logging article probation sanctions

5) All sanctions imposed are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is standard, whatever remedies are enacted.   Will Beback  talk  21:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Wikilawyering and stonewalling

1) Excessive formalistic and legalistic argument over policies and stonewalling, which ignores the spirit of those policies and serves to obstruct consensus-building processes or cover up an agenda of POV-pushing, is harmful to the project and may be met with sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. The matter of stonewalling/ WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT has come up repeatedly.   Will Beback  talk  06:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

*Standard: Alleged behaviour in this case by antagonistic, uncivil, editors with stated biases.( olive ( talk) 07:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)) reply

Support. This is a repeated and serious problem. A review of the history of the talk pages on these articles shows that the identical issues come up again and again, year after year, and that tendatious editing is repeatedly used to ignore consensus, even unanimous consensus by univolved editors at appropriate noticeboards. Fladrif ( talk) 21:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support as standard and any careful review of the talk pages will reveal which editors are involved. ChemistryProf ( talk) 04:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support -- BwB ( talk) 05:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Use of accounts

2) Creating accounts (" sockpuppetry") or coordinating accounts (" meatpuppetry") to manipulate the consensus process; to create alliances to reinforce a particular point of view, to engage in factional or tactical voting; to create "ownership" of articles; to evade topic bans or blocks; or to otherwise game the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Wikipedia operates by consensus. A group of editors who act together to skew that consensus in order to promote a point of view violate that core principle.   Will Beback  talk  06:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Standard per Wikipedia.( olive ( talk) 07:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)) reply

Support. Clear policy. Fladrif ( talk) 21:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support and I would ask anyone making a decision not to just read the evidence here but read the history of the talk-pages on any TM article to see how fake consensus is generated by the same editors, from the same town, with the same internet service provider agree time after time on issues that are obviously not NPOV Tucker ^talk 22:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support This seems to be reasonable, and must apply equally to so-called "con-TM" editors and "pro-TM" editors. -- BwB ( talk) 05:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, this important.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Ownership

3) (a) Wikipedia pages do not have owners or custodians who control edits to them. Instead, they are "owned" by the community at large, which comes to a consensus version by means of discussion, negotiation, and/or voting. (b) This is a crucial part of Wikipedia as an open-content encylopedia. See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Editors should not act singly or in groups to control articles.   Will Beback  talk  06:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Standard per Wikipedia.( olive ( talk) 07:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)) reply

Support While observing that, rather than continuing to work with his intellectual opponents on the Talk pages, Will Beback became frustrated with the process and initiated these proceedings in order to get his opponents banned. Hickorybark ( talk) 15:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support Ownership of the articles by the TM-Org editors is a huge problem here. MuZemike iniitated this proceeding, not Will, and without any input from Will. Fladrif ( talk) 21:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support wholeheartedly Wiki ownership is a universal principal. -- BwB ( talk) 05:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I have some concern about the wording since it includes 'voting' and WP is not a democracy.-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Quality of sources

4) Wikipedia articles rely mainly on reliable mainstream secondary sources as these provide the requisite analysis, interpretation and context. For this reason, academic and peer-reviewed publications are the most highly valued sources and are usually the most reliable. In contrast, self-published works, whether by an individual or an organisation, may only be used in limited circumstances and with care. Primary sources may be used to support specific statements of fact limited to descriptive aspects of these primary sources. In the event of source disputes, policy requires editors to seek consensus on articles' talk pages; if this fails, the community's Reliable Sources Noticeboard is an appropriate forum for discussion and consensus-building.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed The best available sources should be used for Wikipedia articles.   Will Beback  talk  06:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia provides extensive information policies and guidelines on sources which trump any proposals made here. Further Notice Boards may help determine consensus on an article but Notice Boards are places for input from outside opinions which while respected who may or may not have expertise in the area discussed. ( olive ( talk) 07:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)) reply

Suppport Olive's position is yet another example of Special pleading, which does not justify an editor ignoring NoticeBoard consensus on how the Reliable Sources policies are to be applied in specific instances Fladrif ( talk) 21:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose We already have clear policies on sources and their use. -- BwB ( talk) 05:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

This proposal has the flavor of policy OR. WP has very comprehensive policies in place regarding RS. This proposal seems to want to combine apples and oranges and make punch. Maybe better to start with some broader proposals on RS rather than one like this.-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

This is copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Boilerplates#Quality of sources.   Will Beback  talk  23:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Neutrality and conflicts of interest

5) Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular view is prohibited. In particular, Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage editors contributing "in order to promote their own interests." Neutrality is non-negotiable and requires that, whatever their personal feelings, all editors must strive to ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources and give prominence to such viewpoints in proportion to the weight of the source. Editors may contribute to Wikipedia only if they comply with Wikipedia's key policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Editors should not promote be very careful when promoting their own interests.   Will Beback  talk  06:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC) revised 09:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Reword per Wikipedia "accurately reflect significant viewpoints published by reliable sources while considering in terms of the articles and prominence in the sources WP:Weight.( olive ( talk) 07:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)) reply

support with Olive's rewording. -- BwB ( talk) 05:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Suppport Fladrif ( talk) 21:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Outing

6) Per WP:Outing, outing has not occurred if an editor has previously voluntarily self-identified his or her country, language, nationality, or other personal information. Subsequent posting of that information by other users does not constitute outing. If a user has redacted that information, their wishes should be respected.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Revealing private information on Wikipedia is a serious issue. However "outing" does not include information that has been revealed voluntarily.   Will Beback  talk  06:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support Per prior ArbCom decision [203]. Editors and some admins have made repeated false accusations of outing misapplying this policy. Fladrif ( talk) 21:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Although Wikipedia does not have in place directions for protecting editors who have experienced off Wiki harassment and have had personal information removed, they should have. Experience on these articles indicates editors have little or no scruples in making removed information known and using it in ways that disrespect the editor. If Wikipedia/Arbitration doesn't protect its own editors, who will? Its a sure bet there are editors who won't.( olive ( talk) 16:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)) reply

Olive, there's no indication that the anonymous calls you received were connected to Wikipedia editors. Your constant reference to your alleged harassment has been used a a stick to beat other editors and to avoid the issue of your own conflicts of interest regarding your employer. Off-Wiki harassment is an issue for the police, and I hope you've contacted them. No one is forcing you to edit articles related to your closest business and personal connections. If you can't do so without risking harassment then maybe it'd be better to avoid the topic altogether.   Will Beback  talk  17:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you. You are proving my point. Further, I have given my information to the arbitrators and have never given you information. If you know of any information I gave in private to the arbitrators, I want to know how you have that information. If you do not have that information then you have no basis to make the statements you just did. And once again you disrespect this issue and use it to address your ongoing attempts to prove COI. Do you know who my employer is? No you don't. And your suggestion that I am using this as a stick to beat other editors and to avoid COI is a blatant and nasty assumption of bad faith, and is false. Further, you are also suggesting I have been harassed off Wikipedia because of who my employer is, that in my mind shows a distinct bias and also a lack of knowing the facts of the situation. That you would once again think its appropriate make these points in obvious ongoing efforts to remove an editor is beyond my comprehension. ( olive ( talk) 17:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)) reply

Olive, I only know what you've stated on Wikipedia, which includes the fact that you are or have recently been on the faculty of a certain university, and that you've received anonymous phone calls that you somehow connect to editing here. If I recall correctly you've said that you don't think the calls were made by any editors. If so, I don't really understand the connection between them and Wikipedia. As for your repeated assertions of harassment, I could count them up if you like. My impression is that any time the issue of any editors' potential conflict of interest comes up you interject yourself and charge personal harassment. I'm sure no one here wants to harass anyone. But since the SPI/CU we do know that all of the main TM editors have edited from the small town where the TM movement has its headquarters, so the COI issue isn't imaginary. Since you treat any attempt to discuss that COI as harassment, it's been impossible to resolve outside of arbitration.   Will Beback  talk  20:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC) reply

My comment at the time was meant to indicate that the harassment was not from any of the editors I was presently working with, although that has changed. Will you can count up anything you want and you can continue to accuse me of COI and to misrepresent what I do and say. As before, the conversation is over. Neither here nor in real life will I deal with someone who treats me as you do. Its surprising to see that you now blame me as the reason this had to come to arbitration. ( olive ( talk) 20:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)) reply

Are you saying that you've received harassing phone calls from WP editors? If so that is a serious problem.   Will Beback  talk  20:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC) reply

There you go making "assumptions" again! Olive didn't say that she has received harassing phone calls from WP editors, only that "My comment at the time was meant to indicate that that harassment was not from any of the editors I was presently working with, although that has changed". There are at least a half-a-dozen ways one may reasonably parse that sentence. I "assume" that we are meant to infer that she now thinks (or perhaps always thought, but refrained from saying so) that she was/is being harassed by Wikipedia editors, though the awkward syntax of that sentence allows olive to maintain plausible deniabilty that she ever made such an accusation directly. I "assume" that when she has posts that she has received harassing telephone calls, that she was telling the truth. If it is true that she is being harassed by anyone, Wikipedia editor or otherwise, it is indeed a serious matter and one would hope that she immediately referred the matter to the police - something that a number of editors, including you and I, have advised her repeatedly. I "assume" that, as an evidently intelligent person, that she has done so. But, as you said earlier, olive uses this as a club, not a shield, whenever the subject of COI comes up. Fladrif ( talk) 21:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Involved administrators

7) In several recent instances, administrators involved in disputes have taken sysop actions relating to that dispute and then referred the actions typically to either the administrators' noticeboard or the incidents noticeboard for endorsement or review. This does not comply with policy. In such circumstances, the 'involved' administrator should not take the action but should instead report the issue to the noticeboard, perhaps with a suggestion for appropriate action, to be dealt with by an uninvolved administrator. In limited circumstances, such as blatant vandalism or bad-faith harassment, an involved administrator may act, but such exceptions are likely to be rare.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This seems to be a principle/fact hybrid; I'd rather see the de facto finding of fact ("In several recent instances...") hived off and made more specific (which instances?). Steve Smith ( talk) 12:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Proposed Administrators should not use the admin tools on topics where they've been involved, or concerning users with whom they've had significant interactions.   Will Beback  talk  06:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support Fladrif ( talk) 21:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Plagiarism

8) Editors are expected to either write their own text or clearly distinguish copied text as a quotation. In a quotation, editors should also mark any deleted text.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Plagiarism is an academic violation. While Wikipedia does not require editors to meet all of the standards of academic writing, outright and uncorrected plagiarism harms the project's integrity and inevitably its reputation. If text is copied, any elisions or changes should be noted. This is basic to good encyclopedia construction and not limited to any particular content or stylistic choices.   Will Beback  talk  09:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support Fladrif ( talk) 21:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support the current Wiki policy on plagiarism. -- BwB ( talk) 05:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I agree.-- — Kbob • Talk • 15:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Shared connections

9) If editors live or work together and share a computer or an internet connection, or use a public computer or shared network, their accounts may be linked by CheckUser. To avoid accusations of sock puppetry, users in that position should declare the connection on their user pages. Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives. When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, closely related accounts should disclose the connection and observe relevant policies such as edit warring as if they were a single account. If they do not wish to disclose the connection, they should avoid editing in the same areas, particularly on controversial topics.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, per WP:SHARE.   Will Beback  talk  16:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Logged-out editing

10) Editors who have registered accounts may edit without logging in, but they should not make extensive edits without identifying themselves. "Anonymous" edits by registered users, especially in disputes, may violate WP:SOCK if it deceives other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, per WP:ILLEGIT.   Will Beback  talk  16:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Close relationships

11) Any situation in which strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, per WP:COI#Close relationships. COI is not strictly due to financial relationships. There are allegiances which are more important than money.   Will Beback  talk  19:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Standard per policy: There is no evidence that accused editors place anything personal above the needs of a neutral encyclopedia. Attempting to maintain neutrality and balance should not be confused with a COI as this evidence- page post points out. [204]

Comment by others:

NPOV is non-negotiable

12) While Wikipedia runs on consensus, agreement among editors is not a sufficient justification for making non-neutral edits.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Based on WP:NPOV. NPOV requires that article must contain all significant points of view, proportionately, and without bias. Editing that violates the policy, such as deleting a significant point of view, giving it disproportionate coverage, or presenting it with bias, isn't excused or justified by an agreement between editors.   Will Beback  talk  07:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment: NPOV is non negotiable, but, NPOV is not an abstract, predetermined principle, nor some frozen formula for editing, nor can NPOV be predetermined by any single editor or group of editors. NPOV is a quality, an essential, underlying charcteristic to be determined specifically for each article. What is significant per Wikkpedia may not be immediatey apparent in which case discussion and agreement among editors may be needed to determine the kind of inclusion that will best serve neutrality in an article.( olive ( talk) 05:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)) reply

Comment by others:

Avoiding COI

13) COI editing is strongly discouraged. When editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as neutral point of view, what Wikipedia is not, and copyright compliance, accounts may be blocked. Editors with a conflict of interest (including financial interests of close relationships) should avoid, or exercise great caution when editing articles related to them, their organizations, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that an editors may have a conflict of interest, then the editor should try to identify and minimize his or her biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Adapted from Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Relevant to this case, it is appropriate for good faith editors to use talk pages to suggest that editors may have a conflict of interest. Editing with a COI is strongly discouraged.   Will Beback  talk  21:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

TM editors

1) Keithbob, Littleolive oil, TimidGuy, Bigweeboy, Luke Warmwater101, ChemistryProf, and Hickorybark have all been significant editors of TM-related articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. These editors have dominated the TM-related articles and talk pages, in some cases making well over half of all edits.   Will Beback  talk  06:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Amended: struck out two names not obviously from Fairfield.   Will Beback  talk  08:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Restored the names, but added alternate proposal below.   Will Beback  talk  09:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Correction I have not been active on the core TM articles, as I am more interested in science and science biography. Hickorybark ( talk) 15:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The John Hagelin biography is a core TM article since he is the Raja of Invincible America, a leader of the TM movement in the U.S., and the three-time presidential nominee of the movement's Natural Law Party, not to mention a member of the MUM faculty.   Will Beback  talk  16:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support. Fladrif ( talk) 21:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Off the Mark. Hickorybark and ChemistryProf combined total edits for Transcendental Meditation and TM Movement is 5 edits for 2010. At the same time the period over which an editor has made edits needs to be considered. In the past few months Jmh649, Dbachman and others have made as many or more edits than some of the editors mentioned above. Likewise for the talk pages as ChemistryProf, Kala Bethere and Tuckerj1976 seem to favor talk over article edits. Likewise some editors like Bigweeboy tend to make many small grammatical edits. So this proposal is trying to put a square peg in a round hole. There are many inaccuracies in it.-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

For Example in 2010 Jmh649 made 26% of the total edits on Transcendental Meditation while all the edits for the entire group mentioned in this proposal is less than 50% of the total edits for the year. Dbachmann made 23% of the 2010 edits on Transcendental Meditation movement while two of the editors cited above, TimidGuy and ChemistryProf made zero edits to the same article in 2010. Please see chart and data here. [205]-- — Kbob • Talk • 14:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Significant editing is more than mere numbers. For example, Hickorybark has made few though significantly POV edits to John Hagelin and Flipped_SU(5), both of them core articles related to TM.   Will Beback  talk  23:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I wasn't aware that Flipped SU(5) was a "core article related to TM" in addition to the 80 other articles listed in the Transcendental Meditation Movement category. [206]-- — Kbob • Talk • 15:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I wasn't aware of it either, until TimidGuy and Hickorybark went out of their way to edit it to revert sourced text, insert unsourced text, and rely on David Orme-Johnson's blog and a MUM PR Department Purusha authored puff piece to push the MUM Manual of Style version of the article. Apparently they regard it as a core article related to TM, so who are we to argue with their assessment? Fladrif ( talk) 15:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I don't think anyone has asserted that all articles in the TMM category are "core articles". Many of those entries are for TM practitioners, and many of those have very little contact with the movement. I've addressed the matter of Flipped SU(5) in a different section, #Fairfield TM editors' conflicts of interest, below.   Will Beback  talk  08:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

This is a critical point. TM-Org affiliated editors, including HickoryBark, have edited a number of articles, including John Hagelin, Flipped SU(5), and Dimitri Nanopoulos to remove reliably-sourced information that Flipped SU(5) was developed by other researchers several years prior to Hagelin's participation in a 1987 paper, with edit summaries claiming, without any sources whatsoever, that the reliable sources are wrong because the version Hagelin worked on is somehow different from the earlier versions. Diffs on Flipped SU(5) article: [207] [208], and then plagairizing from a TM-Org blog and used a Hagelin puff-piece in a TM-Org-affilited free weekly written by a Purusa (one of those celibate TM Monks) in the MUM PR department as support for that proposition. [209] Diffs on Nanoupoulos article: [210] [211] Diffs on Hagelin article: [212] Dreadstar astonishingly claims that to add reliably sourced material on the initial development of Flipped SU(5)prior to Hagelin "Dismisses Hagelin's collaboration and credits someone else with the so-called invention [213]" ! Nonsense. Giving credit where credit per reliable sources is due is a problem, and "negative" editing", but deleting the sourced material based on blogs and PR puff pieces is OK?

Why are the TM-Org affilited editors and Dreadstar so adamant about this? Apparently it is an article of TM-Org orthodoxy that Flipped SU(5) is not merely Flipped SU(5), one of dozens of string-theory-based GUTs, developed in several versions, flavors and variations by a variety of researchers over the years, including a team in Nanoupoulis's shop that included Hagelin on a couple of notable papers 20+ years ago, it is, per the MUM Manual of Style [214] "Hagelin’s Flipped SU(5) grand unified theory based on the superstring" (Manual of Style, p. 7) Now, one will search in vain on Google for "Hagelin's Flipped SU(5)". No-one outside of the TM-Org uses that phrase. But, it is apparently critical to these editors, and to Dreadstar it would appear, that the POV that this is "Hagelin's Flipped SU(5)" be pushed, even if unsourced, and any mention that Flipped SU(5) was concieved before Hagelin's involvement must be deleted from any article on the theory or any of its principal developers. That the TM-Org editors would go so far afield to twist the articles in Wikipedia to fit TM-Org orthodoxy and POV is a striking indication of the pervasiveness and insidiousness of the problem. Fladrif ( talk) 16:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by Hickorybark, regarding Fladrif's behavior in some of the articles Fladrif mentions above can be seen here if anyone is interested. [215]-- — Kbob • Talk • 15:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Fladrif misrepresents the Flipped SU(5) episode. He was the first to begin editing Flipped SU(5), and he made a factual error when he wrote that Deredinger 1984 developed a version of Flipped SU(5). I got the paper and it made no mention of flipped SU(5). When I pointed that out to Fladrif, he called me a pathological liar and was blocked. I'm ready to stand corrected, but from what I can tell, the article makes no mention of flipped SU(5) and Fladrif's insertion was incorrect. TimidGuy ( talk) 11:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

TM editors 1a

1a) Keithbob, Littleolive oil, TimidGuy, and Bigweeboy have been the dominant editors on TM related articles over the past years. They have made the majority of edits to the articles and talk pages during that time. Luke Warmwater101, ChemistryProf, Roseapple, and Hickorybark have also made significant edits. [216] [217] All of these editors have supported each other in disputes and have promoted the same POV.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed as alternate. Kbob, Olive, TG, and BwB have thousands of edits to the topic, the others just hundreds or dozens, so there's an order of magnitude dividing them.   Will Beback  talk  09:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Fairfield editors

2) Keithbob, Littleolive oil, TimidGuy, Bigweeboy, Luke Warmwater101, ChemistryProf, Hickorybark have all used the same IP networks based in Fairfield, Iowa, the headquarters of the TM movement in the U.S.

Comment by Arbitrators:

See also 69.18.3.232 ( talk · contribs), a Fairfield LISCO IP, editing extensively on Twin Galaxies, also associated with Fairfield. Meh. Cool Hand Luke 21:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

@Will Beback: You say "This isn't limited to LISCO IPs." But why did you strike possible non-LISCO editors? Cool Hand Luke 17:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply

@Will Beback: Thanks, Will. I tend to think that the ISP/IP evidence isn't going to be helpful in this case; abusive socking appears to be minimal to non-existent, and imputing a COI to Fairfield editing strikes me as over-broad. I think all of the editors should be evaluated based on their editing, and that topic bans may be necessary on some editors (along with sock restrictions to prevent ban evasion from these accounts). Cool Hand Luke 15:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Proposed This was proven by the Checkuser investigation. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TM editors/Archive.   Will Beback  talk  06:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Amended: struck out two names not obviously from Fairfield.   Will Beback  talk  08:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• While CU has connected IP's, significant evidence suggests IPs in this small town are interconnected because of the way the provider supplies IP. Suggesting Fairfield Iowa is the head of the TM movement is a misunderstanding of the town and its inhabitants. As suggested elsewhere, Fairfield is not remote although it is considered rural. Its inhabitants are predominantly not meditators. It is home to a university connected to the TM organization, and the university president also holds other positions in the organization. Suggestions by some editors to block all IPs from Fairfield is not a practical response.

And I have no idea what networks other editors use so cannot comment on that point.( olive ( talk) 08:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)) reply

I'm just an outsider so I can't claim to know the details of the inner workings of the movement. But inthe last few months I have learned a lot, and that includes the fact that the Fairfield/MVC settlement is the nominal capital of the Global Country of World Peace (GCWP) and home to the Raja of Invincible America and three-time presidential candidate, John Hagelin, and to the Prime Minister of both the GCWP and the U.S. Peace Government, Bevan Morris. Fairfield is foremost the home of the Maharishi University of Management. The faculty of the MUM, aside from including Morris and Hagelin, has conducted the majority of the oft-cited hundreds of studies on the Maharishi technologies. Many TM-related businesses have their HQs in Fairfield or MVC, including MAPI. In short, I can provide dozens of sources to show that Fairfield is the center of the US movement.   Will Beback  talk  10:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Objection This evidence is very circumstantial and the speculative conclusions being extrapolated go far beyond what the evidence actually shows. In my case, for example, I do not live in Iowa. Hickorybark ( talk) 15:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Checkuser does not, of course, show where a person lives, but it does show where a person edits.   Will Beback  talk  16:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support. BwB wrote several times that he lived in the SE United States, and had posted recently from the UK and Middle East. Hickorybark says he doesn't live in Fairfield. Both, however, have posted through Fairfield-based ISP's per SPI and Checkuser. Fladrif ( talk) 21:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Here is the CU statement which contains several qualifying adjectives which I have highlighted in bold

• This entire group is linked by edits on the same cluster of IPs, meaning that while not every account shared an IP with every other another, every account in the group shares an IP with at least some of the others, which may in turn share an IP with remaining members of the group. This means there is a stronger possibility of actual sockpuppetry than just the geographical proximity, and there is a near certainty of sharing of computers or internet connections at the least.

While I commend the CU for his work. I don't see this evidence as conclusive, particularly in light of information about LISCO's random assignment of IPs and The Committees analysis of the editing behavior and determination that there was no culpability-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

As you point out, "there is a near certainty of sharing of computers or internet connections at the least." Even if that is not the case, it is clear that these editors have all edited from IPs in Fairfield, a small town which is HQ to the TM movement.   Will Beback  talk  23:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

All Wiki editors have edited from IP addresses on planet Earth - a small planet in the Milky Way, itself a small galaxy in the cosmos, the HQ of all lifeforms in the Universe. -- BwB ( talk) 11:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

This proposal creates an artificial and arbitrary relationship between LISOC IPs which are randomly assigned to thousands of people in Fairfield and the debatable statement that Fairfield is the Headquarters of the TM Movement in the U.S.-- — Kbob • Talk • 00:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

This isn't limited to LISCO IPs. Regarding the status of Fairfield as the HQ of the movement in the U.S., on what grounds is that assertion debatable? Is it not the nominal home to the leaders of the movement, John Hagelin, the Raja of Invincible America, and Bevan Morris, his prime minister? Is it not the capital of the Global Country of World Peace? What other location could be considered the HQ if not Fairfield?   Will Beback  talk  08:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Reply to Cool Hand Luke. I struck out the two names of editors for whom I do not have public evidence of editing from Fairfield. The presence of TM editors in Fairfield appears significant due to the TM movement's US HQ and the Maharishi University being located there. However the reason these these editors are in Arbitration is because of their editing, not because of their location. Also, there's some usage of the other main ISP in town, NATEL, and [[user|209.152.117.83}} in particular. The main point of my comment to Kbob is that isn't about LISCO per se, and the same problems would occur if the users changed their ISP or left town.   Will Beback  talk  19:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Fairfield TM editors' conflicts of interest

3) The Fairfield TM editors have worked on topics related to TM personnel, businesses, and products centered in and around Fairfield, Iowa, about which they may reasonably be considered to have conflicts of interest.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Er, some of the "Fairfield editors" clearly do not reside in Fairfield. Cool Hand Luke 21:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Will Beback: I suppose that's one interpretation. The bottom line for me is that this is different from the Scientology organization socks. Those accounts would freely edit and hop from one Scientology IP to another, and they were largely identically configured and never edited outside of these IPs, and rarely outside business hours. In this case, some users have edited from LISCO IPs, but the vast majority have also edited from other ISPs, some quite remote from Iowa. I'm uncomfortable in imputing COI from editors who seem to live normal lives and are not apparently editing "on the clock" as in the Scientology case, for example.

As for "Fairfield is not a tourist destination," you're making a Chamber of Commerce president somewhere in Iowa shake his or her fist at you, but I don't think it's fair to assume COI motives for visiting Fairfield. Consider that it was the holidays just a few months ago. People tend to visit their families over the holidays. It would seem perfectly normal that the children of TM followers in Iowa might edit from dreaded "Fairfield IPs" during the month of December. I believe this explaination fits the technical evidence at least as well as any unarticulated theory about visiting Iowa because one is on the dole of Transcendental Meditation. Cool Hand Luke 05:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Proposed Despite the general denials, this seems clear.   Will Beback  talk  06:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• An assumption. Conflict of interest refers to having "an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor." It is not up to any single editor to redefine COI ( olive ( talk) 07:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)) reply

None of the Fairfield TM editors have shown a tendency to put aside their allegiance to the TM movement. That's why they're grouped together. Other than a few pro forma additions of common criticisms, the Fairfield TM editors have consistently promoted or advocated in favor of the TM point of view. While it's impossible to get inside any editor's mind, it's easy to judge their contributions. Those of the Fairfield TM editors have promoted the TM movement's point of view over and over again, showing that they are unable to set aside their conflicts of interest.   Will Beback  talk  09:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose COI depends on more than circumstantial evidence and organizational affiliations. It has not been proven, or even effectively argued, that the editing in question has not contributed to WP's mission to provide reliable and non-defamatory articles. Hickorybark ( talk) 15:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support Fladrif ( talk) 21:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose What and how, not where! Each editor's work must be reviewed independently and objectively for COI. -- BwB ( talk) 06:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Reply to Cool Hand Luke: The ArbCom has access to evidence of which I am not aware. Is it incorrect that all of the named editors have edited from Fairfield or the immediate area? How is it clear that some do not live there? Fairfield is not a tourist destination, so presumably anyone who travels there, and who shows an interest in TM, is not disinterested.   Will Beback  talk  22:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Reply #2: I have public evidence that ChemistryProf, Littleolive oil, Keithbob, TimidGuy, Roseapple, and Bigweeboy have edited from IPs in or near Fairfield. I also have evidence that two of those editors, Olive and Bwb, have also edited from other areas. It appears that you have also evidence that they or maybe other editors have edited from other areas. Obviously I'm at a disadvantage when it comes at trying to figure out who is where. As I've written elsewhere, COI is not a problem in and of itself. The problems come because people with COI have difficulty editing in a neutral manner, even when they think they are doing so. For example, Olive has stated at least nine times that she is a neutral editor, [218] yet she asserts that all of the non-TM editors are biased against the topic. That's typical of an editor who is so far from neutral that she no longer knows what neutral is.

Regardless of where these editors live, or even edit, they have in common dominated the articles about a narrow range of topics, some of them commercial and several of which advance fringe views and pseudoscience. Why they would do so is ultimately irrelevant. Since six of them have edited from Fairfield it's logical to think of them as the "Fairfield" editors. In part, that's to distinguish them from the Dutch editors, who were mostly banned a couple of years ago after overt soapboxing and sock-puppetry (including Peterklutz ( talk · contribs), 85.30.186.206 ( talk · contribs), Maharishi International Publications Department ( talk · contribs), 212.178.127.50 ( talk · contribs), Vijayante ( talk · contribs), and 195.35.172.10 ( talk · contribs)). The other HQ of the movement is in the Netherlands.

Maybe the location issue is an unproductive direction. While all of these editors have promoted the same POV, there may be ways of narrowing the list to focus just on the most tendentious editors, regardless of location.   Will Beback  talk  06:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

This is a group of perhaps the most insidious and spurious arguments used so far. An editor claims neutrality, so the implication is she is not neutral. Will Bbeback tends to leave out context, so he doesn't mention the number of times I have been badgered to give out personal information so he and other editors can yell out COI, and that my desire to protect that information is using a "stick" as he says in another post, to beat editors with because I try to explain, and that my honest response is to say, I'm neutral. And what else is there? Then, since the sock allegation isn't sticking for all the editors, lets narrow the hunt to make sure we get somebody in the net. Finally, the most insidious of all. She's so far gone down the road of POV, she doesn't even know what she is doing. Then to muddy the waters lets bring in fringe views and pseudoscience, trigger words on Wikipedia. Yes, some of these articles may have fringe elements. Fringe topics are just more categories of information, not Wikipedia mortal sins I didn't write them or create them just editing for information. If Will Beback is so concerned about Fringe science why did he add articles himself like the David Orme Johnson article, one of the so called fringe scientists by his definition, and the TM Movement article just another place to dump anything related to the TM org including its so called fringe elements. ( olive ( talk) 20:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)) reply

No genuinely neutral editor who reads the editing history on these articles would come to the conclusion that you are a neutral editor or that your edits are neutral. You edit war. You ignore and indeed defy Noticeboard consensus when it serves your purpose. You defy instruction from adminstrators. You tendatiously edit, wikilawyer, push POV with unsourced and improperly sourced edits, misrepresent sources, delete reliably-sourced materials, and continually game the system and accuse every editor or adminstrator who questions you or any of your edits of incivility and harassment. For you to continously assert, in the face of ovewhelming evidence to the contrary, "I am a neutral editor" can only mean two things: (1) You know that you are not a neutral editor, but argue the opposite regardless of the truth or (2) You actually think that you are a neutral editor. Option 1 means that you are being disingenuous. Option 2 is that your POV is so completely skewed that you are incapable of discerning the difference between neutrality and advocacy. Those are the only two options here, because you are not, no matter how many times you repeat it, a neutral editor. That you are apparently incapable of coming to grips with that fact is one of the principal reasons this proceeding is being conducted. Fladrif ( talk) 21:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

How far can we cast this net of conspiracy? In an earlier proposal WillBeback says that the Flipped SU(5) article is a "core TM related" article (along with the 80 articles currently listed in the TM Movement category template, I assume). [219] On the Evidence Talk Page he implies that Walter Day and Twin Galaxies (a video arcade) [220] are also TM related articles. And now with this proposal any "topics related to TM personnel, businesses, and products centered in and around Fairfield, Iowa" are also TM related articles. It seems that according to WillBeback's limitless criteria that TM might be related to hundreds of articles on WP. Where does it end?-- — Kbob • Talk • 00:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Olive has complained that some editors have mischaracterized her remakrs, but I think she is overlooking Kbob's assertions. I never said that there 80 articles are core topics related to TM. Let's looks at the ones you've mentioned by name: Flipped SU(5) is the most significant scientific theory developed (partly) by TM leader John Hagelin. The article, on a theory related to quantum physics, has been edited by Olive, who describes herself as an artist, and by TimidGuy, who describes himself as a humanities professor. Those two editors have never editord any other artifcles on quantum physics. Clearly, they didn't get involved because they are interested in physics. Countless lectures by Hagelin include references to his view of the Grand Unified Theory which he asserts is connected to TM and TM-Sidhi. So Hagelin himself seems to think it is a core topic in understanding TM. Can you provide any other reason why Olive and TG edited that page? As for Walter Day, he is an avid practitioner of TM and Yogic Flying, as can be seen in this video in which he says it won't be long before TM-Sidhi practitioners can really levitate.(see time mark 3:15 to end) TG apparently knows details about Day's private life, [221] and deleted sourced material from the article on Day's business, Twin Galaxies. [222] Is that because TG has an interest in video games, or because he has an interest in TM? The overall evidence seems to show that he edited the article because Day is a TM/TM-Sidhi practitioner.   Will Beback  talk  08:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Will, look at the history of Flipped SU(5). Fladrif was the first to edit it. I edited it because he had inserted something that was ultimately shown to be incorrect. TimidGuy ( talk) 11:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Fladrif also edited Brecon Jazz Festival but I don't see you, Olive, and Hickorybark fixing his mistakes there. The Flipped SU(5) appears to outside of your editing tendencies except for the involvement of John Hagelin. This is an example of how the TM editors have become involved in every article related to the topic and fixed "incorrect" material, which generally means replacing negative material with positive material. (In this case, you deleted material with two sources and replaced it with unsourced material which gave greater credit to Hagelin. [223]) As a refresher, John Hagelin is: the Raja of Invincible America (and thus head of the American movement), the US presidential candidate of the Natural Law Party in three elections, the Science Ministers of the Global Country of World Peace, a professor at Maharishi University of Management, and an occasional resident of Fairfield, Iowa who presumably engages in group practice of TM-Sidhi and Yogic Flying alongside other practitioners on a daily basis wherever he's residing. He's appeared in What the Bleep Do We Know?! and The Secret (2006 film). Not coincidentally, those are the only two movie articles that TG and Olive have edited. In fact, every article I've listed has been edited by TM editors who've been the leading contributors in most cases.   Will Beback  talk  11:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply

No, it's an example of Fladrif inserting incorrect material sourced to a popular book. Deredinger 1984 did not present flipped SU(5). He makes no mention of it. Fladrif's insertion in the Hagelin article was factually wrong. So I checked to see if he had put this anyplace else and found that he had. So I corrected it there, too. Barr did not invent supersymmetric flipped SU(5), which is what the article presents. Barr didn't deal with supersymmetry in his study. I deleted this incorrect information and simply went with the list of authors on the 1987 breakthrough paper, which has been cited 363 times [224]. TimidGuy ( talk) 11:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

See this summary of eight WP:COIN cases, none of which found evidence of problematic editing. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Close relationships

3a) Some TM editors (TimidGuy, Littleolive oil, ChemistryProf, and perhaps others) have said they've practiced TM (presumably twice daily for at least 20 minutes) for decades, though it was obscure until 42 years ago. For the purposes of WP:COI, this depth and length of commitment may be expected to create a close relationship, just as happens when marrying someone or studying under a martial arts master. COI is not limited to financial gain: other affiliations may be even stronger.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed as alternate language to get away from the Fairfield-only focus. COI issues aren't limited to editing for pay.   Will Beback  talk  09:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Ownership

4) The Fairfield TM editors have been the majority contributors to TM-related articles and talk page. They have agreed with each other in opposition to non-TM editors, have defended each other's edits, repeated the same edits, and other ownership traits.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed As demonstrated in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Evidence#Evidence presented by Will Beback

• In fact Will Beback's evidence does not show this except in so far as he draws these conclusions himself and attempts to connect those conclusions to the edits of editors . What is clear from Will Bebacks' evidence is that he is attempting to tar a group of editors including IP's with the same brush. He is blurring differentiation between editors so that all may be banned or blocked en masse.( olive ( talk) 07:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)) reply

PS: I have now restructured and added evidence to better support this finding.   Will Beback  talk  09:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The evidence shows that the Fairfield TM editors are the most prolific contributors to the TM-related articles. The Fairfield TM editors have sometimes edited while logged-out so the distinction between registered and unregistered edits is blurred by their own actions. One of the Fairfield TM editors, TimidGuy, chose to edit without logging-in for weeks and refused to identify himself, causing considerable disruption. Since all of the Fairfield TM editors promote the same POV, it's impossible to distinguish their edits from those of unregistered Fairfield TM editors who advocate the same way. Even aside from the IP edits and the now inactive old accounts, the current logged-in edits by the listed editors show strong ownership of the TM-related articles.   Will Beback  talk  09:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose All the editing practices mentioned, except the last, are consist with responsible, above-board editing practice. And "ownership traits" have not been proven. Hickorybark ( talk) 15:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support Fladrif ( talk) 21:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Keithbob

6) Keithbob has dominated the editing of TM-related articles, making the highest number of edits to most of them. He has exerted ownership, pushed a pro-TM POV, made poor use of sources, failed to assume good faith, added inappropriate material on medical topics, and engaged in tendentious editing. He has worked with other editors to remove material from articles required by WP:NPOV. He has also engaged in repeated instances of plagiarism. [225]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

These findings are based on the evidence in the linked page.   Will Beback  talk  21:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Littleolive oil

7) Littleolive oil has dominated the talk pages of TM-related articles, making the highest number of edits to many of them. She exerted ownership, pushed a pro-TM POV, edit warred, relied on incorrect interpretations of content policies, added or supported material on fringe topics, failed to assume good faith, and engaged in tendentious editing. She has worked with other editors to remove material from articles required by WP:NPOV. She has edited topics with which she has a close relationship. She has been uncivil towards other editors by making ill-considered accusations of bias and harassment. [226]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

These findings are based on the evidence in the linked page.   Will Beback  talk  21:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

TimidGuy

8) TimidGuy has joined other like-minded editors in dominating TM-related articles, making the most edits to Transcendental Meditation and the second most edits to important talk pages. He has exerted ownership, pushed a pro-TM POV, edit warred, added inappropriate material on fringe and medical topics, failed to assume good faith, and engaged in tendentious editing. He has worked with other editors to remove material from articles required by WP:NPOV. He has edited topics with which he has a close relationship. [227]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

These findings are based on the evidence in the linked page.   Will Beback  talk  21:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose as not factual — Please do look at my response to Will's evidence. There is no evidence for problematic behaviors, such as edit warring, adding inappropriate material, not assuming good faith, and tendentious editing. TimidGuy ( talk) 16:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

TG: Failure to identify logged-out edits

8a) Over a two-week period, TimidGuy made dozens of edits and engaged in edit warring while logged out. He did not identify himself even when asked. This gave the appearance of being a separate user, behavior that is inconsistent with WP:SOCK.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed.   Will Beback  talk  16:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose as not factual in regard to the claim about edit warring. I believe it's a stretch to say that I engaged in edit warring. I rarely revert more than once in 24 hours. I've never been warned for edit warring. I don't recall ever having received a 3RR notice on my Talk page. After having been gone from Wikipedia for five months, I did indeed edit from July 31-August 17 2009 without logging in. See my explanation here. [228] TimidGuy ( talk) 11:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

It is not a stretch to say you engaged in edit warring because you admitted as much yourself. [229] Curiously, in that posting you also complain about a user using multiple accounts, even though that was pretty much what you were doing yourself. You have not explained why you would not answer my repeated questions about whether you had an account. I asked you again just the other and you still haven't answered. [230] Whether it was your intent or not, your actions had the effect of deceiving other editors while you engaged in disputes where you'd been involved previously, and even engaged in edit warring. You've also admitted to using a sock account to edit a policy page and had that account blocked for doing so, though you haven't disclosed any details of that enforcement. That indicates you have have violated WP:SOCK twice.   Will Beback  talk  00:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I've already said that if editing as an IP for 18 days warrants banning, I'm happy to accept that. I've explained on the Talk page why it happened [231], and I think I was pretty clear on COIN why I felt your questioning was inappropriate. [232] There's not really anything more to say. Regarding the three edits I made using a sock account over a period of months in 2007-08, I'm happy to accept sanction for that. You yourself have already said that it didn't sound like it was important. [233] And it's a small point, but note that two years ago when I made that edit to policy, WP:SOCK didn't at the time proscribe such. TimidGuy ( talk) 11:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

No, I don't think you've ever answered my question about why you would not say that you had an account. TimidGuy openly admitted that he is a MUM professor, while 76.76 took offense at a question about a connection to MUM. That seems like an effort to make a separate persona rather than a legitimate reason to avoid a basic question. Can you disclose the name of your other previous sock account so we can judge for ourselves whether it was important or not?   Will Beback  talk  22:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Do you have a diff where I took offense? In case someone reads this, here's a short comment about the sock that I used for three edits over a period of months in 2007-2008 that explains why it got blocked. [234] TimidGuy ( talk) 10:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The previous comment that you've linked doesn't mention what the account name was, or which policy page was edited. This is the first time you've revealed that it was used "over a period of months". Is there a reason you can't reveal the account name?

The thread at WP:COIN includes the discussion between me and your unregistered persona. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 35#User 76.76. etc and Transcendental Meditation Article. I asked, "Could you clarify what your relationship is to the movement? Are you employed by any of the entities whose trademarks are owned by MVEDC?" and 76.76 responded "Will, are you requiring me to reveal personal information?" Then Kbob and Olive defended you and said that we not should assume you have any COI just because you refuse to answer. Yet we now know that you did, in fact, have a COI. Olive now says she did not know it was you either. Then I asked "Have you edited Wikipedia before with a registered account? " and you, as 76.76, accused me of harassment for asking. Folks around here like making harassment accusations, even while pretending to be someone else. Anyway, that entire thread would have been unnecessary if you'd simply acknowledged your identity in the first place. So, let me ask you again - why did you fail to acknowledge your existing account while you were editing under a different persona? Why did you refuse to answer direct questions about other accounts if not to avoid being identified as TimidGuy? In what way was that not a violation of WP:SOCK?   Will Beback  talk  11:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Bigweeboy

9) Bigweeboy has joined other like-minded editors in dominating TM-related articles, making the second-highest number of edits to at least ten of them. He has exerted ownership, pushed a pro-TM POV, added inappropriate material on fringe and medical topics, and engaged engaged in tendentious editing. He has worked with other editors to remove material from articles required by WP:NPOV. He has also engaged in at least two instances of plagiarism. [235]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

These findings are based on the evidence in the linked page.   Will Beback  talk  21:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Is this section about me or Timid? -- BwB ( talk) 11:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Fixed.   Will Beback  talk  04:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Luke Warmwater101

10) Luke Warmwater101 has joined other like-minded editors in dominating TM-related articles. He has made POV edits and added poorly sourced fringe material. [236]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

These findings are based on the evidence in the linked page.   Will Beback  talk  21:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

ChemistryProf

11) ChemistryProf has joined other like-minded editors in dominating TM-related articles. He has made POV edits and failed to assume good faith. He has worked with other editors to remove material from articles required by WP:NPOV. [237]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

These findings are based on the evidence in the linked page.   Will Beback  talk  21:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Roseapple

12) Roseapple has made POV edits. [238]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

These findings are based on the evidence in the linked page.   Will Beback  talk  21:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Hickorybark

13) Hickorybark has joined other like-minded editors in dominating TM-related articles. He has made POV edits, has used poor sources for contentious material, and has engaged in plagiarism despite saying that he has long experience in academia. [239]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

These findings are based on the evidence in the linked page.   Will Beback  talk  21:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Fladrif

Fladriff has engaged in numerous instances of incivility, even after being counseled to be more polite.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Ample evidence has been provided by others.   Will Beback  talk  21:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC) reply

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.

Topic ban

1) Keithbob, Littleolive oil, TimidGuy, Bigweeboy, Luke Warmwater101, ChemistryProf, Hickorybark are banned from editing articles related to the Transcendental Meditation movement for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is due to the history of tag-team editing and ownership.   Will Beback  talk  04:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Alternate proposed below.   Will Beback  talk  10:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose. Multiple editors with varying degrees of editing experience and histories are being lumped together so that an extensive all inclusive ban can be made against a group. A history of tag team editing has not been shown nor has ownership. What has been show is that Will bbeack has made concerted efforts to remove any editor even remotely, in his mind related to TM, from editing the TM articles, as he says here, "that all current and former members of the movement desist from editing the articles actively. They're good enough already." [240].

Naturally I oppose. The punctuation on these articles would go to pot if I was banned from the articles! -- BwB ( talk) 11:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose: There have strong assertions of POV from both sides and in my opinion this proposal shoe is on the wrong foot.-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Fladrif civility

2) Fladrif is placed on civility probation for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Fladrif has been uncivil repeatedly.   Will Beback  talk  04:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I'd be prepared to give Flad one more chance if he/she can make some repentant statement and promise to be nice. -- BwB ( talk) 11:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Fladrif has committed multiple acts of incivility even during this RFARB and in spite of admonishements from three Administrators he just continues right on. It would be an immense disservice to the editors who have had to absorb his abuse over the past year to allow him to continue under any conditions. [241]

Comment by others:

Keithbob plagiarism

3) Keithbob has engaged in repeated instances of plagiarism, and is admonished not to do so again.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Forgive and forget I say. -- BwB ( talk) 11:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Proposed Keithbob copied many sentences straight from other sources even though he knew it was wrong and even after being warned about it.   Will Beback  talk  09:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I admit to having committed plagiarism and to being slow in coming up to full compliance in the matter as Will has said on the Evidence Page. I do however, assert that it was unintentional plagiarism due to my ignorance of the details of WP's policy on the matter. Even so, my ignorance is not an excuse, only an explanation. I ask the committee to note that this behavior has been corrected and I have been fully compliant in recent months. However, if the Committee feels the need to admonish me for my past actions, I will accept their decision without complaint.-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I do not believe that you were ignorant of the nature of plagiarism. In April 2009, prior to all of these instances, you wrote on another user's talk page:

• I see that you have added something from Maharishi. That is OK but it appears that you have quoted directly from his book. This is not permitted on Wiki unless the person is being "quoted" and then quotation marks are used. Generally we paraphrase info from sources unless there is a specific reason to quote the author. You can check WP:CS for more details. thanks -- Kbob ( talk) 01:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC) reply

It appears that you knew then that it was wrong. Yet you engaged in at least 14 separate instances of plagiarism. When I caught one of them in August you gave an excuse, yet you added more plagiarized material about two weeks later. [242] When I discovered the extent of the copying and raised the issue on your talk page in December you gave the excuse that you'd simply forgotten to use quotation marks, [243] which is hard to believe since you had argued repeatedly to reduce the number of quotations in articles. Despite my request that you clean up your own mess, you made no effort to remove or correct any of the plagiarized edits you'd made.   Will Beback  talk  07:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I am fully aware of your assertions and opinions but I stand by my statement above.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

MUM COI

4) The Maharishi University of Management is a small, isolated institution in rural southeast Iowa. Faculty and staff of the school have a conflict of interest and should avoid directly editing articles related to it, including those of fellow faculty members. The same for its companion lower school, Maharishi School of the Age of Enlightenment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Per WP:COI. Members of a small organization, especially those in a position of respect and influence, have a greater COI than those of large organizations. Direct employment in a small organization represents a clear COI.   Will Beback  talk 

Oppose. I think there are staff at MUM who do not practice the TM technique. This statement is way to broad and has inherent assumptions. -- BwB ( talk) 11:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Do you have any evidence of that, and how would you know? Students are required to practice TM and to attend group practice twice a day. I know that from the student handbook as well as secondary sources.   Will Beback  talk  00:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support. MUM is not like a typical college or university. Because all subjects are taught from the standpoint of Maharishi Vedic Science, it is more like a religious-affilited college or university, whether or not one regards it as a religion. [244] It is inconceivable that anyone not fully dedicated to that philosophy/theory/belief-system would (i) be permitted to teach there or (ii) in light of the absurdly low salaries - as little as 10% of national averages if you happen to be one of the handful of female faculty members, and less than half of the lowest salaries reported by the American Association of University Professors anywhere else in the country - on a par with what fast food places pay frycooks, would want to. All are required to practice TM. All are expected to practice TM-Sidhi. Fladrif ( talk) 17:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Doubts I have doubts about this proposal. Is this a policy for other Universities on WP? Are all the faculty and staff required to practice TM? Even the cleaning, cooking and maintenance staff? Aren't there news articles on MUM that say it is a non-religious institution? Does the Iowa Accreditation board consider it a religious school? What about the students, are they considered to have a conflict of interest also since they practice TM? In my opinion this proposal sets a dangerous precedent for Wiki and I don't think this kind of a blanket proposal is warranted.-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

This isn't a general policy, it's a specific remedy to address specific problems with edits concerning this university and it's associated movement. Nobody has mentioned any problems with editing by students, so let's not introduce red herrings or straw men.   Will Beback  talk  07:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Keithbob, Littleolive oil, TimidGuy, and Bigweeboy

5) Keithbob, Littleolive oil, TimidGuy, and Bigweeboy are banned from editing pages related to the Transcendental Meditation and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, broadly defined, for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

These four editors have solidly dominated the TM-related articles for in recent years, and they have advocated, individually and collectively, for the pro-TM POV. They have skewed consensus, edit warred, exerted ownership, assumed bad faith, plagiarized, and engaged in other disruptive editing practices that abused Wikipedia's open editing model. Their editing has resulted in complaints from dozens of uninvolved editors about the TM-related articles. [245] This topic can't achieve stability and NPOV so long as these editors continue to control it.   Will Beback  talk  10:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Will Beback has failed to present convincing diffs for any of these points. Instead he has relied on misrepresentation and mischaracterization of both the editors and the policies to create arguments for banning an entire group of editors. This RFARB did not begin with a SPI case as some may have innocently thought, but began long ago with ongoing attempts to remove editors through COI accusations. The SPI was obviously expected to produce a quick end to this case, but the results were unexpected, so the case then shifted to accusations that have no basis in any real evidence. Where are the diffs showing edit wars, skewing of consensus, ownership, bad faith, and other concerns that are so serious as to require a year long block for 4 editors. He accuses me of incivility and aggressive behaviour, untruths that negate and falsify my entire editing history. I will add rebuttals to Will points as time and a tricky editing situation allow. Please see: /Rebuttals Will Beback( olive ( talk) 03:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)) reply

I do hope Arbcom has taken time to read my responses to Will's diffs. [246] There's no evidence of tendentious editing or problematic behavior. TimidGuy ( talk) 15:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I don't have time to research the accuracy of Will's other evidence pages, but I glanced at one, and a particular instance jumped out at me that suggests Will's dishonesty or carelessness in compiling his evidence. In the page User:Will_Beback/TM-General Will has a section titled "Complaints by other editors." He gives this diff by Atama [247] from the TM Talk page criticizing sentences in the TM article in which Maharishi is quoted effusively praising his master, Guru Dev. The problem is that these sentences were added by Fladrif, not one of the TM editors. [248] And in fact a TM editor had proposed removing these sentences. [249] TimidGuy ( talk) 16:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I guess that puts the lie to the "Fladrif only adds negative stuff" claim, doesn't it? Fladrif ( talk) 16:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply

TG, those are indeed complaints by other editors. Is anyone here saying that Atama is an involved editor, or that she was not criticizing an aspect of the article? TG doesn't dispute the other 29 complaints, so I guess if that's the only one he has a problem with I'd be happy to withdraw it.   Will Beback  talk  04:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Fladrif, that edit was indeed problematic, and characteristic, and I agree with Atama that it shouldn't have been in the article. TimidGuy ( talk) 15:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Well, I am just puzzled. Adding a quote from the Maharishi effusively praising his master is "problematic, and characteristic"? How so? Would this be problematic for the same reasons that you now claim that everything in Wikipedia regarding the "Maharishi Effect" should be removed? [250] And, while you're at it, please enlighten us as to what those reasons are. Fladrif ( talk) 13:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Will, regarding your list of "complaints by dozens of uninvolved editors": it's very misleading, since quite a few of them were very much involved. TimidGuy ( talk) 15:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Let's discuss evidence at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Evidence. This remedy is not dependent on the exact number of complaints.   Will Beback  talk  16:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The problem is that in your comment above you say, "Their editing has resulted in complaints from dozens of uninvolved editors about the TM-related articles." But the list that you link to includes many diffs that aren't complaints against TM editors, and includes many editors who were very much involved. This suggests that Arbcom can't take your evidence at face value because you tend to misrepresent it. TimidGuy ( talk) 16:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

If there are not dozens of uninvolved editors complaining about the TM articles then please correct me. So far, you've only pointed to one case where an uninvolved editor, Atama, complained about material in one of the TM articles, so you have not shown that I am wrong. The list I compiled includes complaints from 31 editors. Even if we discount seven of those, there are still two dozen, some of whom made multiple complaints. So if you are saying that I'm wrong please show exactly how I'm wrong. I'd be happy to fix it.   Will Beback  talk  17:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I believe you're changing your assertion. Above you say that it's the editing of the four accused that have led to complaints. Atama's complaint was about material inserted by an editor other than the four accused. This is an example of your tendency to obfuscate. If Arbcom actually reads this thread and wants me to document the diffs that aren't, in fact, complaints against the four accused, and to document those editors in the list who were very much involved, I'll be happy to do so. TimidGuy ( talk) 19:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

The key point is that these editors have dominated the topic, as illustrated by the sheer number of edits to both the articles and their talk pages, and that those articles have been the subject of numerous complaints by generally uninvolved editors. If you want to quibble about some of those complaints then I'd be happy to correct any that you think are directed at other editors, as I already have with the single one that you pointed out. But I stand by the basic point- that numerous editors have complained these articles have not been neutral, and these are the editors who have been chiefly reponsible for the non-neutral content despite those complaints.   Will Beback  talk  23:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I think your generalization is way off. The key point is that editors opposed to TM or alternative medicine or organizations they perceive to be cults or gurus other than their own constantly try to distort the articles and push them toward their own point of view. I've always only tried to bring the articles into compliance with Wikipedia policies, and I stand by all of my editing. Your evidence doesn't show otherwise. And, again, if Arbcom would like me to document the inaccuracies in the above-linked list, I'll be happy to take the time to do so. TimidGuy ( talk) 16:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I've invited you repeatedly to point out any errors in my evidence, and I've made corrections in the past. The evidence shows that these four editors have made more edits to the TM-related articles than anyone else, that they've exerted ownership over them, and that they've pushed the POV of the articles to make them more favorable to the TM movement. Dozens of otherwise uninvolved editors have noted the problems with the article, in addition to the more detailed evidence provided elsewhere. The assertion by TG that he and the other editors have only worked to preserve NPOV is not borne out by the evidence.   Will Beback  talk  16:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC) reply

What your evidence shows is that you've made accusations, but your diffs do not support what you are asserting, but often mischaracterize and misinterpret. You are attempting to lay guilt on a specific group of editors for the state of of the articles, but you fail to show specifically how these editors are implicated in the problems with the articles. You fail to note the number of editors who over time have edited and are equally involved in creating the articles like yourself, as well as numerous earlier editors. You fail to note the quality of the TM article right now, and its numerous concerns when in fact the accused editors have been editing in a very minimal way since this arbitration began. I, as well, will be very happy to go through the editors you've listed as uninvolved to show how many are or were very involved, or to show those who entered the articles with obvious biases should the arbitrators need that kind of evidence. Anybody can complain, and opinions are like noses. Everybody has one. A complaint is not a license to convict editors of some perceived wrong doing. These article are contentious and opinions on what should and should not be included in the articles are rampant.( olive ( talk) 18:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)) reply

Luke Warmwater101, ChemistryProf, Roseapple, and Hickorybark

6) Luke Warmwater101, ChemistryProf, Roseapple, and Hickorybark are placed on POV probation regarding pages related to the Transcendental Meditation and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, broadly defined, for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

These editors have engaged in disruptive and POV practices, including violations of NPOV, V, FRINGE, MEDRS, AGF, etc. However their involvement and harm have been much smaller than the other editors'. They probably won't be disruptive unless they take the places of the other editors.   Will Beback  talk  10:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Proposed principles

Dispute resolution participation

1) Where differences in opinion over editorial content arise, editors are expected to engage in discussion or dispute resolution in a reasoned and civil manner. " Focus on content, not on the contributor" is an essential component of the editorial consensus-building process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Proposed, standard expectation of editor behavior. Dreadstar ☥ 04:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

That is true for article talk page discussions. This is Arbitration, where we focus on the editors, not the content. At some point, saying "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" becomes an empty exhortation.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

This is SOP and necessary for progress on Wiki.-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support. The only way forward, IMHO. -- BwB ( talk) 11:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Decorum

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Proposed, standard expectation of editor behavior. Dreadstar ☥ 04:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Agree as explanation for standard, accepted behaviour per WP:Civility.( olive ( talk) 16:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)) reply

Civility is important, but baiting users into incivility, or playing tag team to avoid having any one editor stay involved in a dispute (as suggested by the leaked blogging tips) are also forms of inappropriate behavior.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, standard for WP behavior and progress of the articles.-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Agreed as standard and common decency. -- BwB ( talk) 11:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Editorial process

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, paying attention to what others say, correctly applying policy, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Any form of disruptive editing or discussion is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Proposed, standard process. Dreadstar ☥ 04:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support This is an important and relevant principle in this case. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC) reply

True, but consensus does not trump NPOV. In these topics, the core group of TM editors have sought to make their own version of NPOV, forming a consensus to delete relevant material, for example.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Oppose in part" What is disruptive is and has been highly subjective depending which side of the fence you are on. Prohibited is a powerful word and effectively in the wrong hands can be used as a weapon to stifle discussion. Problematic edits that clearly violate policies need discussion even if that discussion is not short and sweet. At some point editors will need to back away from a position, but prohibition is not the way to decipher where that point is.( olive ( talk) 17:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)) reply

Comment by others:

Integrity of content

4) The project has always aspired to the highest standards of reliability and integrity. The ongoing growth and prominence of the English Wikipedia, which is now one of the top ten websites in the world and often the first search engine hit when research is done on a topic, makes these goals even more important. This is especially essential where article content relates to living persons or to ongoing off-wiki controversies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Proposed, core Wikipedia principle. Dreadstar ☥ 04:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support This seems relevant, given the frequent discussion over quality and representation of sources, and some serious problems that have arisen. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia's place on the search engines is not really relevant to this case. The best sources should always be used, which is why so many poor studies were deleted. Yet the TM editors have argued strenuously to include those poorly sourced items.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support. Nicely worded. -- BwB ( talk) 11:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

This is not the place for a debate but I want to go on record as strongly disagreeing with WillBeback's statement above: "the TM editors have argued strenuously to include those poorly sourced items." -- — Kbob • Talk • 16:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Kbob, could you clarify which part you disagree with - that the items are poorly sources, or that the TM editors strenuously argued to include them?   Will Beback  talk  07:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Casting aspersions

5) It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse others of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users concerned, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Proposed, per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava Rima restrictions#Casting aspersions and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf#Casting aspersions. This is important, any misbehavior needs to be addressed quickly, efficiently and through the proper channels; not by just repeating the accusations over and over again in forums that do not directly address the problematic behavior. If the warnings are being ignored, then the proper course of action is to escalate the issue up the chain. Dreadstar ☥ 04:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Improper behavior has been addressed many times, including several WP:COIN postings by different editors over the last three years. Non-TM editors have tried over and over to resolve the problems with the TM editors owning the TM articles. The failure of the TM editors to comply with site policies and to heed outside input is why we're here.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support. I feel like I have been tarred with the same brush and sweeping generalizations have been applied. Each editors must be reviewed as an individual on the basis of edits, behaviour and participation on the talk pages. -- BwB ( talk) 12:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Agree with Bigweeboy that on this ArbCom [251] [252] [253]as well as on many userpage and talkpage threads over the past year, there have been many instances of name calling and accusations which have besmirched the reputation of myself and other editors. Therefore I think this proposal is highly relevant.-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Fair criticism

6) Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision making structure, and its leaders. Such discourse is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion, and by policies which prohibit behavior such as personal attacks and legal threats. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism rather than engage in unbridled criticism across all available forums.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Proposed, per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava Rima restrictions#Fair criticism. Important since we need to say that while criticism is welcome, it still needs to be expressed in a civil manner. Dreadstar ☥ 04:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Sure. I did not add evidence concerning TG's legal threats, but if folks think this is a problem I can do so.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

support -- BwB ( talk) 12:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Support

Comment by others:

COI Accusations

7) Accusations and evidence of WP:COI violations should be limited to the involved user talk pages and the appropriate forums such as WP:COIN and WP:RFARB rather than engage in unbridled accusations across all available forums and article talk pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Proposed, perceived misbehavior should be addressed in the forums best suited to deal with the specific behavior, not in random, disparate areas unsuited for the complaint. Complaining about misbehavior in forums unrelated to the behavior may be seen as Poisoning the well or even Wikihounding. Dreadstar ☥ 04:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support It would be great if Arbcom would adopt this one, given the constant digression into ad hominem on the article Talk pages rather than focusing on the issues at hand. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC) reply

COI issues have been raised repeatedly on the appropriate pages, including WP:COIN and user talk pages, but all of those have been ignored. When users propose or add POV text to an article where they have apparent conflicts of interest it's inevitable that other editors will mention that COI on the article talk page. When a problem is unresolved it keeps coming up.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support Wonderful. -- BwB ( talk) 12:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

On this ArbCom as well as on many userpage and talkpage threads over the past year, there have been many instances of name calling and accusations against myself and other editors. Therefore I think this proposal is highly relevant.-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Harassment

8) Harassment is a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting one or more targeted persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating them. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for targeted persons, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Proposed, per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf#Harassment. Basic definition setting up proposed principle number 9 "Dealing with harassment." Dreadstar ☥ 04:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

True, but empty claims of harassment should not be used as an excuse. When someone has a COI, and makes POV edits despite that COI, then it isn't harassment to draw that problem to their attention, repeatedly if necessary.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Agree. Will is off the mark here. -- BwB ( talk) 12:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Agree with proposal and disagree with Will's statement "it isn't harassment to draw that problem to their attention, repeatedly if necessary".-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Dealing with harassment

9) An editor who is harassed and attacked by others – or who genuinely perceives themselves to be harassed or attacked – whether on Wikipedia or off, should not see that harassment as an excuse for fighting back and attacking those who are criticising them. Editors should report on-wiki harassment to administrators and off-wiki harassment privately to the Arbitration Committee. Administrators should be sensitive in dealing with harassed editors who have themselves breached acceptable standards.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Proposed, per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf#Dealing with harassment. As with expressing criticism, there are right ways and wrong ways for dealing with perceived harassment. "Fighting back and attacking" is the wrong way, while calmly seeking out administrative assistance is the appropriate response (the question of whether or not those feelings have been legitimate can be left to the side here since this is a general principle). On the administrative side, all administrators should be sensitive and cautious in dealing with even the perception of harassment - especially when personal information is involved. Dreadstar ☥ 04:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I don't see any evidence pertaining to this.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Agree -- BwB ( talk) 12:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Hounding

10) "Hounding" is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor.

An editor's contribution history is public, and there are various legitimate reasons for following an editor's contributions, such as for the purposes of recent changes patrol, WikiProject tagging, or for dispute resolution purposes. Under certain circumstances, these activities can easily be confused with hounding.

Editors should at all times remember to assume good faith before concluding that hounding is taking place, although editors following another editor's contributions should endeavour to be transparent and explain their actions wherever necessary in order to avoid mistaken assumptions being drawn as to their intentions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Proposed, per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf#Hounding. Dreadstar ☥ 04:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I don't see any evidence of this. With the sole exception, some time ago, of Fladriff following TG from the Warnborough College articel to the TM article, I'm not aware of any assertions that any editors have followed other editors to unrelated topics for the purpose of hounding them.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Opposed: I, too, have seen no evidence that anyone has deliberately followed another editor for the purpose of annoying them. All the annoyance has been centered around the issues of each article and has generally been polarized into pro-TM and anti-TM camps. The situation here has already been completely described by me and several others. People have gotten too attached to their POV to react in the best interests of WP. Most editors, whether pro-TM or anti-TM have had an agenda as soon as they arrived at these articles. Each set of editors thinks they are right and the other side is wrong. Not good. David Spector (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Pseudo-outing

11) Per WP:Outing, while outing has not occurred if an editor has previously voluntarily self-identified his or her country, language, nationality, or other personal information. Subsequent posting of that information by other users does not constitute outing; but if a user has redacted that information, their wishes should be respected and any further posting of that information by other editors would be deemed inappropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Proposed to address situations where an editor posted personal information, 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 real-life harassment due to the revealed and repeated 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.
• In this case, a user posted personal information, and was then subjected to real-life harassment. The information was redacted and should never have been referenced on-wiki again to prevent further harassment. But, unfortunately, not only was it re-posted, it was repeated over and over again, in many different places on WP. Since I don’t want to continue the pseudo-outing, I won’t post all those diffs here. Even editors who haven’t posted real life information were identified as being employed by a certain group, and living in a certain area – that’s totally inappropriate. With a small town, and an even smaller pool of people in the specified workplace, even that small amount of personal information makes it very easy for someone to locate and harass those editors, as has been reportedly done in this specific case.
• Previously, concerns were raised that with the number of people editing WP, it would be impossible to keep the information from being reposted, since the ‘bell had been rung’ or the ‘cat let out of the bag’, but that does not prevent us from notifying those who repeat the redacted personal information that they aren’t to keep doing it, and then apply sanctions if they do. Just like vandalism, sure, don’t do it…if you do it once, then you get warned…escalating to being blocked. And repeating personal information can lead to a far worse crime than vandalism.
• While perhaps not as egregious as a full-on outing of never before posted personal information, with the potential for real-life harassment, it would be prudent to at least tighten the use of redacted personal information per: [254]. Additionally, it may be wise to add stronger wording in WP:OUTING to indicate that once warned, further ‘pseudo-outing’ of the same editor will result in a block. Dreadstar ☥ 04:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

"Pseudo-outing"? I don't see anything about this in the policy pages. This concerns one particular editor revealing one very relevant detail, commenting on it in many places, and then deleting it from one or two places. It is relevant because she has continued to edit articles directly related to her personal life and to a presumed conflict of interest. If she had sough to redact irrelevant information, like her name, age, birth place, etc, then this principle might be worthwhile, but that is not the case. Deleting information about a COI does not make the COI go away.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Fladrif bad faith assumptions

1) User:Fladrif frequently assumes bad faith when dealing with other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Proposed, per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement/Evidence#User:Fladrif_incivility_and_personal_attacks, and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement/Evidence#Additional_evidence Dreadstar ☥ 04:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC) updated: 03:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Oppose WP:AGF does not require one to continue to assume good faith once bad faith has been demonstrated. Bad faith has been repeatedly demonstrated by the TM-Org editors. Fladrif ( talk) 19:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

There have been may assertions of bad faith, on both sides.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Will, your comment may or may not be true but this proposal is about Fladrif and he has expressed bad faith multiple times and even on this ArbCom. [255]-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Kbob, are you or Dreadstar going to add findings about failures to assume good faith by TMers, or are you only interested in accusing the non-TM editors? It appears that the latter is true, which makes it appear that you are using this workshop as a further battleground.   Will Beback  talk  00:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Let's be perfectly clear. I have never assumed bad faith on the part of anyone. When editors have exhibited bad faith, such as TimidGuy lying about Hagelin's publications, claiming that he had never written about SU(5) as a reason why a reliable source should be dismissed as wrong, when the very Hagelin paper at issue in fact discussed SU(5); when Hickorybark claims the TM Org never claimed that TM-Sidhi could enable one to become invisible and walk through walls or that MVVT doesn't claim to cure cancer; when olive says she never ignored Noticeboard input but deletes material specifically endorsed by Noticeboards as proper and reliable; when you repeatedly delete material claiming it isn't in the source, when that is simply false and you are either lying or haven't read the material at all;....shall I go on?... it is not an assumption of bad faith to point out that these are not edits made in good faith - it is a recognition, and one I am reluctant to come to, that editors are acting in bad faith. Pointing out the appalling bad faith being exhibited by the TM Org editors isn't the problem here; the bad faith is the problem. Fladrif ( talk) 02:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Fladrif insults others

2) Fladrif frequently uses insults when responding to other editors on Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Proposed, per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement/Evidence#Fladrif_NPA_and_CIV_highlights. Dreadstar ☥ 04:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support I do think this is an apt characterization. Here, for example, he tells me that I'm out of my depth [256] and that I'm out of my element. [257] TimidGuy ( talk) 12:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I agree that Fladrif has not kept his cool.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The diffs on the Evidence page indicate chronic incivility [258] even during ArbCom. [259]-- — Kbob • Talk • 23:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Agree This is unfortunate because Flad has much to add to the Wiki experience and I enjoy having him round the talk pages, but he just needs to keep his cool more and try to be civil with the other editors, even when disagreeing strongly. -- BwB ( talk) 12:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Fladrif cautioned about NPA

3) Fladrif has been previously cautioned to show good faith and civility; and to stop making personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Proposed, per warnings on User talk:Fladrif. Dreadstar ☥ 04:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support In addition to the two instances in which Fladrif was warned and then blocked, he accumulated a number of other warnings from Admins. [260] [261] [262] TimidGuy ( talk) 12:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I have warned him myself, as I've given warnings to many users in this case. For some reason, my warnings to TM editors are considered harassment while my warnings to Fladrif are considered proof of his misbehavior, or as examples of my leading a POV team.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, Fladrif has been warned by Admins on several occassions. [263] He has been admonished by three Admins on this ArbCom. [264] [265] [266]-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Fladrif treats others with disrespect

4) Fladrif was cautioned and counseled to treat other editors with respect, Fladrif has failed to do so.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Proposed, per warnings on User talk:Fladrif. Dreadstar ☥ 04:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Not sure how this is different from the above.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

There is some overlap with the above proposal, respect is part of civility. However since Fladrif's incivilities include many instances of disrespect it might be good to combine these two proposals by adding a few words on respect to the proposal just above this one.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Fladrif unrepentant

5) Fladrif is unrepentant regarding his incivility and personal attacks, and continues to engage in such behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Proposed per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement/Evidence#Ongoing_incivility and bullet-point #4. Dreadstar ☥ 04:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Not sure how this is different from the above. If we're going to pick out failures to "repent" something then there are many other editors who'd be listed.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I think the point about being unrepentant is an important one and that this is a necessary proposal. His response to my diffs showing incidents, warnings and blocks for incivil behavior was "KBob is quite correct. I do not suffer fools gladly. I have had my hand slapped as a result. Nobody's perfect." [267] This indicates that in his mind, he has made no mistake and that there is nothing to be corrected and that the behavior will therefore continue, just as before.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Should I add a workshop item about how TM editors are not repentant about their POV editing of TM-related articles? Some of them seem quite defiant and insist they have done nothing wrong.   Will Beback  talk  00:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Fladrif COI on Warnborough

6) Fladrif has a COI regarding Warnborough College

Comment by Arbitrators:

Is this just a WP:POINT proposal? Cool Hand Luke 21:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

• Proposed, per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Dreadstar, second paragraph. Dreadstar ☥ 04:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Oppose as false. This proposed finding depends upon an untenable,unsupportable and unworkable redefinition of COI proposed by Dreadstar below. Further, the argument is not made in good faith, as Dreadstar cites not a single instance of any edit to the subject article which is alleged to be contrary to any Wikipedia policy or rule. Fladrif ( talk) 19:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support Fladrif seems to be intent on vengeance against Warnborough. This recent edit [268] prominently in the lead is an example of Fladrif skewing the article toward a particular point of view. The situation with Warnborough is complicated, but the preponderance of evidence suggests it's not a diploma mill. Warnborough UK is officially accredited to offer short courses. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Vengance?? Again, please explain how adding reliably-sourced content to an article, in this case the completely independent asssessment of this instutution by the head of the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization published in both the Chronicle of Higher Education and International Higher Education, violates any policy whatsoever, in particular any plausible interepretation of COI? Anybody? Fladrif ( talk) 14:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC) reply

This seems off-the-wall. If I understand correctly, Fladrif attended the school for a semester a long time ago. There is no indication that he has any ongoing relationship to it. I can't understand the point of making this proposal, beyond piling on.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Fladrif wikihounded TimidGuy

7) Fladrif wikihounded Timidguy from Warnborough College to the TM articles

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Proposed, per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement/Evidence#User:Fladrif_incivility_and_personal_attacks, second paragraph; and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement/Evidence#Additional_evidence. Dreadstar ☥ 04:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC) updated 04:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Oppose as false. The evidence is unrefuted that TG and I worked cooperatively and cordially on that article. [269] I looked at and edited a number of articles that editors who were not SPA's on Warnborough were editing out of curiosity, including not only TimidGuy but also Orlady. If that constitutes Wikistalking, then what are we to call Dreadstar's active participation in the talkpages [270] and articles or noticeboards, including not only TM-Related articles [271] [272], some tangentially related, sometimes even those completely unrelated to the TM Articles [273] [274] [275] [276] [277] TimidGuy and Olive involve themselves with, intervening on their behalf when they are involved in disputes, [278] coaching TM-Org affiliated SPA's [279] and, after becoming an Admin with their vocal support, using admin tools [280] [281] or the threat of admin tools [282] [283] [284] [285] to intimidate or sanction other editors who disagree with them, misapplying and misinterpreting rules such as WP:COI, WP:OUTING and WP:3RR. Dreadstar's involvement in the Warnborough article is a fascinating case study. He shows up out of no-where to warn "Degreemill" a SPA who only posted on the Warnborough Talk Page that he was "canvassing" by asking an uninvolved editor's opinion on a point of contention between himself and TimidGuy [286] and asks an admin off-wiki to ban "Degreemill", but is turned down, [287] then intervenes three weeks later on TimidGuy's behalf in a disagreement between TimidGuy and Orlady.[ [288]] No other involvement in the article or talk-pages at all by Dreadstar. (I'd find more examples, but I lack the both the obscessiveness and the external resources necessary to compile lists of diffs as impressively long as KBob's and Dreadstar's) Is acting as guardian angel to the TM-ORg Editors a form of Wikistalking? Fladrif ( talk) 19:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support Here's an instance in which Fladrif followed me to the Roger Penrose page, having never edited there previously. [289] Hickorybark ( talk) 03:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Unbelievable. Your position is that you were Wikihounded at Roger Penrose? Do you contend that our interaction there was anything other than completely cordial, or that you have any disagreement whatsoever, that I did nothing other than properly attribute to the appropriate source something that some other editor had apparently plagiarized? (You'd know more than a little about plagiarism, wouldn't you?) And that you stated, without prompting, after I had done so:, "What we have now seems pretty balanced to me" [290] You really want to contend that that constitutes some misconduct on my part? In the immortal words of George Walsh, "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" Fladrif ( talk) 04:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support I stopped editing Warnborough even though I felt it didn't yet meet NPOV because of Fladrif's behavior there. I wouldn't describe it as cordial. I wanted to get away from him, and then he followed me to the TM article. It was partly his talk page behavior, but also partly his vindictive manner of editing. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC) reply

That claim would be a lot more credible if it weren't for the fact it is completely untrue. In your own words - one of your last posts at Warnborough:

• Thanks, Fladrif. It's amazing how much these recent changes have improved the article. And even helped move it in the direction of NPOV. TimidGuy ( talk) 16:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC) [291], reply

and this on my talkpage, the same day as your last edit to Warnborough:

• I just wanted to thank you again for the recent rewriting and reorganization. It really improved it. I feel pleased every time I look at it. I actually feel like the article is close to being done. There are about 4 small things that I may eventually suggest be changed, but overall it really seems to be shaping up. TimidGuy ( talk) 18:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC) [292] Fladrif ( talk) 13:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I don't see a single episode as a proper case of hounding. Clearly, Fladrif has an interest in TM. He hasn't followed TG or the other TM editors to other unrelated articles. Whatever happened in this regard occurred two years ago and is not part of a pattern.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

You're overlooking my evidence from late December and early January. In addition to reverting almost all my editorial contributions to the John Hagelin page [293] [294] [295] [296] [297], Fladrif also reverted my material from the TM-Sidhi page (which you moved there). Then he followed me to the Roger Penrose page for the sole purpose of reverting my edit there [298]. I don't see how this can be construed as anything other than Wikihounding. Hickorybark ( talk) 15:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

You deleted something that some other editor wrote in the Roger Penrose article on the basis that it was unsourced. I found the source - in fact what you deleted was verbatim from the source, but was plagairism because it was an exact quote but wasn't attributed - and put in new text, with appropriate rewording and appropriate attribution. [299] Afterward, you were pleased enough with the result to post "What we have now seems pretty balanced to me" [300]. That is not a reversion. I did not "engage" you at all. You agreed wholeheartedly with the edit I made. Fladrif ( talk) 15:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

It was still Wikihounding. You had no previous history on Roger Penrose, prior to 6 January 2010 [301]. Hickorybark ( talk) 15:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm not even going to comment on what mindset is necessary for anyone to consider making an edit to an article that you agreee was 100% appropriate is hounding. But, by your definition, would you not have to agree that it was most definitely wikihounding for you, TimidGuy and Olive to follow me to Flipped SU(5) and Dimitri Nanopoulos, articles none of you had ever edited previously, reverting properly sourced material, inserting unsourced material, plagairizing a TM-ORg blog and using a MUM PR Department-puff piece as sources? Or how about Bigweeboy, who repeatedly injects himself into discussions between other editors on their talkpages in which he has no prior involvement? [302] [303] If you, Timidguy or Dreadstar were actually making these charges in good faith, why are you not making similar wikistalking/hounding charges and findings against yourselves when your own actions are actually eggregious? Perhaps because you are not making these claims in good faith. Fladrif ( talk) 16:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Fladrif BLP editing

8) Fladrif has edited BLP articles related to TM from an ‘anti-TM’ perspective; adding negative content from a critical POV, but nothing supportive or positive about the subject.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Proposed, per Fladrif's edits to John Hagelin; analysis: User:Dreadstar/FH. *Clarifed intent of this proposal. Dreadstar ☥ 03:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Oppose as False This proposal is evidence of Dreadstar's utter lack of understanding of Wikipedia policies, their appropriate application, and the manner in which administrative tools should be applied. I have edited close to 50 BLP's, started two, Michel_Richard and Alyssa Sutherland, and brought another, Fred LaBour to DYK. Dreadstar cites not a single instance where any edit by me to any BLP, including Hagelin, violated or came close to violating, any Wikipedia policy. Everything that I added to that article was reliably sourced. I added neutral [304] and positive [305] [306] [307] [308] [309] to the article, and in the case of critical material [310], accurately summarized reliable sources in a neutral manner. In the one instance where a question was raised at BLPN challenging negative material, the uninvolved editors unanimously agreed that the material I added was reliably sourced, accurately and neutrally reflected the sources, and that the revisions suggested by the TM-Org editors sought to misrepresent by watering down and neutralizing the criticism so as to be inaccurate and misleading. [311] Adding reliably sourced criticism, neutrally summarized, to a BLP violates no policy whatsoever, and Dreadstar's proposals on this matter cannot be regarded as having been made in good faith. Fladrif ( talk) 19:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Strike TwoSo, after failing to support the initial allegation that I have only made negative edits to Hagelin, with any evidence whatsoever,or to make any claim, credible or otherwise that - even if true, there was anything improper about any such edit, Dreadstar now compiles a comprehensive table of my edits User:Dreadstar/FH which, lo and behold, show a mixture, per his characterization, of both neutral and negative material, and an argument that no positive material was included. I think it is enough (i) that by his own analysis, the allegation that I only added negative material was a falsehood; (ii) there is still no allegation whatsoever on his part that there was any violation of any Wikipedia policy whatsoever to any edit I made to that article, and no answer to the undeniable fact that I was backed 100% by the ininvolved editors at BLPN as to the correctness of my edits on the sole disputed issue; and (iii) the animus evident in this sorry display and obscessive behavior on his part is an additional measure of his utter unfitness to hold admin status. Fladrif ( talk) 01:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Three strikes and you're out. The third version of this nonsense is now that I edited Hagelin from a negative perspective. Notwithstanding that by his own analysis I have added substantial neutral material, and frankly, substantial positive material as well, though Dreadstar is loath to admit it. Notwithstanding that everything I added was accurate, reliably sourced and neutrally summarized the sources. Nothwithstanding that BLPN supported me when the TM-Org editors complained. Facts do not intrude on Dreadstar's version of reality. Fladrif ( talk) 04:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC) reply

If this is a violation then the TM editors have been far worse when it comes to one-sided editing. Dreadstar's diffs page seems to list every edit Fladrif ever made, but doens't point to any that are problematic. I'm not aware of any editors seeking to add unsourced or poorly sourced negative material to the Hagelin article. On the flip side, the TM editors have repeatedly deleted well-sourced negative material, [312] and have repeatedly added poorly sourced positive material. [313]   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support I discuss my experience with Fladrif on the John Hagelin article here [314] and [315]. Will Beback and Fladrif cooperated to ensure that potentially defamatory material has been presented in as prejudicial a light as possible [316]. Hickorybark ( talk) 02:44, 15 March 2010 (UT

In my experience with Fladrif on Deepak Chopra he was, for the most part a neutral editor. John Hagelin may be a different story but I wasn't there during controversial times so I can't say about that one.-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Fladrif misinterpretations

9) Fladrif has often misinterpreted and/or misjudged user statements, user intent, and wiki policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Proposed, per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement/Evidence#Response_to_Fladrif and other evidence on the Evidence page. Dreadstar ☥ 04:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

This appears to be too common a problem to single out just one user.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Agree Deadstar is not singling Flad out - just stating fact. -- BwB ( talk) 12:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Fladrif has misrepresented fact

10) Fladrif has repeatedly made comments during the course of on-Wiki discussion, in which he misrepresented the views of other editors, as well as the content of sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Proposed, again per Response to Fladrif, this and this. Dreadstar ☥ 04:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Oppose as false Editors can express their own views, and if they disgree with how other's understand or characterize their views, they are free, and are rarely shy, in saying so. The allegation that I have misprepresented sources is utterly false, as can be readily seen from the cited diffs, which show that every single edit was supported by reliable sources, accurately and neutrally presented and summarized. Fladrif ( talk) 19:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support In addition to the examples I give in my evidence of Fladrif misrepresenting sources [317], he also sometimes misrepresents what editors say on the Talk page. For example, I said this: ""There were a few news reports of the trial." [318] And Fladrif then immediately misrepresents what I said: ""Your claim that there was no media coverage of that trial is simply false." [319] TimidGuy ( talk) 12:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The evidence on this isn't clear or compelling. All editors make mistakes, including the TM editors.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Scope of COI

11) WP:COI also applies to editors who may not be affiliated with the subject, yet have an admitted or obvious negative view of the subject.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Proposed, to provide a guideline for editors who may not be affiliated (e.g. an employee) with the article subject, but whose views may be incompatibile with the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia without advancing the editor's outside interests. Dreadstar ☥ 04:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. Dreadstar seeks to rewrite Wikipedia's COI policy to encompass any editor who has an opinion about the subject matter of an article. The proposal appears to be made in bad faith, as it does not encompass the corrolary that an editor with an admitted or obvious positive view of the subject would have a COI. The implications of the position are absurd, and Dreadstar's apparent unwillingness to propose the inescapable corrolary of his proposal underlines the lack of good faith in making it. This is not the appropriate forum in which to rewrite COI even if the proposal had merit, which it does not. Fladrif ( talk) 19:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support The guideline says this: "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." If one is intent on vengeance, and edits accordingly, this is an example of promoting one's own interest. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Any time editors have strongly held beliefs which they can't set aside there is a conflict of interest. However Dreadstar proposes a very strict reading of the guideline. It appears, when combined with other proposals, to suggest that Fladrif and others (even me) have a conflict of interest while the TM editors have no such conflict (given that they've denied it repeatedly and strenuously). If so, that's turning this case on its head.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

There have been many assertions and evidence presented by both sides regarding POV and COI. It is clearly not a one-sided issue. This proposal provides a fair and balanced alternative to previous proposals which have been one-sided in their nature.-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Question: If having an admitted negative view is cause for a COI, then having an admitted positive view would logically also create a COI. If you endorse this principal, then do you agree that the TM editors all have conflicts of interest on this topic? Many of them have said they have practiced the technique for decades and have expressed a positive POV towards it.   Will Beback  talk  22:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed Remedies:

Fladrif restricted

1) User:Fladrif is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, they may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support I think such a restriction is necessary to help mitigate the hostile environment that Fladrif helps to foment. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I've proposed in my own section a civility probation, which I think directly addresses the problem with his editing.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support. Fladrif has participated in repeated personal attacks and incivilities and creates a hostile environment wherever he goes including this RFARB.-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Fladrif restricted

2) For a period of one year, Fladrif is prohibited from commenting on the conduct of any other user, other than by direct request to the Arbitration Committee. This specifically includes ascribing motives in a content dispute or other debate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Unnecessarily broad and unsupported.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support This would really help create a more cordial editing environment. TimidGuy ( talk) 11:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Fladrif is on one year civility parole

3) Fladrif is on one year civility parole for personal attacks and lack of WP:AGF. He is also strongly advised to seek mentorship.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is reasonable, and I've suggested the same thing.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Fladrif banned

4) Fladrif is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This doesn't seem to be supported by evidence.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Strongly support. It is not fair to other editors who have been the subject of his incivilities, attacks, and insults for the past year as well as during this RFARB that he be allowed to continue. He has been admonished, warned and blocked on many occasions and there has been no perceivable change in his behavior. His presence creates a hostile environment that is damaging to the well being of WP and its editors. [320]-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Blocking for disruptive editing including misrepresentation

5) Fladrif may be blocked by any uninvolved admin for disruptive edits, including but not limited to misrepresenting other editors' positions in content disputes and including personal attacks and lack of assumption of good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

How many different ways is Dreadstar going to suggest blocking the same user? Pick one.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

BLP ban

6) Fladrif is banned from any BLP and their talk pages for one year

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Oppose This proposal is evidence of Dreadstar's utter lack of understanding of Wikipedia policies, their appropriate application, and the manner in which administrative tools should be applied. I have edited close to 50 BLP's, started two, Michel_Richard and Alyssa Sutherland, and brought another, Fred LaBour to DYK. Dreadstar cites not a single instance where any edit by me to any BLP, including Hagelin, violated or came close to violating, any Wikipedia policy. Everything that I added to that article was reliably sourced. I added neutral [321] and positive [322] [323] [324] [325] [326] to the article, and in the case of critical material [327], accurately summarized reliable sources in a neutral manner. In the one instance where a question was raised at BLPN challenging negative material, the uninvolved editors unanimously agreed that the material I added was reliably sourced, accurately and neutrally reflected the sources, and that the revisions suggested by the TM-Org editors sought to misrepresent by watering down and neutralizing the criticism so as to be inaccurate and misleading. [328] Adding reliably sourced criticism, neutrally summarized, to a BLP violates no policy whatsoever, and Dreadstar's proposals on this matter cannot be regarded as having been made in good faith. Fladrif ( talk) 19:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I don't see any evidence of Fladrif (or anyone else) violating BLP. The only time a BLP on this topic has come to WP:BLPN the editors there agreed that the proposed material was appropriate.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Not sure this is warranted.Though I didn't work on Fred LaBour I have seen some of Fladrifs edits there and he made some good contributions.-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

BLP ban alternate

6a) Fladrif is indefinitely banned from editing John Hagelin and any other TM-related BLP articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Oppose This proposal is evidence of Dreadstar's utter lack of understanding of Wikipedia policies, their appropriate application, and the manner in which administrative tools should be applied. I have edited close to 50 BLP's, started two, Michel_Richard and Alyssa Sutherland, and brought another, Fred LaBour to DYK. Dreadstar cites not a single instance where any edit by me to any BLP, including Hagelin, violated or came close to violating, any Wikipedia policy. Everything that I added to that article was reliably sourced. I added neutral [329] and positive [330] [331] [332] [333] [334] to the article, and in the case of critical material [335], accurately summarized reliable sources in a neutral manner. In the one instance where a question was raised at BLPN challenging negative material, the uninvolved editors unanimously agreed that the material I added was reliably sourced, accurately and neutrally reflected the sources, and that the revisions suggested by the TM-Org editors sought to misrepresent by watering down and neutralizing the criticism so as to be inaccurate and misleading. [336] Adding reliably sourced criticism, neutrally summarized, to a BLP violates no policy whatsoever, and Dreadstar's proposals on this matter cannot be regarded as having been made in good faith. Fladrif ( talk) 19:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm a little confused by this: 19 of user Deadstars proposals to resolve the results of the SPI seem to involve banning user Fladrif (indeed, many of the "proposals" seem to consist of "evidence" "against" user Fladrif). I am not to sure how this might help and how constructive any of this is. Would I be correct in thinking that user Deadstar does not like user Fladrif? Tucker ^talk 00:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support I discuss my experience with Fladrif on the John Hagelin article here [337] and [338]. Hickorybark ( talk) 02:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC) reply

How many times is Dreadstar going to propose banning Fladrif?   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I think this one is better. Though I didn't work on Fred LaBour I have seen some of Fladrifs edits there and he made some good contributions.-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Fladrif COI restriction

7) Fladrif must abide by WP:COI when editing Warnborough College

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Oppose. Premised on an untenable rewrite of COI. Fladrif ( talk) 19:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

This is just plain bizarre, especially since Dreadstar is not suggesting any comparable remedy concerning MUM faculty.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Has Fladrif given some indication that he has an affiliation with Warnborough College? If so could someone please post it here. That would be relevant evidence to consider.-- — Kbob • Talk • 15:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Pseudo-outing remedy

8) Editors who post previously redacted personal information shall be warned not to do so again. If the editor continues to post the redacted information, they will be subject to blocking per WP:OUTING as if outing had actually occurred.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is a re-write of existing policy and previous ArbCom decision. It suggests creating a 1984-ish "memory hole" in which editors can make things they've written disappear when they become inconvenient. There is no evidence that any "pseudo-outing" has caused any harm to any editor, and there is ample evidence that the user in question has sought to edit with a COI that was hidden by the deletion of her open and unprompted description of her employer.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Pseudo-outing remedy alternate

8b) Editors who post previously redacted personal information shall be warned not to do so again. If the editor continues to post the redacted information, they will be subject escalating blocks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

See above.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Blocks

1) Violations of any of these rulings are enforceable by blocks of up to 1 week, after 5 occurrences blocks may be extended to one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Standard.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Bans

2) Mediators and admins involved in settling the issues of this case may impose topic and article bans as deemed appropriate for a period of up to three months initially. Upon subsequent incidents the bans may be extended an additional nine months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

"Mediators and admins involved in settling the issues of this case..." - Poorly worded. Neither mediators nor involved admins should be imposing bans.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Serious BLP violations and circumstances

3) Any serious violation of the remedies in this decision or any related BLP circumstance affecting the well-being of the project and its contributors should be reported to the Arbitration Committee immediately.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There is no evidence of serious violations of BLP in this case, so this seems unnecessary.   Will Beback  talk 

Comment by others:

Logging blocks or bans

4) All blocks or bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement#Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Standard.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Scientific focus

1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its content on scientific and quasi-scientific topics will primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree. When writing about fringe topics we should make sure that articles reflect the mainstream views.   Will Beback  talk  22:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. Per Fringe Science arbitration. -- JN 466 22:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes. Thank you. Woonpton ( talk) 18:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Relevant comparisons

2) The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only amongst the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree. On obscure and fringe topics, the overall community view should be predominant.   Will Beback  talk  22:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. Per Fringe Science arbitration. -- JN 466 22:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, very important. Woonpton ( talk) 18:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Citations

3) Citations should not be used disproportionately to the prominence of the view they are citing or in a manner that conveys undue weight. Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality, independent sources; if such sources are not available, the material should be attributed and given much reduced weight, be included through the filter of secondary sources commenting on the material, or not be included at all.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Support this. In response to Will, I think it would be beyond ArbCom's remit to adjudicate the quality of specific sources or what constitutes undue weight in a given situation, but I think there are still valid findings of fact that can follow from a principle like this. Steve Smith ( talk) 11:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Agree. However this may be too much of a content issue for thew ArbCom to decide.   Will Beback  talk  22:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. Per Fringe Science arbitration, with addition of the word "independent" and addition of the words "be attributed and given much reduced weight, be included through the filter of secondary sources commenting on the material, or". -- JN 466 22:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

This is very important; recent attempts to replace older primary TM-related sources with recent independent secondary sources have been fiercely, inordinately contended, even to the point that such attempts have been presented in this case as evidence of bias and disruptive editing. Will could be right that this is outside ArbCom's remit, but editors attempting to bring the articles to a more encyclopedic presentation need some support from somewhere; if not from ArbCom, then where? Woonpton ( talk) 18:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Advocacy

4) Wikipedia is not for advocacy. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to state neutrally the current knowledge in a field, not to put forward arguments to promote or deride any particular view. In particular, conjectures that hold significant prominence must no more be suppressed than be promoted as factual.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree. This is an important principle in this case due to the advocacy on behalf of what are widely considered pseudo-scientific concepts..   Will Beback  talk  22:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. Per Fringe Science arbitration. -- JN 466 22:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Proposed findings of fact

Advocacy for and against TM

1) There has been advocacy-based editing both for and against TM in articles on TM, as well as articles related to TM.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There has certainly been advocacy for TM. There has also been opposition to that advocacy. I'm not sure that there is evidence of significant advocacy against TM. For example, there hasn't been issues with repeatedly adding anti-TM blogs, as has happened with articles on similar groups. Where negative material has been added, it's been well-sourced and mainstream.   Will Beback  talk  22:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Advocacy-based editing opposing TM includes adding noncompliant sources such as a blog, website, and popular media on science topics, removing secondary sources, misrepresenting sources, and greatly skewing the articles toward a negative point of view — and doing such things as highlighting negative things in DYK and by creating the article about the murder that took place on campus. Advocacy against TM can even be seen on this page, for example, Kala's insistence that all of the TM research is junk science. TimidGuy ( talk) 11:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

TM editors have used free-magazines for contentious assertions three times (see below). They have copied material from a blog. They've removed secondary sources, etc. I agree that these are problematic behaviors, but they seem to have been practiced far more often by the TM editors than by the non-TM editors.   Will Beback  talk  20:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. -- JN 466 22:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I have to agree that in the history of the two TM-related articles I've watched, that there has been some advocacy-based editing against TM in these articles. There are a few disgruntled ex-TMers who have become avid advocates against TM and have edited Wikipedia articles. However, these people, in my observation, have been fairly few in comparison to the number of pro-TM advocates, and have been so unable to restrain their animosity that they have been banned or sanctioned and have left, one way or the other. So for the purpose of a solution to the present and continuing problems with the TM articles, I don't think they are an issue.

The danger, as I see it, is that the fact that there has been some advocacy against TM on these articles has been used to discredit anyone trying to balance the pro-TM slant, and label them as "anti-TM." The research on TM is almost entirely of poor quality, as well established by independent meta-analysis, and the research on the Maharishi Effect is... well, Carl Sagan calls it "pseudoscience;" will TG call Carl Sagan "anti-TM" too? This insistence on equating any criticism of the research with some kind of anti-TM agenda just needs to stop. I don't have any opinion about TM one way or the other, and if TM proponents just said "We believe that a group of people practicing TM in Fairfield Iowa can make people stop smoking in Canada, bring the pollen count down in Rhode Island and reduce air traffic fatalities over Massachusetts" I'd say "that's cool, go for it." People can believe absolutely anything they want to believe. But when they say these extraordinary claims have been scientifically proven, then that's a whole different thing, and to cite reliable sources that point out the problems with this "scientific proof" doesn't make someone "anti-TM." Woonpton ( talk) 18:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm glad you acknowledge that there has been anti-TM advocacy. My objection to Will Beback's initiation of these proceedings was that his representation of the situation was entirely one-sided. In any case, it's not true that the anti-TM advocacy is as limited or past-tense as you seem to think, as shown by a quick review of the number of references to "cult" and other trigger words in the TM article and the TM-Sidhis article.

Your statement that, "The research on TM is almost entirely of poor quality," is simply inaccurate. This isn't the forum for a detailed analysis, but I would be willing to discuss individual meta-analyses on the appropriate Talk pages. In the first place we would have to distinguish the physiological research, which is more established, from the Maharishi Effect research, which is more speculative. I don't know of any TM researchers who claim that the Maharishi Effect has "been scientifically proven;" this is obviously way too strong a statement. Anyone who thinks the current research has "proven" the ME doesn't understand how conservative and slow-moving the scientific enterprise is. What can be said, reasonably, I think, is that there are enough striking correlations that thoughtful people might be willing to take an indulgent, "wait-and-see" attitude. Hickorybark ( talk) 20:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Oops. Edit conflict. Woonpton got me a bit stirred up, so I guess I'll go ahead and post what I wrote. If the research is "almost entirely of poor quality," why has it been published in major medical journals such as Archives of Internal Medicine (put out by the AMA), Stroke (put out by the American Heart Association), Hypertension (the number 1 journal according to Thompson in the area of hypertension), the American Journal of Hypertension, the American Journal of Cardiology, etc? Why does one review trump everything else, especially since the authors took the unusual step of applying the Jadad scale to meditation research? (See discussion in a related thread above.) It's fine to report their finding, but I absolutely object to those who say that only the AHRQ review should be included in the article. In a little bit of searching I found that TM is heavily represented in the secondary literature, and that there are many many reviews. Should we only include AHRQ, Cochrane, and Canter & Ernst? What justifies deletion of material sourced to a 2009 review in the Harvard Review of Psychiatry, or the deletion of the Pediatrics review that included RCTs that were outside the scope of AHRQ? What justifies the deletion of findings from AHRQ that don't agree with Doc's point of view? Fine if Wikipedia wants to ban me, but I strongly feel that we need to represent the research fairly — and as its been represented in a range of meta-analyses and research reviews in the secondary literature. TimidGuy ( talk) 20:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I think we have to distinguish between health-promoting or physiological effects of TM, for which I believe there is accepted scientific evidence (just as there is for yoga and other types of meditation), and things like the ME, which is not close to mainstream acceptance. -- JN 466 09:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, please. Thanks so much for making that point. TimidGuy ( talk) 10:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

There are possibly two issues being conflated here, probably inadvertently, but I think it's important to keep them separate. The issue addressed in this proposal is pro- and anti-TM advocacy; an editors' reference to TM-related research as "junk science" was cited above as evidence of that editor's "advocacy against TM." Surely you, as the proposer, are not arguing that if an editor, in a discussion, makes a critical remark about the Maharishi Effect research, that's maybe reasonable, but if a person makes a critical remark about the medical research, that would be evidence of "advocacy against TM"? I'm having trouble finding another way to parse the distinction you're making in the context of this proposal; is there one?

The other issue is how to present the research in articles; that (as you have correctly stated in another proposal) must be based on the best available independent secondary sources, not on anyone's personal belief about whether there is "accepted scientific evidence," so this isn't a distinction we would be making in deciding how to cover the research in an article. But why would the distinction be any more useful in determining whether a person is advocating for or against TM? I don't assume that your saying that there is scientific evidence for medical benefit for TM makes you an "advocate for TM" I just assume it means you haven't read very deeply into the independent scientific literature on the subject. Woonpton ( talk) 15:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Just for the record: though I question the usefulness of the distinction, I did make the called-for distinction in my above remarks. When I referred to TM research as mostly "poor quality" I was referring specifically to the medical research (that's why I referred to the Maharishi Effect research separately). The assertion that the medical research is mostly poor is not only my personal opinion based on 40 years of training and experience in reading, evaluating and summarizing research literature, but is corroborated by reliable independent sources. Woonpton ( talk) 17:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I'll happily admit that I have not read the medical literature on TM. I've read a few press reports on physiological effects of TM and thought it was accepted that it had some effect. ( Checking the Cochrane Library, I can only find one review, which suggests there may be an effect, but is basically inconclusive.) I am out of my depth here, scientifically, and have no training to evaluate what you're saying. What I did say was in response to preceding discussion contributions (the fact that a meditation practice may have a physiological effect is not particularly startling, whereas linking crime rates, say, to other people's meditation is). What I said should be seen in that light; it was not intended as a clarification of the proposal, or a suggested addition to the proposal. -- JN 466 21:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks, that makes sense; I apologize for misreading. Woonpton ( talk) 22:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

No harm done. :) -- JN 466 13:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply

On second thought, I'm still puzzled why you posed this distinction in this thread, if it has nothing to do with the proposal, and IMO it has little to do with the issues surrounding these topics. You still seem to be suggesting that when discussing the quality of the research, we should be careful to make a distinction between the medical research and the Maharishi Effect, since the claims of the medical research aren't particularly "startling" while the claims of the Maharishi Effect research are. The question of how "startling" a claim sounds isn't something science concerns itself with. The scientific question is: regardless of how plausible the claims sound, does the research provide clear and uncontrovertible and replicable findings in support of the claim? Our task here is to fairly and accurately summarize the views of reliable indpendent secondary sources on that question. The distinction you're making seems not at all useful here, either in this thread or wherever the issue of research quality is discussed, and just confuses the issue. Woonpton ( talk) 18:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply

You're right in that it is basically an indefensible WP:OR argument. I know enough about mathematical statistics and the probability theory underlying hypothesis testing for ME studies like that on the Merseyside crime rates e.g. to leave me entirely unimpressed. I'm not aware such research is financed by mainstream institutions. On the other hand, there have been research grants from mainstream bodies for studying health-effects of TM, have there not? If that is so, then that seems to signal (to me) a degree of mainstream acceptance, or interest at least, that we should reflect. Please do point out if and where I'm misinformed. -- JN 466 07:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply

You're still not answering my question: to what purpose are you continuing to insist on this distinction? This proposal, again, is that pro- and anti-TM advocacy have occurred, and this particular discussion started with my disagreement with TG's assertion that a critical remark about TM research, made in the context of a discussion, is evidence of anti-TM advocacy. My point all along has been that making a comment criticizing the research, in and of itself, is not evidence of "anti-TM advocacy" since reliable independent sources also criticize this research. You said we have to make a distinction between the medical research and the Maharishi Effect research, and I said there have been criticisms of both kinds in the scientific literature, and asked if you're arguing that the assertion that a critical remarks about TM research would be evidence for anti-TM advocacy if it were about the medical research, but wouldn't be anti-TM advocacy if it were about the Maharishi Effect research. You said no, your comment wasn't intended to be about this proposal at all.

If so, why do you keep making the argument here, and why do you keep changing the grounds the argument is based on (first it was that you believe that there is solid scientific evidence backing up the medical claims, then it was that the medical claims are less "startling," and now it's that the medical research has been "financed by mainstream institutions")? As I've said before, there's no article-related purpose for making the distinction, because article decisions must be based on reliable independent secondary sources (and besides, there's a very clear distinction article-wise, because the medical research is covered in the TM article and the Maharishi Effect research is covered in the TM-Sidhi article, so there would be no confusion in the articles about which research the reliable sources are discussing.) So what purpose does this distinction serve, in your mind?

But setting aside for the moment my concerns about the distinction (what purpose does the distinction serve for the encyclopedia, for this arbitration, and for this specific proposal?) I'll answer the smaller question about funding. Yes, some of the medical research has been funded by "mainstream institutions," and in fact if I'm not mistaken, our article on TM has a whole section about the sources of research funding, and if that's what you mean by "this represents a level of mainstream acceptance we should reflect," then yes, we do reflect whatever "acceptance" is conferred by that funding.

I think maybe, still, you're confused about what I'm arguing here. I'm certainly not arguing that our articles should say the TM research is "junk science" or that the articles should say anything about the quality of research, other than that they should accurately summarize reliable independent secondary sources on the subject. The ONLY point I'm making here is that if a person makes a critical comment on a discussion page about TM research, that does not, in and of itself, constitute "anti-TM advocacy."

A little more about funding: as a statistician/researcher who has been privy to discussions at the federal level about funding of research (not in this particular area) I can tell you that research funding tends to be based on practical and political considerations as well as on scientific merit. It stands to reason that the political jockeying that resulted in Congress appropriating money for a Complementary and Alternative Medicine subsection of the NIH would have made money available for research under that category (in fact the way such appropriations generally work, research about the effectiveness of alternative medicine treatments would probably have been mandated by law as a necessary component of the appropriation for alternative medicine) and MUM, already in place doing such research, would be a natural recipient of some of that research money.

The fact that a meta-analysis was commissioned by NIH to evaluate that entire body of research, even in the middle of the GW Bush administration, suggests that there must have been serious questions being raised about the medical effectiveness of meditation techniques, that impelled the RFP for the meta-analysis. The "mainstream-funded" studies you mention were included in this evaluation, which found very few of the hundreds of TM-related studies to be of good enough quality to be entered into meta-analysis (and all that business about the Jadad scale is just a red herring; it doesn't make any meaningful difference. If you use a different scale to judge quality, it just moves a few more studies (out of hundreds) from 1, to 2 or 3, on a 5-point scale; it doesn't dislodge the conclusion that this research overall is poor quality research. The argument made by TM editors that by using different criteria to judge research quality you can raise the number of "good" TM studies --"good" is 3 on a 5-point scale-- to 10%, is hardly a compelling argument against the conclusion that the research overall is poor quality; it still describes 90% of the studies.) So yeah. I wouldn't say this is a matter of being "misinformed;" it's true that NIH has funded some of this research, but funding does not mean endorsement of the research. Pons and Fleischmann's cold fusion research was funded by DOE, but that didn't keep DOE from convening a panel to evaluate the quality of the research, concluding that the claim had not been sufficiently demonstrated or replicated. Woonpton ( talk) 17:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The ONLY point I'm making here is that if a person makes a critical comment on a discussion page about TM research, that does not, in and of itself, constitute "anti-TM advocacy." I wholly agree with you, all the more so when reliable sources have come to the same conclusions. When I say "advocacy-based editing" in the proposal, I am not referring to behaviour in talk page discussions, but to writing articles that are propagandistic in nature and advocate one particular POV. -- JN 466 04:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Woonpton, are your sources "reliable" and "independent" because they agree with you? This kind of dismissive generalization ("poor quality") constitutes advocacy, not good judgment. If you had said something more balanced and neutral like, "Most of the early TM research lacked controls," we might have a basis for discussion. That research still had value as pioneering research in the context of the larger project; the editors who decided to publish it certainly thought so. More importantly, to dismiss Alexander's carefully controlled and highly regarded research from the '80s and '90s, the research of Scheider's group on hypertension, Travis's EEG research, etc., etc. is not fair-minded and not mainstream. Not only do these scientists publish in leading journals, they are well-received at conferences, including plenary sessions. In making this kind of dismissive generalization you are dismissing the judgment of hundreds of journal editors and reviewers, as well as grant referees who have awarded tens of millions of dollars. As a senior scientist, I take your views much more seriously than the other anti-TM editors, but you are really letting your prejudices get the better of your good sense here. Hickorybark ( talk) 21:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

No, I don't call sources reliable and independent because I agree with them; when I referred to reliable independent sources, I was referring to sources that are reliable and independent by Wikipedia policy and by scientific standards, and I rather resent the implication that it might be otherwise. This is hardly the place for a detailed literature review of the TM-affiliated research, so the idea that it was my responsibility to write such a review here, giving specific criticisms of the specific parts of the research rather than making a general comment about the research as a whole, is, well, unreasonable. But you've been making my point; the imputation that my remark about the poor quality of the TM research makes me an "advocate" and even an "anti-TM editor" is exactly what I have been objecting to throughout this thread; it's not a reasonable imputation. Many reasonable scientists share my view of this research. It's about science, it's not about TM. Yes, I'm for good science, but that doesn't make me anti-TM. My only loyalty, throughout my long professional life, has been to data; whatever the data say is what I say. If I'm an advocate for anything, it's for accurate representation of data. The data don't speak very highly of the TM research, but to say so doesn't make me an advocate against TM, only an advocate for the data. I'm done here. Woonpton ( talk) 22:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Violations of WP:FRINGE

2) Editors with personal links and loyalties to TM have violated the spirit and letter of WP:FRINGE by arguing for or defending the prominent inclusion of exceptional claims which lack mainstream acceptance, based on non-independent sources linked to the TM movement itself. [339]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose Are you sure that it wasn't anti-TM editors who argued for the prominent inclusion of exceptional claims? For example, on the TM-Sidhi page, the claim that TM-Sidhis lead to "invisibility, walking through walls, mind-reading" was referenced to hostile sources. No authorized TM organization makes these claims. Hickorybark ( talk) 02:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Support Perhaps the most extraordinary claim is Hickorybark's above that the TM Org didn't make these claims! It's impeccably well sourced, including the contemporary press from the mid-1970s and even copies of the offical advertisements purchased by the TM Org, featuring the the infamous Sidhiman! Time Magazine, San Francisco Chronicle the Colombia Missourian, JAMA the Superior Court and Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, dozens of other reliable sources, the various papers that published the TM Org's own ads are "hostile sources"? Preposterous. Fladrif ( talk) 02:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose I think HickoryBark is correct that the exceptional claims have largely been added by those who oppose TM. The TM editors added research published in independent, peer-reviweed journals, which those opposed sought to delete. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The exceptional claims have been made by the movement, as reported in reliable sources. It is necessary to include those, but also to show that they are not the mainstream view. Much of the research to which TimidGuy refers either fails to meet the WP:MEDRS standards or claims to prove the truth of fringe science or pseudoscience concepts. The positions of the Fairfield TM editors on those sources has not been supported by uninvoled editors on the relevant noticeboards.   Will Beback  talk  00:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Kind of lost me on that first phrase "Editors with personal links and loyalites to TM". This is a broad statement. What we know so far as fact are that some editors have Fairfield IP's. Personal links and loyalties have been speculated upon but not defined or established in my opinion.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

That's another way of referring to the group of editors who have been promoting TM on Wikipedia. Kbob doesn't appear to address the main point of this finding: that editors have violated WP:FRINGE.   Will Beback  talk  22:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. This will need fleshing out, but I think most if not all of the TM editors have been guilty of this to varying extents. -- JN 466 22:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

"Editors with personal links and loyalites to TM": The arbitrators will have to identify which editors, if any, this applies to, and name them. That is what I meant by "fleshing out". The names will replace this phrase, if something like this is adopted. -- JN 466 09:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The second paragraph of my comment on the proposal just above fits here as well. Woonpton ( talk)

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.

TM editors admonished

1) Editors with personal links and loyalties to TM are strongly admonished and warned that any future violations of WP:FRINGE will lead to topic bans of increasing duration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't think this is strong enough.   Will Beback  talk  22:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC) reply

What about those with links and loyalties to anti-TM websites, groups, authors etc. many of which have been cited by editors in the RFARB and on the TM talk pages? This proposal is a onesided approach to a two sided issue.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

What evidence is there of any "links and loyalties" to "anti-TM websites"?   Will Beback  talk  22:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. To tie in with discretionary topic ban proposals above, via WP:AE. -- JN 466 22:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I think it may be more helpful if some editors could be given clear guidelines to follow, and be given a chance to follow them first. This dispute is to a large extent about weighting sources, is it not? In this specific case, our policies and guidelines are not very directive or helpful in that regard. We say peer-reviewed journals are usually the most reliable sources. My impression (correct me if I'm wrong) is that much of this dispute is about how the hundreds of peer-reviewed journal contributions by TM scholars should be used. One side says they are "junk science," the other side says, "What do you want, they're peer-reviewed articles, and you are dissing what Wikipedia policy says are among the most reliable sources which we should use." There clearly is a problem here in this topic area, but what has to be established is whether

• editors' misbehaviour really was so pronounced that topic bans are required, and whether editors knowingly violated policy, or
• whether editors basically tried to follow their understanding of sourcing policies, to the best of their knowledge and belief.

To the extent that the latter applies (which is something the arbitrators will have to examine, based on the voluminous evidence), I would ask the arbitrators to be clement and assume good faith, while at the same time laying down clear conduct guidelines for editors to follow henceforth, on pain of clearly defined sanctions. -- JN 466 16:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply

It's hard to see how, with all of the policies and guidelines, not to mention the visits to noticeboards, that there is a lack of clear guidelines. Peer-reviewed papers describing studies are reliable primary sources. The publication of such a study does not indicate scientific acceptance of the theory or outcome of the study, just approval of the basic conduct of the study. WP:MEDRS includes fairly strict standards for using studies that involve medical claims, but even non-medical claims should adhere to similar standards. The TM editors have been fighting for inclusion of these studies for years, exhausting the patience of successive non-TM editors who have objected. TM editors have deleted materials they don't like by citing WP:MEDRS so they are clearly familiar with its contents. [340] They have apepared at WP:FRINGE/N and even edited that guideline, so they are familiar with that as well. I don't see how ignorance can be presented as a defense for their repeated actions.   Will Beback  talk  23:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply

One side says they are "junk science," the other side says, "What do you want, they're peer-reviewed articles, and you are dissing what Wikipedia policy says are among the most reliable sources which we should use." This is an inaccurate portrayal of the situation. As far as I am aware, only one editor, who has been editing only a very short time, has used the phrase "junk science," so it's rather misleading to say "one side" says this, just because one editor has said it, or to cast the dispute as an ongoing battle between "junk science" on one side and "peer review" on the other. If there's a position that stands in opposition to the pro-TM position on presentation of the research, it's that secondary, independent sources are preferred to primary, in-universe sources, but that's just policy as well as standard form for writing an encyclopedia. I'll respond to the issue of good-faith ignorance of policy in a separate post. Woonpton ( talk) 14:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I did not speak of "ignorance" of policy. I said that we should be prepared to examine the possibility that editors may have followed a reasonable and logically consistent interpretation of policy as written at the time of their editing. Policy does state, verbatim, that "The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals; [...] Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available." This is a fact. If other editors argue, "All of these peer-reviewed studies by TM scholars are no good" (it really does not matter whether the term "junk science" is used or not), editors may in good faith feel entitled to point to policy and say, "Who are you to say these peer-reviewed studies are no good? It is not your decision to make, it is peer review that establishes the reliability of a source, not an individual Wikipedian's judgment." As for WP:MEDRS, it is unclear to me whether an argument that "even non-medical claims should adhere to similar standards" has any basis in current policy. MEDRS is a content guideline for a specific subset of topics, and as such cannot overrule generic WP:V policy in other topic areas. I would agree though that repeated and wilful infringements of WP:MEDRS on health-related topics would likely be reasonable grounds for sanctions. -- JN 466 01:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

You're missing my point: this is a false dichotomy. It's true I pointed out in a thread above that independent scientific sources show that much of the TM medical research is of poor quality, but that allusion simply served my point that a critical comment about the research is not evidence of "anti-TM advocacy," since reliable sources say the same thing. But my making a point about advocacy on an arbitration case is very different from saying in an article discussion that the studies are "no good" as a way of trying to exclude such studies; that's not an argument I have made or would make with regard to article editing. I'm not sure who you mean when you're presenting this as a position of a group of editors. This dispute isn't TM editors arguing "peer-review" policy on one side against people arguing from personal opinion that the TM research is "no good"; it's people arguing that independent secondary sources should have more weight relative to primary, in-universe sources, vs people determined to keep the primary in-universe sources prominent and either discredit or exclude altogether the independent and secondary sources.

But all right, let's "examine the possibility that editors may have followed a reasonable and logically consistent interpretation of policy as written at the time of their editing," using an example for illustration. There's a study that TM editors have persistently deleted from the TM article since 2003, using a variety of reasons for deletion, but by far the most often-employed reason given for deletion of the study has been that it was not peer-reviewed. During one of the many iterations of that dispute, in which an IP restored the study to the article [341] olive immediately deleted it, [342] it was restored by another editor [343] and deleted by TimidGuy [344] and so on, accompanied by an intense talk page debate in which olive stated "I will not support this study in any way" [345] (she was logged out but she later claimed the edit) the issue was referred to the RS noticeboard.

Jayen466 then explained to the editors that the source meets criteria for a reliable source since the book was published by a reputable academic press, that both the book and the paper have been widely cited [346] that "the two types of sources [academic books and peer-reviewed journal articles] are viewed as equally reliable" and that "per NPOV we have to cover it." [347]

Jayen rewrote the material in the article to more accurately reflect the source; [348] a month later his accurate and NPOV summary of the article was quietly deleted. [349] When someone noticed, some time later, that it was gone and asked about it, [350] the peer review argument was raised again as if it had never been addressed before. Olive wrote, even after being reminded with extensive quotes of the previous discussion, that "The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is peer review and publication in a "reputable" publication...Otis does not meet that threshold" [351] and TimidGuy argued, among other things, that Otis is weak because not peer-reviewed. [352].

As to "internally consistent," the fact that some of the same editors have argued for the inclusion of non-peer-reviewed research, such as a dissertation that was not only not peer reviewed but not even published [353] does not support the possibility that this peer-review-as-a-minimum-threshold-for-inclusion standard has been applied in a consistent manner. Woonpton ( talk) 18:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Many thanks for doing the legwork to unravel all that history, Woonpton. It makes your point well; I suggest you add it to the evidence page. -- JN 466 18:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Woonpton, this characterization of my behavior is completely false: "it's people arguing that independent secondary sources should have more weight relative to primary, in-universe sources, vs people determined to keep the primary in-universe sources prominent and either discredit or exclude altogether the independent and secondary sources." I didn't complain when Doc James and Kala deleted every last primary source from the TM article (and in fact I complimented Doc James). Instead, I added secondary sources — most of which, by the way, don't find TM research to be weak. And what happened? Kala, Doc James, and Tucker tried to delete them, as I have documented in my evidence. [354] [355] [356] [357] [358] [359] [360] [361] [362] [363] [364] [365] [366] [367] At the same time, Doc added material sourced to a blog and added a statement to the lead sourced to magician James Randi that the science behind TM is crackpot science. If you're going to fault consistency, I'd suggest you might consider this to be an example of that. TimidGuy ( talk) 15:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Jayen. Thanks for a thoughtful comment . Fundamnetal to your comment is the word Fringe, and what is fringe. It is absolutely critical to an understanding of what you are proposing to delineate the following: (Note:The TM studies and the Maharishi Effect studies must be considered a very different series of studies because they were done on different techniques. The techniques and their studies shouldn't be tossed together.

• The research on the TM technique ( a mediation technique), not a science or fringe science, is relatively mainstream...given the number of peer reviewed reliably published studies (about 350) the collaborative projects with top universities, funding, and inclusion in secondary reviews.
• The TM Sidhi program is another separate series of meditation techniques rather odd in the western world, but less so in other parts of the world, and again is not a science or fringe science. The Maharishi Effect are words to describe the purported effects of the TM Sidhi program. The research which has been done on the TM Sidhi program supposedly showing an effect (Maharishi Effect) is for the most part reliable but I would definitely say fringe to mainstream science.
• Is there a difference between including information on a topic, in this case, the TM technique and The TM Sidhi program... and... using that information as a reference or source to support inclusion of an opinion or so called fact in that source?
• Information on The TM technique includes studies... Is this just information, and should that information be jncluded per weight those studies have, per their importance to the topic in Wikipedia, and per their importance as to how that research is seen in the mainstream, per mainstream and per their importance to defining the technique in mainstream sources, or are these studies being used as sources or references to underpin the reliability and verifiablity of other content.
• The ME research must be considered in the same way, although its weight per mainstream and per importance to the topic will be much less in my opinion.
• Until answers to these fundamental questions are nailed down and agreed on, there is no right or wrong inclusion of content, and the research will always create a contentious situation.
• This is a content concern, I realize.( olive ( talk) 18:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)( reply

I, apologize Jayen if I'm discussing you and others are already aware of.( olive ( talk) 19:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)) reply

All editors warned

2) All editors in this topic area are warned that evidence of agenda-based editing for or against TM will lead to topic bans of increasing duration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Question: Since Jayen466 has edited this topic does he include himself? ;)   Will Beback  talk  05:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. To tie in with discretionary topic ban proposals above, via WP:AE. -- JN 466 22:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Sourcing

3) Editors interested in contributing to the topic area are urged to seek out the best and most reputable sources on the TM movement, its practices and its truth claims, focusing above all on books by major, non-TM-affiliated university presses and academic publishers that discuss the movement, its practices and its truth claims.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Like any topic, the best available sources should be used. The nature of those sources will vary depending on the exact topic and the context, but will generally include independent academic sources and mainstream journalism.   Will Beback  talk  01:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC) reply

There have been assertions from both sides regarding improper use of sources including complaints of poor quality, bias, primary etc. I think a proposal that limits one side of the equation thereby creating built in bias is not helpful or useful or one that serves WP and its readers.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

There's nothing in this finding that's limited to TM editors or non-TM editors. It's simply an expression that the best available sources should be used. That said, Kbob has added some poor sources, such as material written by a restaurant reviewer in a non-notable free newspaper. [368] On another occasion he added material from an article in a free magazine which carried a large advertisement from a TM company in the same issue. [369] [370] [371] [372] Non-TM editors have probably added some poor sources too. In either case it's not ideal.  Will Beback  talk  22:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Here's another example of poor sources for contentious material. For Flipped SU(5), a highly technical article on an obscure theory of quantum physics, Hickorybark used as a source an article written by Neil Dickie, a member of the Office of Public Affairs at MUM which was published in a free magazine in Fairfield edited by a TM member. [373] [374] [375] That's the third occasion I've seen where obscure free magazines have been used as sources.   Will Beback  talk  12:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. There is a considerable body of academic writing on TM from mainstream scholars of religion, psychology, etc., which should be accessed preferentially. These are more appropriate sources than individual journal papers, which are often akin to primary sources. -- JN 466 22:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

As a user who has edited mostly in mainspace, I do not really understand the range of sanctions available. They seem to consist of "blocks, restrictions, bans or extensions". I'm not really motivated (or interested) enough to look each of these up. While I trust the Arbs to apply sanctions reasonably, I'm not really sure that any of these sanctions will solve the problem in the long run. But they are worth the try. The situation at the TMM articles has been preventing real improvement to the article, focused as it has been on fighting over the validity of research studies instead of explaining what TM is all about.

Here are the points I would make concerning remedies:

1. Any sanctions should apply equally to all of the warring editors, or all current editors. I have given a strong rationale for this in my evidence.
2. The position that sanctions should be applied only to the Pro-TM editors is seductive to most intelligent folks who haven't tried TM themselves; TM is very deeply restful, and leaves the practitioner with a refreshed and alert state of body and mind. I say this as a long-time TM meditator, a former TM teacher, and the present president of a company offering an effective alternative to TM that is cheaper (since I do not take a salary) and free of mysticism. We have also performed our own published research. I have a POV that is favorable to TM but opposed to the Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health.
3. I don't think the article should be protected. Other, non-warring, editors should be allowed to edit it.
4. I think the current editors should be banned (if that is the right word) from editing any of the TMM articles for at least six months, preferably longer. None of them has shown any violations that I know of in their edits to other articles, so they should not be banned from all WP editing.
5. I realize that this is an extreme suggestion, but nothing else has worked.

David Spector 02:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Some editors have engaged in edit warring and others haven't, so tarring them all with the same brush is inequitable. Topic banning all active editors (including yourself, I assume) for six months merely delays resolution. How will things be different in seven months? What problem does that remedy solve?

I don't think that anyone here has disputed the restful value of TM, but this topic concerns much more than just that one technique. It also covers the practice of Yogic Flying, which proponents assert can effect millions of people far away, and healing treatments such as Maharishi Vedic Vibration Technology, which proponents claim can treat cancer. Wikipedia should not be used as a platform for advocating what some critics have called faith healing. To the extent that we cover these topics, we should make sure our coverage reflects the mainstream view, not just the view of MUM researchers whose pay depends on conducting research that proves the effectiveness of these remedies.

More broadly, the ArbCom should consider how this case will affect the whole project. Are walled-gardens dominated by interested users who drive away uninvolved editors going to be tolerated? If editors like myself are admonished or worse for trying to address these kinds of problems, then that sets an example to other editors that they'll be punished for trying to fix POV-owned articles rather than getting supported from the community.   Will Beback  talk  05:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Misinformation: "Maharishi Vedic Vibration Technology, which proponents claim can treat cancer." No authorized TM organization makes this claim. One problem with banning TM-affiliated editors is that the remaining editors will be either misinformed or outright hostile. Hickorybark ( talk) 15:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Not so. On the official MVVT site it says: "To date, Maharishi Vedic Vibration Technology has been used to address over a thousand different disorders. A complete index of all our currently addressed disorders is available on our application form." [376] When we look at the application form we see that the disorders which have been addressed include "Cancer of the blood" (aka leukemia) and "Cancer of the bone". [377] The complete index includes everything from baldness and dementia to Down's Syndrome and HIV. [378] All of these diseases are "addressed", if I understand the technology correctly, by having a practitioner blow on the afflicted body part while silently reciting Vedic scripture. MUM faculty members then conducted a study which proves that this technology really works. TG added that study without any prior discussion, devoting an entire section to it, even though it does not comply with WP:MEDRS. [379] So we have the TM organization offering expensive treatments, the MUM researchers creating studies that prove they work, and a TM editor who works at MUM adding that study to Wikipedia. And you don't see any problem with that? If so, that's an indication of the problem with this topic.   Will Beback  talk  01:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Misunderstanding scientific method: "MUM researchers whose pay depends ...." Who funds the research on medical technologies? Good research is expensive and time-consuming. Only people who are interested in the outcome are going to participate, but this doesn't invalidate the research as long as proper scientific method is followed. And this is determined by the peer-review process. WP editors should not be dismissing research because it was conducted by TM researchers. This is not the veiwpoint of the scientific establishment. Hickorybark ( talk) 15:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Two points: 1. Peer review is a process, not a one time event. The fact that some research has made an appearance in a peer review journal does not mean it is established science. One example of this is the Pons and Fleischman claims about cold fusion, which passed the peer review process to Brigham Young University and subsequently were published in a preliminary note to the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry. These claims were subsequently debunked. Most of the "science" for and against the TM technique are of this variety - single appearances with little or no follow up.

2. I will let Victor Stenger make my second point. "In my field of particle physics, reputable journals such as Physical Review Letters will not publish any claim of a new phenomenon, such as evidence for the top quark or the mass of the neutrino, unless the data have a "significance level" of 10-4 or less. This means that if the same experiment were repeated 10,000 times, the reported effect would have been produced artifactually, as a statistical fluctuation or systematic error, no more than once on average.

In medicine, and related fields such as psychology and pharmacology, and in the social sciences as well, the significance level for publication in the best journals is typically five percent. That is, the experiment need only be repeated twenty times, on average, to have the reported effect not be real but to result from an artifact of the experiment. This means that every twentieth paper you read could be a fluke, although many, of course, exceed the significance threshold and so the fraction of reliable results is probably, thankfully, much greater.

This very loose criterion in the human sciences is justified by the very reasonable argument that any new result should be put to use as soon as possible in case it may save lives. Indeed, medical researchers are placed under pressures, unheard of in the rest of science, to make their results available well before they can be confirmed by criteria and procedures that are quite conventional in other disciplines. Also, in many cases this is perhaps the best that can be done, given the greater complexity of the human body or human social systems compared to the typical systems studied in physics. Still, it might do well for the human disciplines to tighten up a bit. They will avoid much confusion, and very likely make better progress, as fewer researchers waste time and money following blind alleys that are suggested by research already "published in peer-reviewed journals." "

Much of the research presented both for and against TM the technique are statistically insignificant and serve no other purpose than to provide a veneer of scientific respectability to dubious claims. I see no reason not to report that the TM Movement base their claims on this science; but, this cannot be given undue weight. In the past, this evidence has been presented as a long and superficially impressive list of raw data unaccompanied by any explanation of their significance. The fact is that no significance can be assigned to most of it because the data sample is too small for it to be statistically significant. Most of it should be removed to the footnotes or reference sections. Ermadog ( talk) 00:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The above comment gives an inaccurate depiction of (1) the specifics of the cold fusion episode (2) research standards in social science research, and (3) the research related to TM in particular, and as such not helpful to the discussion, IMO. Woonpton ( talk) 14:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC) reply

This is the second time on this very page that Hickorybark has falsely asserted "No authorized TM-Org claims ...". First, he falsely asserted that the TM-Sidhi program didn't claim to teach how to become invisible, walk through walls, develop superhuman strength, etc... when dozens of reliable sources, including respected national and international news organizations, to say nothing of the TM-Org's promotional materials said exactly that. Now, he says MVVT doesn't claim to treat cancer. Really? [380] [381] Fladrif ( talk) 17:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

It's my understanding, and I'd have to find a source again for this, that MUM professors engaged in research earn considerably more than their colleagues who do not perform research. Since BwB seems to have insight into what goes on at MUM perhaps he could confirm this. If so, then the researchers depend on that research for part of that pay. We've previously established, on article talk pages, that none of the TM/MUM researchers have ever published a study which failed to report positive results.   Will Beback  talk  01:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The source for this is TimidGuy, who said this when I asked if it was true that female faculty were paid half of what male faculty were paid and if so, why nobody had sued. [382] But it is interesting how much Bigweeboy knows about the inner workings of MUM when he says he lives in the SouthEast US and only posted from Fairfield when visiting. Boone North Carolina, former US headquarters of the Purusha, is in the SouthEast US, isn't it? It's almost as remarkable and interesting as the time that an anon editor from Maharishi HQ in the Netherlands suddenlyjumped into an early discussion of TG's COI editing to assert that TG wasn't being paid to edit Wikipedia. [383] I don't know about anybody else, but to have somebody from corporate HQ suddenly jump into a discussion to claim that that pretty much convinces me of exactly the opposite. Fladrif ( talk) 01:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for finding that. Tg wrote: "Everyone is paid about the same for the same jobs. There are two areas (funded research, computer science) where faculty receive substantially more money, and it happens that the faculty in those two areas tend to be male. The difference is great enough that it would skew things when averaged among all the faculty, giving the appearance that male faculty are paid twice as much. TimidGuy (talk) 10:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)" [384]

So, according to a member of the MUM faculty, researchers (and computer science faculty) receive "substantially more money" than the rest of the faculty. That's obviously an incentive to produce positive results. We don't know what, if any, incentive TM editors receive for adding that research to Wikipedia, but the movement in general is famous for mentioning at every opportunity the "over 600 studies" the movement has conducted which show the efficacy of TM, Maharishi Vedic Vibration Technology, and other products and services sold by the movement. What we do know is that TM editors have inserted this research over and over, even when it does not meet Wikipedia standards. Yet Hickorybark says it is the non-TM editors who are engaged in advocacy.   Will Beback  talk  02:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I just might add that HickoryBark posted above that, in addition to the absurdly low salaries, MUM profs get room & board [385], something that students get charged $6,000 for [386], which gives us an idea of the economic value of that benefit - still substantially less than half of the lowest compensation paid by any other university in the country, particularly if you're not doing "research". Of course, if you come up with amazing positive findings, you might get awarded your weight in gold like Tony Nader for "discovering" that there is perfect correspondence between 40 aspects of Vedic literature and 40 aspects of human physiology and that theres is perfect correspondence between Vedic astrology with the human brain. [387] Fladrif ( talk) 17:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose This kind of false equivalency is completely unsupported by the evidence in this case. I'm at a complete loss for how anyone is to take the comment that imposing sanctions on the TM-Org Editors for their well-documented misconduct is something that might be "seductive to most intelligent folks who haven't tried TM themselves", and I'm going to refrain from speculating as to what may or may not be "seductive to most intelligent folks who have tried TM". I agree with Will that this is no solution at all, it simply puts off an effective resolution for 6 months. Fladrif ( talk) 19:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Response: Fladrif opposes my suggestion to apply sanctions equally to all warring editors (which doesn't include me, but I would accept equal sanctions happily, since I already spend most of my WP time editing unrelated articles). Yet Fladrif has not added his own remedies proposal here. He claims that banning all warring editors would only delay a solution by six months. I have already agreed (above) that there is no obvious solution: "I'm not really sure that any of these sanctions will solve the problem in the long run." What does Fladrif want from me? He offers no solution of his own beyond applying sanctions only against the pro-TM editors. This is a bad solution because (as has been pointed out before) it would leave only the anti-TM editors to mold the article as they desire. The article most likely would end up a condemnation of TM instead of a presentation of just what TM is. It would seem that Fladrif is implying that there exists a solution other than banning all the warring editors. I have already agreed that that is not a great solution. But I also have shown that banning only the editors with a common POV is a bad solution. That leaves... what? According to Fladrif, nothing. He will accept only a unilateral ban. This is an example of how the anti-TM editors generally refuse to compromise. Even if it were true that pro-TM editors refuse to compromise (they have actually demonstrated compromise on many more occasions than have the anti-TM editors), the fact that anti-TM editors refuse to compromise is a good rationale for applying sanctions equally to all warring editors. The Arbs may not be able to solve our problem, since the main tool they have seems to be banning. Fladrif and Will state that banning all warring editors will only delay a solution. So we would seem to have only two main proposals: banning only pro-TM editors, which would not result in a neutral article, or banning editors of both POVs, which either would solve the problem or would only delay it by some period of time. I don't envy the task of the Arbs. David Spector 15:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Proposed principles

Expected administrator behavior

1) Administrators are expected to be respectful and courteous to other editors, not to engage in personal attacks, to have a high standard of civility, and are expected to uphold the trust and confidence the community has placed in them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support This is what we would expect form Admins. -- BwB ( talk) 14:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

A standard expectation.-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Harassment: A pattern of behavior

2) Harassment is a pattern of behaviors the purpose of which is to target an individual or group of individuals in order to threaten or intimidate them, and to create an editing environment that is unpleasant, ultimately discouraging editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Perhaps not sure about the intimidation, but rest is apt. -- BwB ( talk) 14:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Actually I would remove 'threaten'. But other adjectives are OK as on this occasion [388] I felt harassed, intimidated and that I was being discouraging from editing.-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Fundamental definition of COI

3) COI is defined as the conflicting difference between the aims and growth of an reliably sourced, neutral encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual who edits Wikipedia

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support -- BwB ( talk) 14:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Seems reasonable.-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Assumed COI does not open the door for harassment

4) The assumption that editors have a COI is never a reason to harass other editors in an attempt to force them to make public any personal information.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support I think Wiki policy already supports this. -- BwB ( talk) 14:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

This, I feel is a very important point and very relevant to this RFARB.-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Substantive editor

1) Will Beback has contributed substantially to the TM related articles

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Proposed I want to clarify that this finding is a recognition of the amount of work Will has put into these articles, was never meant to be a kind of negative statement, and acknowledges that multiple editors with differing views, if the editing environment is collaborative and positive, is a bonus on an article, and can only strengthen Wikipedia. ( olive ( talk) 02:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)) reply

Support He has been involved more now as an editor than an Admin. -- BwB ( talk) 15:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Agreed. WillBeback has made 30% of the edits on Transcendental Meditation movement since its creation in Nov 2009. [389]A significant number of edits on this article which serves as the central hub and template, and is listed in the lead of many TM related articles.-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

If it was never meant as a negative statement, why is it offered as part of a proposed arbitration decision? I don't even know that it's accurate; if it's a finding of fact it should be backed by evidence in the form of Will's edit counts on all "TM-related articles" taken together. I don't have the energy to check the revision history statistics on all these articles, but just looking at TM, which I assume must be the most-edited of the lot since it has been around the longest, he comes in at 12th in the number of edits, with 120 edits to the page, compared to TimidGuy's 810, Kbob's 630, olive's 594, and BwB's 387. This hardly qualifies him as a "substantial contributor" to at least the most-edited TM article. As for the "TM movement" article, again I'm not able to look this up right now, but the way I remember the discussions on the TM article talk page, the TM Movement article was finally started because TM editors repeatedly resisted including material related to the TM movement, insisting that the TM article could only be about the technique of TM meditation specifically, not about Transcendental Meditation in its wider sense. So I'm not surprised that Will has made 30% of the edits to that recently created article, but it would be misleading to suggest that his contribution to that one article represents the proportion of his contributions to the group of articles as a whole. Woonpton ( talk) 21:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Impartial position

2) On the TM related articles, Will Beback has overlooked ongoing incivilities and personal attacks against some editors, suggesting a non neutral position that undermines confidence editors may have in his ability to be fair and impartial as is expected of administrators.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I have what might be a foolish question: has Will been acting as an administrator at TM pages? My impression is that he hasn't, and has essentially been an editor and a partisan (and I take pains to note here that "partisan", as I'm using the term, could include advocating NPOV). If I'm correct about this, I don't think it's reasonable to hold him to a standard of impartiality; administrators need only be impartial where they are acting as administrators, and are elsewhere permitted to advocate for article content in the same way as any other editor. Steve Smith ( talk) 12:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Support but I would say lately he is behaving more and an involved editor than an Admin. I did look to him as an Admin on a few occasions and was surprised that his responses were not as one would have expected from an Admin. -- BwB ( talk) 15:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Not only ignoring bad behavior but on many occasions defending the disruptive behavior of editors who share his POV. [390] -- — Kbob • Talk • 16:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I would add the term "disruptive editing" to this proposal as the editing style described above is designed both to harass and discourage as described by WP:DE in this section [391]and the section just below it.-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• reply to Steve Smith: The question is not foolish in the least, and I thought a lot about this issue before posting this point. I am not suggesting in any way that Will used his admin tools in an improper way or that he used them at all. He didn't. On these articles, Will has taken a leadership role. Several editors saw him in an admin role as having more clout than other editors and he did nothing to dissuade them of that opinion. And he didn't have to. If he insists on taking one side over the other consistently in disputes, making accusations of one side but not the other, and even here during arbitration, allowing those who see him as a leader to flourish with out criticism , then that is his prerogative as an editor. However, he should understand that he erodes trust in his ability to be neutral as an admin. His support of a particular POV and support of editors engaged in consistent incivility does not instill confidence in him on any level. This behaviour has gone far beyond content disputes. I am in no way suggesting he acted improperly but rather that his behaviour and the results of that kind of behaviour underplay some of the issues here. On multiple ocassions, he asked editors to give him information on themselves. I can only speak for myself , but in no way would I trust him with any information on any issues I would have here on Wikipedia. The WP:Administrators policy as it is now worded goes beyond Jimbo Wales initial sense to give a few people "tools". I don't see this behaviour as sanctionable in any way, but is just a finding that I believe impacts aspects of this case.( olive ( talk) 20:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)) reply

To Steve Smith: In my mind, an Administrator remains as such regardless of why he approaches an article. Even when Will acts in an editorial capacity, everyone is aware of his status as an Administrator and expects him to behave consequently. In my opinion, the higher the status, the greater the responsibility. Unfortunately on many occasions we have seen Will go well out of his way to favor his POV or support editors that agreed with him, but not others, though I agree with Olive he did not use his administrative tools to do so. Nonetheless, Will will pursue his objectives singlemindedly until they are achieved, and at times his actions are inappropriate: definitely for an Administrator, and even for an editor; challenging Olive to reveal her identity is one example. He sees nothing wrong with it and indeed feels that the problem rests on Olive's side, but as an Administrator he should know better. He ought to have immediately dropped the subject and indeed protected Olive from similar attacks when brought on by other editors. This was not the case. In that respect I do not think that Will is reflecting the standards I feel should be upheld by Wikipedia. -- Luke Warmwater101 ( talk) 23:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC) reply

If I'm going to be held accountable for all of the things on Wikipedia that I've ignored or "overlooked" then I'm very guilty. But holding volunteers accountable for things they didn't do is unprecedented so far as I know. Are BwB, Kbob, Olive, and Luke accountable for the actions of other editors that they they failed to correct?   Will Beback  talk  00:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

I'm glad to see Steve Smith's comment that the term "partisan" could also mean a partisan for NPOV. I have only participated in two of the many TM articles, TM and TM-Sidhi, but on those two articles I have never seen Will behave as an advocate for anything but the encyclopedia. I have seen him warn Fladrif and other non-TM editors for making intemperate remarks; I have seen him commended by TM editors for his collaborative style (the same editors who now are casting him as a character who bears no resemblance to the Will Beback I've edited with, who is fairminded and evenhanded. Maybe he's just a completely different person on those other pages, but from what I've seen, I don't understand the charges that are being brought against him here. And no, I've never seen him use his tools or act as an administrator on these articles. Woonpton ( talk) 20:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Pattern of harassment

3) Will Beback has shown a pattern of harassment on multiple article talk and user pages, and on noticeboards against editors he sees as related to TM. These are efforts to try and force editors to admit to a COI by demanding in multiple ways they give personal information so this presumed COI can be proved or disproved.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree He seems to want to tar with the same brush and not assume good faith of individual opinion and behaviour. -- BwB ( talk) 15:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

That was my personal experience here. [392]-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Misrepresentation and mischaracterizes

4) Will Beback misrepresents statements made by other editors subtly mischaratcerizing what has been said, twisting and manipulating discussion. Editors can misunderstand what other editors are saying, but a pattern of misrperesenting editors’ statements especially when used to discredit or accuse is harassment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Proposed per: Will Beback Mischaracerizes User:Littleolive_oil/Will_Beback

Agree with the misrepresentation statement. I would again refer to the Sexy Sadie events where I attempted in good faith to rewrite a section of the MMY article - a first for me as a Wiki editor - to find myself blasted and criticized for my editing, when I had tried to include other editors in the process. Will further mischaracterized my edits as a malicious attempt to remove material, when in fact I was trying to cut my teeth as a maturing editor but making what I felt was a substantive reworking of the text. -- BwB ( talk) 15:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Overly broad redefinition of COI

5) Will Beback redefines COI in an overly broad way to mean contact with colleagues, friends neighbors. He assumes such contact exists, and extrapolates to say such contact necessarily means editors are in collusion, and not editing neutrally.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Without commenting on the merits of this finding of fact, I think what you're actually accusing him of is a broad interpretation, not a narrow one (which would be a definition drawn to include relatively little behaviour). Steve Smith ( talk) 12:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Agree -- BwB ( talk) 15:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Agree, this exchange in January 2010 is a prime example. [393] and here also. [394]-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Reply to Steve Smith I guess I'm seeing that defining COI just as pertaining to friends, collegues, and neighbours is a narrow view, but I realize now that this isn't how Wikipedia uses "narrow", so I'm happy to adjust the wording. Thanks.( olive ( talk) 20:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)) reply

Comment by others:

Articles' ownership

6) Will Beback has explicitly stated some editors are not needed to edit the TM related articles since he says the articles are fine, and they (the editors) should walk away.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree The TM and related articles need work and this must be done in an atmosphere of respect and cooperation. -- BwB ( talk) 15:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Seems to be true. The specific diff can be seen here. [395]-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Remedies

Will Beback cautioned

1.) Will Beback is cautioned not to ignore incivility and personal attacks against any group of editors and is advised to behave in a way that is seen as neutral, consistent with expected admin behavior.

1) Will Beback is cautioned that to to ignore incivility and personal attacks against any group of editors is not neutral, may not be consistent with admin behaviour, and may erode trust editors have in his ability to act fairly as an admin in disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree -- BwB ( talk) 15:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Will Beback cautioned

2) Will Beback is cautioned to maintain a balanced stance in disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed -- BwB ( talk) 15:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Will Beback warned

3) Will Beback is admonished for resorting to tactics which harass in order to elicit personal information from editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree -- BwB ( talk) 15:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Will Beback: Article ban

4) Will Beback badgers, harasses, and intimidates. Should he be found to engage in this behavior again, he will be warned once on his talk page. If the behavior continues, he will be banned from further editing of the article and article talk page where the behavior is documented, and including related articles, their talk pages and related notice boards, for three months. Further transgressions will result in longer bans of up to one year in length.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree -- BwB ( talk) 15:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose Although Will recently changed from a neutral peacemaker into another participant in this edit war, firmly on the anti-TM side, singling him out for special censure is unwarranted. He is one of the best-behaved of the anti-TM editors. All warring editors should receive the same treatment, regardless of their specific violations. David Spector 03:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings

1) User:Tuckerj1976 is a Checkuser-confirmed sock of User:The7thdr. Discovery and block was made on April 10, 2010 by arbitrator and checkuser User:Rlevse and confirmed by a second checkuser.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Posted. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Confirming that I was the second checkuser to review this data, and I concur. Risker ( talk) 21:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Disappointing but not surprising.   Will Beback  talk  08:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Not at all surprising. Kbob pointed out this possibility weeks ago. -- BwB ( talk) 08:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Actually, Kbob said he was KalaBethere, not The7thdr. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

She, IIRC. The7th got upset at being called "he", changed her handle to "LotusFlower"....and things went downhill from there. Fladrif ( talk) 14:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Not sure if this information is of any value, but I did check the SPI on Tucker/Kala Bethere and it looks as if Kbob was making a connection to 7thdr, although as pointed out the investigation didn't center around Kala and 7thdr. [396]. For what its worth.( olive ( talk) 20:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)) reply

My assertion was that both Tucker1976 and KalaBethere were/are sock puppets of The7thdr. I made this assertion on the SPI and on the RFARB evidence pages as seen below:

• "Both Kala Bethere and Tuckerj1976 are single purpose accounts whose very first edits were on the Transcendental Meditation article. Both accounts exhibit the same language, editing patterns, personal interests, bias and agenda as banned user The7thdr and his puppets: Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) and ClaireReal." [397]
• SockPuppets or MeatPuppets? Technology that beats the CU system may exist and The7thdr is a determined sock with 5 previous incarnations. [179] Both accounts are SPA's with strong, parallel POV. I urge the Committee to examine the compelling behavioral evidence. [398]

Thank you Rlevse and Risker for following up on this and coming to a proper resolution.-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

It's interesting that Will Beback feels the banning of yet another incarnation of a chronic sock puppet (The7thdr) [399] is "disappointing". At the same time he says the outcome is "not surprising". I find this odd since Will Beback belittled my SPI evidence against Tucker1976 when he posted on the SPI: "OTOH, [on the other hand] I should note that some of the traits ascribed to the accounts are too common to be identifiers, at least individually. Among those are: "Critical of research on TM", "Citing WP:FRINGE", "Accusing Littleolive Oil and Timid Guy of COI", "Expressing interest and knowledge of mantras", and "Interest in the lyrics of the Sexy Sadie song". [400]-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

You've misunderstood my comment and assumed bad faith. I was disappointed that someone would engage in deceptive sock puppetry, not that the deception was uncovered and addressed. I have no tolerance for sock puppets. As for the "evidence" that I "belittled", I stand by my comment. Criticism of research conducted by the TM movement is common to all of the non-TM editors, for example. FWIW, I also provided solid evidence of 7thdr's IP usage to expedite the SPI.   Will Beback  talk  20:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

While I second Will's assertion that "sock puppetry is not an acceptable alternative". I find it unusual that Will Beback would urge a six time sock puppet who consistently engages in disruptive editing behavior to ask for a "second chance". Also Will Beback's message to Tuckerj1976 to "find other ways of expressing your views" seems to imply that Tuckerj1976's Wiki editing was an acceptable way of expressing of his point view. [401]-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

The sock puppetry is unacceptable. There is a history on Wikipedia of letting editors return if they are willing to stop engaging in unacceptable behavior. And I went on to say that if he can't behave properly then he should stay away. That's pretty straightforward and I don't see why Keithbob objects to my comments.   Will Beback  talk  21:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Principles

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.

Comments by arbitrators:

1. Standard (from the Scientology case),   Roger Davies ^talk 15:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by parties:

Comments by others:

• A standard statement of principle that applies very well to this case. Durova ⁴¹² 18:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Neutrality and conflicts of interest

2) Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular view is prohibited. In particular, Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage editors contributing "in order to promote their own interests." Neutrality is non-negotiable and requires that, whatever their personal feelings, all editors must strive to (i) ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources and (ii) give prominence to such viewpoints in proportion to the weight of the source. Editors may contribute to Wikipedia only if they comply with Wikipedia's key policies.

Comments by arbitrators:

Standard (from the Scientology case),   Roger Davies ^talk 15:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

To Durova's point, the wording of the COI principle we adopted in the International Churches of Christ case might be relevant here, and there is also some language that could be adapted (modified for the context) from the pending Gibraltar decision. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 05:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by parties:

Comments by others:

• Standard and mostly good. Would suggest a slight rewording regarding "whatever their personal feelings". This workshop has shown broad agreement that lay membership in a religious or spiritual movement does not by itself generate conflict of interest. Members of the smaller movements have expressed worries that COI might be applied prejudicially in that regard. So perhaps it's best to mention personal feelings at a principle about NPOV instead of here. Durova ⁴¹² 18:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Neutrality and sources

3) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. Articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is therefore contrary to the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional.

Comments by arbitrators:

1. Standard (from the Scientology case),   Roger Davies ^talk 15:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by parties:

Comments by others:

• Another good borrowing from the Scientology case. Suggest moving the "personal feelings" mention from the COI principle to here. Durova ⁴¹² 18:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Academic inquiry, article claims and undue weight

4) Academic studies sometimes explore claims for which academic consensus does not exist. In deciding whether to report such studies, the issue is not whether the subject of the study is fringe or controversial but whether the study itself fulfils Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources. The neutral point of view requires that articles fairly represent all majority and significant-minority positions that have been published in reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each. Apparently significant claims which have not received appropriately 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, it is the claim's prevalence within reliable published sources that is important, not the prominence given to it by Wikipedians or the general public.

Comments by arbitrators:

1.   Roger Davies ^talk 15:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

   @Will Beback: (i) Many organisations spend fortunes to spin their point of view, through specially commissioned research, or directly or indirectly published material, use of lobbyists, PR consultants and so on. This is already amply covered by policy; summarised in this principle. (ii) Articles about minority viewpoints specifically report that point of view and are already governed by the neutrality policy which, if properly applied, requires that the majority or consensus view is prominently stated for balance and context. (iii) The emphasis here is on accurately reporting reliable sources, which self-published works rarely are.   Roger Davies ^talk 05:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by parties:

• This case presents some unusual challenges when it comes to applying WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. The Transcendental Meditation movement has expended millions of dollars conducting studies to prove that the Maharishi Effect, created by relatively small groups of people, is capable of creating a peace-inducing field and beaming that negativity-suppressing field thousands of miles away. This is far outside of the scientific mainstream, so far outside that very few scientists have bothered to do more than dismiss it as pseudoscience, and no independent scientist has conducted a study to either confirm or refute it. This principle would seem to say that if there are 18 sources that endorse the existence of this effect, and only two which discount it, that we must give approximately 90% of the weight to those positive claims. OTOH, there are numerous newspaper accounts which make light of the claimed effect. Yet newspaper articles are generally believed to be less reliable than academic studies. As written, I'm afraid that this principle may result in giving undue weight to views that are held by only a tiny fraction of the populous but which are rejected by virtually all unaffiliated writers and scientists who consider them. I think we need to acknowledge somehow that publication, even in a scientific journal, does not mean that a conclusion is endorsed by the scientific community, and that we should not simply report every unrefuted claim as if it had scientific consensus. Broadening the issue to cover other topics, self-published material are considered reliable when writing about a movement or philosophical society. Would any such movement earn weight here for their views by generating large volumes of self-published sources? I think this principle could be strengthened by reference to the aprt of WP:NPOV#Undue weight that says:
  • In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view.
• We should certainly describe the Maharishi Effect, but we should also make clear that it is a minority view by giving sufficient weight to even short rebuttals by mainstream scientists.   Will Beback  talk  18:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Response to Roger Davies. Thanks for your reply. However I'm not sure that the issues with this specific case are understood. Self-published sources, while occasionally over-used, aren't the main problem when it comes to the fringe views in this case. Researchers for the movement have conducted numerous "experiments", but have apparently only written up those with positive results. ( Publication bias, AKA "file drawer effect"). Through careful use of statistics, and, in some cases, repeated re-writes, they have written papers which qualify for publication in peer-reviewed journals. A few of papers have generated considerable controversy and it looks like journals have stopped publishing them. But no independent scientist ever found a reason or the resources to replicate the research. Several have given their opinions of it, however, and a couple have conducted careful reviews point out the faults in the research. So it is a case where reliable sources are reporting studies whose method is acceptable but whose conclusions are rejected by the scientific community. I think this finding could be improved by either dropping the last sentence, or by adding one about the importance of letting readers know that something is a minority view.   Will Beback  talk  00:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The involved editors might be able to arrive at an agreement about how Maharishi Effect research is to be presented, if there is enough good will. For example, I have no problem with saying that ME is a minority point of view within the scientific community. Charges of pseudoscience, however, should be handled more conservatively, because pseudoscience refers to defective method or lack of testability, and not to whether the hypothesis is unorthodox or unusual. The idea that consciousness is a field with potentially testable non-local effects is not in itself pseudoscience, nor does it conflict with the more narrowly focused molecular biology research of mainstream brain scientists. I think we should briefly mention the skeptic/debunker point of view on the ME research--including their hypercharged insults--without representing it as the mainstream perspective, which is more cautious and fair-minded, with a "wait-and-see" kind of attitude. Although you and I may never agree on the plausibility of the ME itself, we may be able to come to a civilized agreement on how it should be presented in WP pages. At any rate, I hope so. Hickorybark ( talk) 14:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

• In recent months some editors have used WP:FRINGE to justify the removal of massive amounts of text on published research, not only on the Maharishi Effect but also on the effects of Transcendental Meditation as documented in published studies performed by hundreds of independent scientists and institutions. [402] For me, this is troubling and I am glad to see a proposal from the Committee that attempts to provide a framework for resolving this situation.-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by others:

• Seems to tread too closely to content issues outside the Committee's remit. Durova ⁴¹² 18:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Where is it stated that the Committee's mandate is restricted in this way? Hickorybark ( talk) 13:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC) reply

From Wikipedia:Arbitration, "The Committee accepts cases related to editors' conduct (including improper editing) where all other routes to agreement have failed, and makes rulings to address problems in the editorial community. However it will not make editorial statements or decisions about how articles should read ("content decisions"), and users should not ask the Committee to make these kinds of decisions, as it will not do so." NW ( Talk) 17:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC) reply

OK, thank you. But with respect to the TM research, we simply have not been able to agree on even the most fundamental issues, such as the reliability of sources or what the mainstream perspective is. It's hard to see how we are going to be able to move forward. Hickorybark ( talk) 20:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The Arbitration Committee is not empowered to resolve which sources are or are not reliable. What it did in the Physchim62 and PHG arbitrations (and could do here) is determine whether sources have been attributed correctly. Experience with other disputes has shown that when editors who consistently misuse sources are restricted, then it becomes easier for a subject's remaining editors to reach a workable consensus on content issues. Durova ⁴¹² 05:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply

• • Points to existing policies and guidelines on identifying and reflecting reliable sources; I don't really see it as making content decisions. -- JN 466 20:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Citation-required tags and removing text

5) Our verifiability policy requires that any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. In appropriate instances, it is acceptable to place clean-up tags on an article to draw attention to claims without citations within the article text. If a citation is not provided within a reasonable time, any editor may remove content tagged with {{ Fact}}. In the case of biographies of living people, such claims may be removed immediately.

Comments by arbitrators:

1.   Roger Davies ^talk 15:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by parties:

Comments by others:

• Not sure this is necessary. Restates a minor policy point, which could become a source of contention in future if the policy itself changes. Currently another chronic dispute (climate change) has returned to formal DR in the form of a user conduct RfC on an administrator over AE: one side quotes the letter of the arbitration decision and another quotes standard site policy on recusal. That could be leading climate change closer to another arbitration. So it's probably best to minimize this type of detail in arbitration decisions unless there's a really compelling reason. Durova ⁴¹² 19:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Decorum

6) 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.

Comments by arbitrators:

1. Standard (from the Scientology case),   Roger Davies ^talk 15:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by parties:

Comments by others:

• Well put. Durova ⁴¹² 19:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Feuds and quarrels

7) 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.

Comments by arbitrators:

1. Standard (from the Scientology case),   Roger Davies ^talk 15:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by parties:

Comments by others:

• Seems reasonable. Durova ⁴¹² 19:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Single purpose accounts

8) 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 not compatible with the goals of this project.

Comments by arbitrators:

1. Standard (from the Scientology case),   Roger Davies ^talk 15:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by parties:

Comments by others:

• Agreed. Durova ⁴¹² 19:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Avoiding apparent impropriety

9) 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.

Comments by arbitrators:

1. Standard (from the Scientology case),   Roger Davies ^talk 15:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by parties:

Comments by others:

• It's so hard to express this type of concept in a way that doesn't leave it vulnerable to manipulation. We've all seen POV pushers who make frivolous accusations of bias. In large chronic disputes those accusations become a chorus. It nearly derailed John Vandenberg's arbitration candidacy, for instance. This principle appears to open the possibility that a sufficiently vocal chorus of complaints could be cause for sanction against the administrator--whether or not the complaints have any factual basis. I hope this is not the intention of this proposal, but its vulnerability to that interpretation could have a chilling effect. Community members who try to resolve longstanding disputes are just as deserving of AGF as everyone else. Durova ⁴¹² 19:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Recidivism

10) 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.

Comments by arbitrators:

1. Standard.   Roger Davies ^talk 15:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by parties:

Comments by others:

• Standard and appropriate. Durova ⁴¹² 19:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) This dispute broadly concerns the articles within Transcendental Meditation movement 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.

Comments by arbitrators:

1.   Roger Davies ^talk 15:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by parties:

Comments by others:

• Good summary. Durova ⁴¹² 20:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Background

2) The dispute is essentially low-key but persistent and, although it has been frequently compared to the Scientology arbitration cases, it is obvious from close examination of the evidence that any such comparison is superficial.

Comments by arbitrators:

  Roger Davies ^talk 15:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

This is a valid point of departure for discussing the case and what the decision should contain, but I don't know that it belongs as a finding in the decision itself. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 05:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by parties:

Comments by others:

• This reads oddly. Having followed both cases closely, it seems Roger Davies might be hinting at the significant divergence in checkuser results. Most readers, though, would be scratching their chins at why an arbitrator would borrow so many principles from the Scientology case and then declare that case nearly irrelevant. Jacques Derrida would have a lot of fun parsing this. Durova ⁴¹² 19:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Characterising the dispute

3) This dispute is a protracted squabble about conflicting ideologies. 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 in the other side and to speculate about others' motives. This common thread has led to multiple complaints focusing on:

• Lack of neutrality and conflicts of interest
• Lack of neutrality when using sources
• Disputes about academic inquiry, article claims and undue weight
• Improper tagging for citations and removal of text
• Incivility and lack of proper decorum
• Editors engaging in feuds and quarrels
• Activities of single purpose accounts

Although the misconduct so far has rarely been sanctionable, as time has gone on the atmosphere has become increasingly soured and, without intervention, it will likely escalate to wholly unacceptable levels.

Comments by arbitrators:

  Roger Davies ^talk 15:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

1. I don't think that characterizing the dispute as one between two sides of an issue reflects badly on the committee, as suggested by one of the commenters below. There's little doubt that it's an accurate characterization, and it doesn't mean that we haven't looked deeply at whether members of both sides have engaged in misconduct. I do think that there may be a better word available than "ideologies" to describe the positions. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 05:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by parties:

• This completly mischaracterizes this case. "Conflicting ideologies?" Where does this come from? Is is a "conflicting ideology" to insist that pseudoscience not be presented as mainstream scientific consensus? Is it a "conflicting ideology" to insist that principles such as WP:MEDRS be followed when discussing scientific and medical claims? Frankly, this is an insult to many editors here. Is it a conflicting ideology to notice that a group of editors delete all reliably-sourced material critical of their employer, while inserting unsourced and self-published material supporting their employer? To lump the dozens of editors who have questioned the COI and POV pushing of the Fairfield editors and their allies over many years together as subscribing to a common "ideology" is nonsense. To merely recite that claims of misconduct have been made by back and forth, with no serious attempt to assess the merits of those claims, is totally unacceptable. If "the misconduct has rarely been sanctionable" is intended to be that assessment, the compilation of evidence in this case was pointless. These proposed findings are glib, superficial, and promote a false equivalency. Everyone will be back here in a few months to do this all over again, because not only will it "likely escalate to wholly unacceptable levels", it has been at wholly unacceptable levels for many years, long before many of the current involved editors had the misfortune to stumble into this closed garden. Fladrif ( talk) 16:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by others:

• This wording is taking a misguided conception of "neutrality" to an absurd extreme. NPOV does not mean total agnosticism forcing us to suspend common sense. Calling the stance that "eschews" things like the " Maharishi Effect" an "ideology", on a par with that which "admires" it, is an insult to common sense and reason. No, these two positions are not on a par, and Wikipedia policy must not pretend that they are. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Future Perfect, the Maharishi Effect is based on the idea that consciousness is a field with potentially testable nonlocal effects. I have no problem with acknowledging that this is a controversial idea. But I think it should be discussed without a lot of heated rhetoric. And even if we don't agree on its plausibility, we have to come to an agreement on how to present the idea, the relevant research and the reaction of the scientific community. If we can come to a civilized consensus, then it may be possible to move forward on these articles. Hickorybark ( talk) 22:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC) reply

• It is not satisfactory to assert "X and Y both accuse each other"; anyone can see that in a moment. Which accusations hold merit? The core of the Arbitration Committee's mandate is to pore through evidence and distinguish meritorious complaints from smoke, blind alleys, and nonsense. The mere existence of complaints is not in itself a viable basis for a finding. It does not reflect well on the Committee to author this, since the wording generates doubts whether evidence had been skimmed instead of examined. Durova ⁴¹² 20:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I agree with Durova and find it strange that being "skeptical" is deemed a side. This case is like Russell's teapot were it is those who claim the truth of an idea are to provide evidence for said truth. One cannot prove a negative. Just as one cannot prove that God does not exist one cannot prove that Maharishi effect does not exist. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 11:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply

To Newyorkbrad, what reflects poorly on the Committee is failure to assess the merit of these accusations. Some of the parties to this case are university faculty whose identities--although we may not name them here--are not very difficult to determine. Accusations of plagiarism and misuse of sources can be quite damaging to careers and reputations. So unless more findings are forthcoming it seems extraordinary that arbitrators would note the existence of such accusations without attempting to determine whether they have a factual basis or not. Taken in context of other proposed findings, it creates a vague impression at least one arbitrator sees enough basis to warn both sides. One wonders why the relatively minor issue of one editor's civility receives so much more attention. Either only half a decision has been workshopped, or else the evidence has received a dangerously superficial review. Wikipedians can hardly expect other university faculty to risk their reputations by editing other controversial subjects, if months of arbitration fail to resolve this kind of cloud. Durova ⁴¹² 21:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Fladrif

4) 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 ( [403], [404], [405], [406], [407], [408], [409], [410], [411], [412], [413], [414], [415], [416], [417], [418], [419], [420], [421], dozens more examples here).

Comments by arbitrators:

1.   Roger Davies ^talk 15:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by parties:

• At the risk of it being perceived as somehow uncivil to point this out, footnotes 403 and 415; 405 and 412; 407 and 421; 408 and 422; and 409 and 423 are duplicates of one-another. Fladrif ( talk) 22:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • No problem, I just posted a link to dozens more examples. Also removed the dupes. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by others:

• No objection. Durova ⁴¹² 20:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry and collusion

5) Although the evidence presented has been carefully examined, investigating arbitrators have been unable to independently detect or confirm – other than in one isolated case – sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry or collusion within the topic.

Comments by arbitrators:

1.   Roger Davies ^talk 15:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by parties:

• It's not clear what the "one isolated case" refers to - is it 7thdr or is it the anonymous edits of TimidGuy? Neither case seems to have been isolated. In both cases the users were apparently aware that they were deceiving other users. As for the issue of collusion, there is evidence that at least some of these users know one another in person and have worked together to promote the same POV. If that doesn't qualify as collusion then it's not clear how the committee would define it, in a practical sense. This decision seems to be endorsing coordinated POV pushing (AKA tag team editing) as an acceptable practice.   Will Beback  talk  19:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply

• "Evidence....have worked together to promote the same POV" There is no such evidence. You can't takes some diffs and attach or connect meaning to them and then say that meaning is truth. If these editors were colluding to promote a POV there were multiple times when a vote or agreement could have been carried by the accused editors, overwhelming everyone else and pushing into place POV edits, but that didn't happen. Those editors don't even necessarily agree, and they certainly don't agree anymore than the editors who weren't accused of collusion. ( olive ( talk) 22:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)) reply
  • People don't necessarily need to be in constant agreement in order to collude on occasion. One of the principles outlined by Roger Davies is "Avoiding apparent impropriety: All editors ...should strive to avoid conduct that might appear at first sight to violate policy. Examples include ... 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." There's no way of proving collusion since we don't have access to off-Wikip communications. So all we can look at is the appearance of collusion. Considering how many times the TM editors have agreed with one another on key issues, there is an appearance of collusion, in my opinion.   Will Beback  talk  23:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Some points to note: 1) In the evidence phase there were accusations of coordination, collusion and off Wiki communication made by both 'sides'. 2)And even if there was off-line communication by one side or the other, there is no Wiki policy that I am aware of, that prohibits editors from communicating off line via email or even in person (for example the psuedo-science group conferences) 3) The Committee has examined the evidence and is fully aware of all assertions and accusations made by all parties.-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
      • The question remains: If the extensive evidence of editors working to together to push a common POV is insufficient to establish the appearance of collusion, then what is meant by the term and what evidence is necessary to prove it?   Will Beback  talk  05:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by others:

• Is this a retreat from the 'multiple editors with a single voice' principle of previous arbitrations (the Starwood principle)? Also, it seems incomplete to issue a negative finding on this point without any finding at all about accusations of plagiarism and misrepresenation of sources, which in terms of this website's purpose are equally confirmable and more serious. Durova ⁴¹² 20:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Tuckerj1976

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

Comments by arbitrators:

1.   Roger Davies ^talk 15:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by parties:

Comments by others:

• Seems like a statement of fact. Durova ⁴¹² 20:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Remedies

All parties instructed and warned

1) All editors who are party to this case are instructed to familiarise themselves with the principles outlined above, to review their own past conduct in the light of them, and improve their conduct in the future. Editors are warned that further occurrences of the misconduct that led to this case will be dealt with robustly.

Comments by arbitrators:

1.   Roger Davies ^talk 15:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by parties:

• Aside from the incivility of Fladrif and the sockpuppetry of Tucker/7thdr, I don't see where any misconduct has been identified.   Will Beback  talk  19:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by others:

• Are all parties really equally deserving of a formal arbitration warning? Durova ⁴¹² 20:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Article probation

2) All articles and their talk pages relating directly or indirectly to the topic of Transcendental Meditation are placed on article probation indefinitely with immediate effect.

Comments by arbitrators:

1.   Roger Davies ^talk 15:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by parties:

Comments by others:

• Topic probations seem to be standard in this type of arbitration. The devil is in the details. Durova ⁴¹² 20:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Terms of article probation

3) Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to articles within the topic is prohibited from:

(i) reverting or removing from the articles within the topic material cited to a reliable source;

(ii) editing sourced material in the articles within the topic so that the source relied upon is no longer accurately reflected;

(iii) engaging in disruptive or uncivil editing of articles within the topic, their talk pages or any closely related page;

(iv) editing the articles within the topic in contravention of site policies and guidelines, or the principles outlined in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Transcendental Meditation#Principles

(v) engaging in advocacy for one particular position in relation to Transcendental Meditation or making comments based broadly on assumptions of bad faith in perceived opponents.

A note concerning these restrictions and linking to them shall be placed on the talk page of each of the affected articles. In case of any doubt concerning application or interpretation of these restrictions, the Arbitration Committee may be consulted for guidance.

Comments by arbitrators:

1.   Roger Davies ^talk 15:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

   @Will Beback: the emphasis in (i) is on reliable sources. The material is either from a reliable source or it is not. If the material is not from a reliable source, it can be tagged for one and in due course removed (or in the case of a BLP, removed immediately). WP:UNDUE is also pertinant here.   Roger Davies ^talk 05:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

As a matter of form, I'm not sure that "article probation" adds much to "discretionary sanctions." They are basically different ways of expressing the same concept. (You might ask for some input from Kirill on this, as he originated the types of "discretionary sanctions" remedies currently in use.) Also, some of the comments below should be taken into account in refining the wording. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 05:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by parties:

• I am concerned that the terms of this probation probation may lead to unintended consequences.

  (i)a This item seems to say that it is forbidden to remove any sourced material that is on-topic. If so, I could add thousands of words from either the Maharishi's writings or from anti-cult sources and nothing could be done about it. That could lead to severe problems with balance, weight, and article length. Is there a way to retain the basic concept without preventing the deletions necessary for ordinary editing?

  (i)b While this item could lead to articles getting overloaded, it might not solve the problem of relevant material getting deleted. That happened with the "Technique vs movement" issue. [422] [423] [424] [425] The TM editors decided amongst themselves that the scope of the article included only the TM technique and excluded anything on the TM movement, so they repeatedly deleted any material about the movement and then argued against creation of an article on the movement. If the proposed remedy only concerns the deletion of material that is on topic, then how do we deal with the problem of an article whose topic is defined to exclude relevant material?

  (ii) Since summarizing sources often requires discrimination and interpretation, this item could lead to bitter arguments over what qualifies as accurate reflections of sources. Those arguments already exist, but under this remedy an editor who loses the argument could be topic banned, greatly raising the stakes. Does this provision seem likely to resolve conflicts or intensify them? I'm afraid it may do the latter, except to the extent that it serves as an unpredictable threat of banning and so lead editors to avoid using sources at all.

  (iv) This item includes the entire list of "principles" listed above.

  (iv)a "Academic inquiry, article claims and undue weight" I am particularly concerned with this principle which seems to give a different view than is given at WP:FRINGE. I'll discuss that above, but it would seem to give carte blanche to fringe views which have been published in reliable sources. Many such views (for example, the Maharishi Effect) are too far outside of the scientific mainstream to have been rebutted extensively, so under this interpretation those views may tend be given more weight than they deserve.

  (iv)b "Single purpose accounts" - there are several single purpose accounts who have given the impression of editing in a non-neutral fashion. Is it the intent of this proposal that those accounts be topic banned?

  (iv)c "Avoiding apparent impropriety" - Am I correct that this would prohibit even the appearance of collusion? Since extensive evidence of editing which gives that appearance has already been submitted, what more is needed to meet this threshold?

  (v) Much of this case has concerned allegations of advocacy and considerable evidence has been presented in that regard. Since no remedies have been proposed based on that evidence, it isn't clear what would constitute advocacy for the purpose of this remedy. Could we define "advocacy" more clearly so that all involved editors will know what is meant by that term?   Will Beback  talk  17:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• To Durova Re: advocacy: You wrote, "If I were a practitioner of transcendental meditation, and I invited my neighbor to a session, have I engaged in advocacy?" Activities that occur off-Wiki are only of peripheral interest here. The question is about what kinds of behavior on-Wiki qualify as advocacy. Repeatedly and consistently adding positive information about a topic while removing negative information would seem to be a form of advocacy, for example.   Will Beback  talk  01:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC) reply

• To clarify an inaccuracy: Its quite inaccurate to say that moving content off of the TM technique article, and the discussion on renaming what was at the time the mother article was something carried on only among the so called TM editors. A range of editors that included Michaelbusch, Tanaats [426] were involved in these discussions. Discussions as in Archive 11, [427] including these discussions: [428] [429] [430]clearly show collaborative efforts to deal with the confusion of content within the article, and article length. There were also collaborative efforts to rename the article to deal with the range of content. One example (Archive 11 [431]).These kind of discussion have been ongoing since I came onto Wikipedia and are not the providence of a few editors.( olive ( talk) 23:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)) reply

• I think point 5 is important, especially the part about "making comments based broadly on assumptions of bad faith in perceived opponents." It would really help to have this behavior explicitly proscribed. TimidGuy ( talk) 11:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC) reply
• I would suggest adding something to point (i) that says under certain circumstances such as WP:UNDUE sourced content could be removed but only after clear consensus on the talk page.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by others:

• This is seriously unbalanced. A statement like "The material is either from a reliable source or it is not" is, at best, naive: everybody who has ever dealt with POV disputes knows that whether or not a source is reliable (and in the context of what kinds of questions!) is msot often precisely the most intractable issue. The principle appears to rely on a formalist, mechanistic understanding of what constitutes reliability. It also places undue emphasis on adding as opposed to removing material, making any material that has been added and which mechanically fulfills formal "reliability" requirements essentially unremovable. This is bad: we have editing principles such as "undue weight" which crucially rely on editorial discretion in determining just how much coverage certain aspects of a topic ought to get (not to mention simple editorial decisions about what is off-topic, what makes good article structure, what ought to be factored out elsewhere, etc.). On all these points, editorial decisions to remove material even if it is formally cited correctly is a crucial part of good article development. It is an utter illusion that editorial discretion in such matters could ever be reduced to a simple "if it has a reliable source, it stays in". Such a principle would mean carte blanche for POV-pushers to overwhelm articles with their favourite views – especially in topic areas where the situation of coverage in the literature is inherently asymmetrical (because one side produces huge amounts of literature, while the topic is so radically fringe that the mainstream side doesn't even bother to publish refutations). Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm curious. When it comes to consciousness, what do you consider the "mainstream side" to be? Hickorybark ( talk) 17:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

• 2 through 4 are viable, 1 and 5 are not. 5 first: the vagueness of the wording could be construed to apply to many activities wholly beyond the Committee's remit. If I were a practitioner of transcendental meditation, and I invited my neighbor to a session, have I engaged in advocacy? (Yes, and that type of advocacy is none of Wikipedia's business). 1 is wholly at odds with WP:UNDUE. Either side could bloat the article with repetitious and insignificant statements supported by 'reliable sources' and demand blocks if anyone removed them. The result would be a disaster both for the dispute and for the article's readers. Suggest culling to a three point probation based upon 2 through 4, or modeled after similar probations enacted elsewhere. Durova ⁴¹² 20:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • In response to Will Beback, the lack of a workable definition for "advocacy" is part of the problem. At any subject, when an article has been skewed in favor of one POV then the normal act of balancing that article can be mistaken for advocacy of the opposite point of view. People who are POV pushers themselves are especially prone to that type of mistake. It is pretty well known that I adore cats, but several years ago I spotted an Australian editor who was engaging in original research to argue that no domestic cats anywhere in the world posed a threat to endangered species. I brought forth reliable sources which stated places where feral cats were hunting endangered birds and rodents; then I examined the other editor's sources and discovered that several of them were unreliable, others were misquoted, and none asserted as much as that editor claimed. That editor's response, of course, was to ignore all the research and accuse me of being an anti-cat activist. That kind of accusation is popular because it makes an effective sound bite even when it is preposterous. Durova ⁴¹² 19:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Discretionary sanctions for breaching article probation

4) Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose a reasonable editing restriction (for example, 1RR) or a civility limitation, or may impose a ban from editing any or all articles and/or their talk pages within the Transcendental Meditation topic upon any editor who repeatedly breaches the terms of article probation.

Prior to imposing a sanction of whatever nature, the administrator will leave a message on the editor's talk page, linking to this paragraph, warning the editor that a sanction is contemplated and outlining the behaviours for which it is contemplated.

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict. Hitherto uninvolved administrators enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to have become involved by their participation in enforcement. Any disputes about whether an administrator is involved are to be referred to the Arbitration Committee.

All bans and restrictions shall be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Transcendental Meditation#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 such sanctions without either (i) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (ii) community consensus or Committee approval to do so.

Comments by arbitrators:

1.   Roger Davies ^talk 15:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by parties:

Comments by others:

• Suggest rewording per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lar. Durova ⁴¹² 20:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Periodic review of article probation

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 applied to specific editors who fail to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner.

Comments by arbitrators:

1.   Roger Davies ^talk 15:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by parties:

Comments by others:

• How is this to differ from article probation? Durova ⁴¹² 20:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

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:Requests for arbitration/Transcendental Meditation movement#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.

Comments by arbitrators:

1.   Roger Davies ^talk 15:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by parties:

• I'm unclear as to what "subject to an editing restriction of one year" means. How will he be restricted? Can someone explain? thanks.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC) reply

It's a civility/personal attack restriction, "any edits" means any edits. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by others:

• Reasonable, considering the evidence. Is this the only individual finding of its type to be forthcoming? The cross-accusations regarding plagiarism and misuse of sources are far more important. Durova ⁴¹² 20:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Enforcement

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:Requests for arbitration/Transcendental Meditation#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.

Comments by arbitrators:

1.   Roger Davies ^talk 15:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by parties:

Comments by others:

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions

Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

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:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: