Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:45, 25 February 2010

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
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 ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by Will Beback

Work in progress - I will post complete evidence shortly.   Will Beback  talk  05:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Jmh649 (Doc James) (800 words)

To summarize my concern is that we have a small group of editors associated with the TM movement who have been actively promoting TM well suppressing the general scientific / legal consensus regarding said movement.

Consistent misrepresentation of the research

I first edited this topic area Jan 19 2010 after coming across a discussion at WP:MED. My first edits were adding a 2007 review article which was somehow missed in favor of primary research from the 1970s. . One issues since then has been multiple attempts to obscure and / or misrepresent the conclusions of this review by editors from TM movement. I have provided example below.

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

I subsequently added a Cochrane collaboration which was not in our article. Here TimidGuy adds text not in the summary of this review in what appears to be an attempt to weaken the conclusion And again

The omission of material critical of TM

Well editing it also became clear that the more far fetched aspects of TM were omitted as well as the description of the movement by the main stream. For example an "advanced" form of TM which claim allows you can fly, makes you invisible, as well as provides eternal life was not discussed. The Maharishi Effect was also not mentioned ( were supposedly if enough people practice TM crime will degree ). Carl Sagan has refereed to the movement as pseudoscience in one of his books. There were attempts to remove this. The US courts deem TM a religion and there have been attempts to remove this as well. James Randi a well known expert on pseudoscience has also commented on TM and we have had attempts to remove his comments.

Editors primarily edit TM related pages (WP:SPA)

1. User:Keithbob Most edited article is TM (630 edits) with 9 of 10 most edited articles TM related.
2. User:TimidGuy Most edited article is TM (802 edits) with 6 of 10 most edited articles TM related.. Over at simple english all 15 edits TM related.
3. User:Littleolive oil Most edited article is TM (591 edits)with 5 of 10 most edited articles TM related.. Over at simple english all 50 main space edits TM related.
4. User:Bigweeboy Most edited article is TM (383 edits) with 9 of 10 most edited articles TM related.
5. User:ChemistryProf Most edited article is TM (30 edits).
6. User:Dreadstar Second most edited article TM related (What the Bleep Do We Know!?) (213 edits).

• This group has by far the most edits on the TM page

My editing

I have edited enthusiastically at times and have make mistakes early on. I do acknowledge the transgressions that Kbob refers too which occurred about a year ago. I have been involved in controversial topics such as Obesity, Rorschach test, and ADHD and have had my share of mud thrown at me. However in both of these instances my edits have remained firmly on these pages supported by the majority. My edits WRT TM are also well referenced and supported by consensus. Well I have editing many thousands of pages I have brought one to GA, Obesity.

If you look at Keithbobs diffs you will find that the "well sourced" references are primary research studies from the 1970s and 1980s. If one compares an earlier version of Transcendental Meditation just before I started editing to the current one as Luke Warmwater101 suggests it is easy to see that the medical aspects of the page have become a lot more compliant with WP:MEDRS.

Misplaced Pages needs to be evidence based and based on the best available evidence. Using the highest quality reviews on controversial topics is a must. One must remember that extraordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence. The fact that this is the same organization that claims that TM can give one eternal life, allow one to fly, and become invisible at will should make all of us skeptical. To top this of we than have the recent review done by the University of Alberta Evidence-based Practice Center under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and Cochrane review that both concluded that TM was not different from health education / relaxation therapy.

"POV Pushing table"

The only conclusion it seems is as time goes on is more people are questioning the editing being done by these 6 MUM staff / TM instructors. In 2009 there was just two people trying to deal with this. Now we are up to five. Wondering if you can add tables for 06/07/08?

Evidence presented by Keithbob

I'm not a Sock Puppet

• I work on WP at home. My IP address is 69.66.89.118. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.66.89.118 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC) I sometimes take my laptop to the public library or local coffee house and edit there. This is not a violation of WP policy. For the duration of this ArbCom I will edit only from my home to demonstrate my authenticity as a single, independent editor.
• Kudos to Jpgordon for his SPI work. He also says "I've not analyzed any behavioral evidence". My casual review of the IPs on that SPI shows no overlapping edits between IPs and some IP's had no TM article edits. User: Ruinia's comments demonstrate that TM participants have varying opinions on Misplaced Pages TM articles. Kala Bethere has practiced Yogic Flying and Jmh649 has an uncle who practices TM, but this hasn't resulted in an allegiance to the TM movement. Fairfield hosts 'new age' programs that compete with TM list)and has several thousand residents who farm etc. and do not practice TM. We should consider carefully before labeling Fairfield a "TM town" based on the market dominance of LISCO.
• I use the Keithbob WP account and no other. I am no one's meat puppet. I edit independently. The talk pages indicate that Will Beback, TimidGuy, Jmn649 and Kala Bethere communicate with each other in 'real life' via email which is not a violation of policy. So it seems edit history and behavior is a key ingredient for a sock/meat decision. I trust in the Committee and their ability to come to a proper and fair conclusion.

Civil, Neutral Editing

I edit with civility, collaboration and respect. I have never been blocked or brought to ANI. I am also not perfect and I learn from my mistakes.

I have 10,000+ edits on 400+ articles and I stand by my edit history. My highest priority is the progress and well being of WP and its policies. I abide by the policy of WP:COI. My edits are not the product of a blind allegiance to any movement or ideology. I champion a balanced and accurate representation of reliable sources from all significant points of view. I have made many "edits for the enemy"

Sock Puppet Investigation|User:Tuckerj1976 and User:Kala Bethere

User:Jmh649 Disruptive Behavior

• In previous ArbCom: edit warring, incivil behavior, “personalizing editorial disputes”. Six month editing restriction 7/1/09 violated and blocked
• 3RR First day at the TM article = massive deletions of published research. despite a request for discussion first.
• After 30 days Transcendental Meditation is his 4th most edited article.

User:Fladrif Disruptive Behavior here

• Blocks for incivility and personal attacks.
• Edit Warring

User:Will Beback, Poor Behavior

While I agree with WillBeback's objective of resolving COI issues, however I strongly disagree with his methods. Instead of presenting evidence at COIN, Will often confronts editors on their talk page.

Part One: Assume guilt, accuse the editor of COI and use creative wording to imply the need for personal information in order to prove their innocence

Part Two: Pronounce the editor to be “dishonest” or guilty of COI because they are not forthcoming with personal information

Part Three: Redefine WP:COI to suit the situation

• “any editor with a significant commitment to the ”
• “if editors are friends, colleagues or neighbors”
• “connections to the entities or people discussed in the article? If the people are your friends or colleagues”
• “a personal friend of any of the researchers”
• “if you’re a friend or colleague of the ”
• “if editors here are defending the work of their friends and colleagues”
• “do anyone here think that MUM does not have a conflict of interest with regard to MVAH?”

Part Four: Insult, badger, intimidate Note: Some diffs involve User:Tothwolf a retired, disruptive editor whose behavior I do not condone.

POV Pushing Team: WillBeback, Fladrif, KalaBethere..... (x = participation in noticeboard/SPI)

POV Pushing Team: Will Beback, Fladrif.... (x = participation in noticeboard)

Rebuttals

• @Will Beback/Case page. The diff shows I made a talk page proposal, other editors supported it, I waited 7 days, Will Beback and Fladrif were present, but chose not to participate. This is what Will calls "tag team editing".
• @Fladrif accuses me of POV editing and deleting sourced material. However, if you read the talk threads he cites, you will see that his source was not reliable, I discussed in a civil and collaborative manner, while Fladrif was abusive and blatantly mis-represented other sources.

Evidence presented by Fladrif

My first edits at Misplaced Pages were in late Feb 2008. A year and ~250 edits later, I looked at the Transcendental Meditation article because I was interested what other articles editors I had interacted with were involved. The TM talk page was discussing whether a Neutrality Tag should be removed. I wrote that, in the opinion of an outsider with no interest in either the subject matter or in editing the article, the article did not appear to be neutral. A few week later, I looked more closely at the TM article. It had very serious problems with problematic and coordinated editing, including edit-wars to exclude reliable sources and to misrepresent others The editors involved were self-identified as faculty members of Maharishi University of Management who had stated in their profile pages that their purpose as editors was to edit the TM-related articles. WP:COIN had already addressed this problem several times, but instructions from multiple administrators to not to edit those pages were openly defied. Within days, the futility of dealing with concerted and coordinated efforts to resist any correction of these problams, led me to started a new thread a COIN.

TM Movement employees push the POV of the TM Movement

• The COIN archives contain background and diffs showing POV pushing via coordinated edit wars to delete reliably-sourced material,misrepresent and misconstrue relevant and reliably sources, and substitute material not reliably-sourced

• Some editors are current or former MUM faculty or employess of other TM Movement organizations. Refs at SPI. Other editors not self-identified as MUM employees have made statements suggesting that hold similar positions in the TM Org, and are closely associated with TM Org employees and officials

• Anonymous IP addresses assigned to TM Org push the POV of the TM Movement., .

• KBob strongly pushes the TM Org’s POV. Examples include:

-100+ edits in a row, without discussion, removed and misrepresented reliable sources and improperly substituted non-reliable sources

-Deleting reliably-sourced material, first claiming that the source was “biased”, , then falsely claiming that the source didn’t contain the material.

-Advocating removal of references to the Maharishi’s first book on Transcendental Meditation, a “banned book” within the TM Org because it contains statements by MMY now embarrassing to the TM Org. .

TM Org Astroturfing through employee sockpuppet/meatpuppets

SPI's findings are conclusive. Relevant information posted by many editors at RFA.

Sockpuppetry by pro-TM editors is nothing new.

TM Org astroturfing of the interwebs, is not confined to Misplaced Pages.

Before TimidGuy admitted at SPI that he was the 76.76 sockpuppet he first lied about it at SPI..

TM Org editors create a hostile editing environment

• TM-Org affiliated editors contribute to a hostile editing environment, constantly accusing other neutral editors and administrators of bias, intimidation and incivility, making baseless accusations of COI, refusing to comply with directions from administrators or to conform to noticeboard consensus.

• Frivolous sockpuppetry allegations.

• Repeatedly drive off neutral editors.

• Multiple legal threats against other editors, claiming libel, copyright and trademark infringement. TimidGuy consults with MUM and Maharishi Foundation Ltd general counsel, stating that he must do so.

Dreadstar

Dreadstar has apparent real-life connection to the TM editors, making his involvement and use of adminstrator tools questionable and abusive. He has aggressively defended the TM Org editors across on the TM-related and tangential articles for many years, frequenlty using threats to intimidate other editors. He was on a first-name basis with TM Org editor Sparaig, leaves numerous mash notes on other TM Org editor's talk pages, and has extensive off-wiki communications with them. His statement at SPI that he had confidential information confirms his connections. Multiple editors and admins have noted and commented on this connection and abuse.)

Rebuttal

@ KBob regarding Doc James

KBob's accusations against Doc James are groundless. Doc James; involvement followed extensive discussions at the Fringe Theories , the Reliable Sources and Project Medicine Noticeboards. The unanimous consensus of all of the uninvolved and non-TM editors and administrators, was that WP:MEDRS was being violated in the TM articles The "massive deletions" that KBob complains of were all made pursuant to MEDRS and that unanimous consensus. Doc James's continued involvement is to implement thatpolicy and consensus, in the face of the daily refusal of the TM Org editors to abide by that policy and consensus. Fladrif (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

@ KBob re Me

KBob is quite correct. I do not suffer fools gladly. I have had my hand slapped as a result. Nobody's perfect.

@ TimidGuy and Hickorybark

TimidGuy insists that he must edit depite his COI because there are no neutral editors. Hickorybark asserts that WillBeback has a hostile agenda and is ignorant to boot - a bit of special pleading repeatedly asserted by members of the Fairfield contingent. Only they understand the subject-matter. All other editors and all sources are mistaken and uninformed. All other editors are biased and uncivil. Identical accusations are asserted year after year througout the archives of the TM-related talk pages against every single neutral editor that has had the misfortune and ill-judgment to get involved on these articles. Occams razor suggests a morerational explanation of what is going on:

@ Dreadstar

• Wikistalking? Absurd. I also read and participated in articles Orlady was working on, and voted in her RFA. Was I wikistalking Orlady? TimidGuy worked well together on the Warnborough article. Apologies for having my timing off on your still bogus and false outing charge - a ban that was promptly revoked by another admin; I'll accept that it was not retailiatory, but why do you wikistalking all the articles that TimidGuy edits?
• COI? If Dreadstar doesn't understand the difference between paid employees of MUM pushing the POV of their employer at Wiki and a former student writing about a school they attended nearly 40 years ago, thinking that the latter is a COI, I question Dreadstar's understanding of policy and his judgment to apply admin tools.
• Tone. The tone of some of my comments may be unduly harsh, but I have seen no credible claim by Dreadstar or anyone else that any of them are substantively inaccurate. As to their substance, if not their tone, I stand behind them 100%. ArbCom should be more concerned about the abuse and corruption of Misplaced Pages that prompted the comments than by the comments themselves. WP:Call a spade a spade applies. Contrived claims of incivility are this group's SOP when it comes to avoiding scrutiny of their own editing. Let ArbCom examine in detail, and not out-of-context, every single comment cited, including the edits which prompted them. Thank you. You have a magnificent job of documenting in small part the extent to which these editors have deleted reliable sources, misconstrued reliable sources, lied about the content of reliable sources, substituted original research and personal opinion for sourced material, engaged in legal threats, wikilawyering, ignored policy and consensus, defied independent and neutral administrators, and otherwise done precisely what they are accused of in this ArbCom. That is the threat to the integrity of Misplaced Pages, not pointing out the threat, even in strong tones. Fladrif (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

@ David Spector

• David previously posted on talkpage that Will Beback is a neutral editor.(ref to come) I agree.
• I have previously posted that I have no connection, past or present, with TM, any of its competitors, nor any org opposed to it. WillBeback has said the same.(ref to come)
• Agree that an editor employed by a TM competitor or org opposing TM, has a COI. Such editors should, as David does himself, confine themselves to the talk pages on these articles.

Evidence presented by Kala Bethere

I am not a sock puppet

Hi KBob. I am not a sockpuppet, I post on my own internet account, under the same user name. I'm not familiar personally with the user The7thdr or Tucker1976, who I believe is away for a couple of days. I have seen the latter's posts, but we have not communicated other than through talk pages where we have crossed paths, as of this writing.

If a list of different meditation techniques and their prices is supposed to somehow show that I am biased in one direction of another, I think you need to look at the chart again. The purpose of the chart was to give an idea of how TM compared to other common meditation techniques in terms of price, that's all.

My concern would be that this is merely a "fake attack" to divert the criticism you personally have received recently with your own editing issues.--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Tuckerj76

What an insult to poor Kala Bethere

Well, if I am Kala Bethere, or indeed anyone else, this should prove interesting. I am sure a checkuser would quickly prove otherwise. I have attempted to be civil, and shall remain so, but the desperation (and paranoia it would seem) been shown by users who login from TM movement IPs is proving tiring. I will not enter into this level of childish behavior, but I am sure that a reliable admin can check. This is all I have to say on the matter although Kala has my sympathy, it must be deeply disturbing to be accused of having the same level of grammar and spilling (or should that be spelling?) as me . Have a good day Tuckerj1976 (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit: This must have taken sometime (and resources)] However, the level of detail that has gone into this,the resources required, together with the notion that one person is really 3 or 4 might be argued to be like the statements made in this "leaked" document form the TM movement ] But I am sure this is just my paranoia developing. Nevertheless, it does seem to once again support the evidence that this article and it's editors need close scrutiny. Tuckerj1976 (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Finally, I would like to share Kala Bethere suggestion that this might be to simply distract from this evidence here: ] Tuckerj1976 (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Note Will Beback has commented on the insults that have been already made by the TM org Sockpuppets, especially at educated and knowledgeable editors of TM who threaten their dominance (namely accusations at Kala Bethere. In what appears to be an attempt to push them away or push them into making uncivil response or edits.

. May I add to these the following that I have just found: ] ] Tuckerj1976 (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

KBob WIKI Edit History (Single purpose Account?).

Kbob has said I and others have single purpose accounts (suggesting that Kbob does not). Kbob also says above that: I have 10,000+ edits on 400+ articles and I stand by my edit history'''. Kbob then links to evidence of this: ] It is interesting to note the results of the top edits of these 400+ articles

Top edited articles Article

   * 630 - Transcendental_Meditation
   * 355 - Maharishi_Vedic_Approach_to_Health
   * 275 - Maharishi_University_of_Management
   * 265 - Deepak_Chopra
   * 234 - Maharishi_Mahesh_Yogi
   * 230 - TM-Sidhi_program
   * 215 - John_Hagelin
   * 152 - Maharishi_Vedic_Education_Development_Corporation
   * 139 - Market_trend
   * 109 - Maharishi_Sthapatya_Veda

]

All but 1 are TM movement articles. Tuckerj1976 (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Keithbob edit history on WIKIQUOTE

] (Note: Keithbob has edited this in unison with Littleolive oil) ] Tuckerj1976 (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiPages created by Kbob

Both TM Movement Articles ]

Rebuttal to Timidguy

Ref removing 2003 review sourced to the Journal of Meditation and Meditation Research .

Perhaps Timidguy would like to cite the reasons given for removing it per talk? ], ], ],

This selective memory while criticizing none TM movement affiliated Editors is a fact often found with Timidguy and has been used to scare off a few. Tuckerj1976 (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Rebuttal to Hickorybark

I am somewhat surprised that someone who teaches the scientific method seems, from his comments regarding both the method and TM research, to be un-familiar with the philosophy of science. Might I recommend the following 20th century thinkers as a starting point? ], ], ], ], ]. A good introductory text might be ], or ]. These are easy to read introductions. With direct reference to TM research might I suggest (in easily understood prose) : ], ]. I hope this is of help. Tuckerj1976 (talk) 07:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

@ Hickorybark Not at all Hick. I just assumed from your statement that you were new to the subject and I thought Carl Hempel might be a little advanced for you. Ease you in with the popular thinkers who also wrote easily understood prose. Hempel should really come after the introductions, a little like Popper (who should certainly comes before Humpel) in any introduction. Perhaps this is where you have been going wrong? Sorry about that but good to see you have been reading a little around the subject. However, really I think you should skim over one of the introductory books I mentioned first or even the relevant chapter in this ]. Might prove useful Tuckerj1976 (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

@Hickorybark Can I ask a question by the way? (This is to clarify your logic in the statements that you have made and how we should regard them) As someone who lectures in science methodology at a postgraduate level (for 40 years): do you teach your students that TM alters the standard laws of physics as stated by Honorary Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Maharishi University of Management, Dr Hagelin who states that practicing TM the student:

"Instead of falling down, which is the most probable outcome, the body would fall up, or to the left or to the right, or in any desired direction ]".

, Indeed would you agree with TM physicist Dr Hagelin that:

"If somebody would ask you about your Yogic Flying practice, 'doesn't it violate Newton's Law of Gravity?', the first thing you should say is that Newton's Law of Gravity is a seventeenth century law!]"

. If you could clarify it would help us asses how to examine your comments about that state of TM research. Thank you Tuckerj1976 (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Rebuttal to The David Spector ref The Anti-TM Editors

Overview. David (looking at his edits) is a nice guy. He seems polite, introducing structured comments and arguments. He never edit wars or seems to lose his civility. He is also VERY open about his COI and affiliations with NSR (a rival mantra meditation program, taught at minimum cost, with no additional fees or courses and free of anything that might be considered a "religious" or "spiritual" background or paraphernalia) As an organization it does not appear to hold any political, economic , psychological or social agenda. It was created and marketed by a former TM instructor. Again, David comes across as a genuine editor, and I have no problems with his manner in wiki editing or communication. I also believe that he is genuine about his beliefs in the validity of TM research. Indeed, a look at the NSR webpage stresses this fact stating that TM is:

"# Scientific research has demonstrated that the most beneficial meditation technique is Transcendental Meditation® or TM® (trademark disclaimer). ]

And here is the "rub", NSR "trades" on the validity of TM research. Thus anyone supporting it will equally be prone to support TM research and the health benefits of mantra meditation. With this in mind:

but disagree that TM or the TMM are in any way religious--this topic is not black and white, not simple and obvious)

This may well be the case, and indeed the article reflects disagreement regarding this matter ] It is not the role of wiki editors to make a decision either way. It is rather that we present all of the evidence. What disconcerts me is the blatant manner that the "pro" TM editors attempt to hide this controversy because it may not agree with TMs public image.

Wioth ref to what he calls anti wiki editors characterizing them (and I assume by this he includes me:

They are somewhat secretive about their RL affiliations. I get the feeling that some of them may be drawn from the handful of well-known opponents of TM who seed FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) around the Web

Personally, for me nothing could be further from the truth. In RL I am involved in medicine and that is all I feel I need to disclose. I have never practiced TM and was only brought here due to a colleague who found the blatant lies in the article regarding the state of the research both funny and deeply disturbing, a view I share. If it had not been due to this article I would not have examined the movement in the detail I have now done. I certainly, have more to do then seed FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) around the Web. My concern is with the lies in this article and the positive "spin" placed on the movement (I think if I was one of the people mentioned, I would be happy to edit the other TM movement articles, but I do not. I am only interested in the claimed health benefits. I have already had a checkuser done to see if I am one of two other editors here. I would be happy to see this extended across all of the present editors. I have also said that I would be happy to be topic banned from this article as long as I was sure it would bring the balance to the edits the article so desperately needs. There are a number of other article I would like to get involved in.

Alas, I do not have the space to answer the other comments but I think you get the drift. Tuckerj1976 (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Rebuttal KeithBob

Your table (POV Pushing Team) proves what exactly? I am a little confused.

I also think that Kala Bethere (I am not bothered) maybe waiting for you to do what you said you would here:

"... per your advice on procedures and options open to me, I have filed an SPI here. and will publish the results as part of the ArbCom case, whenever they become available ]"

Regarding your section:

Sock Puppet Investigation|User:Tuckerj1976 and User:Kala Bethere

Evidence presented by Hickorybark

Misguided Effort by User:Will Beback to skew the TM-related articles

In my four decades in scientific academia, one of the most popular of any of the courses I teach, and one that I teach at both the graduate and undergraduate levels, is the one on scientific method. A primary theme is that, although a host of sociological pressures impact the progress of science, ultimately scientific method is an objective phenomenon based on standards of verification and falsification. In actual practice, these standards have developed into a system of rigorous academic training, well-defined methods for theoretical progress, controlled experimentation free of tester bias, and the peer review process. Generations of scientists have cultivated this system, which places science on an objective footing, and frees researchers from arbitrary efforts to foreclose scientific debate or discredit peer-reviewed research based on who is conducting the research and other subjective criteria. Scientific legitimacy is earned through hard work and adherence to rigorous practices. That said, no important research takes place in science without a passionate interest on the part of the investigators, and it is a common mistake on the part of non-scientists to think that it does. Who would spend years or decades of their life developing and testing their theory otherwise? But this interest does not compromise the scientific legitimacy of the project, because standardized, content-based procedures for evaluating scientific legitimacy must be adhered to, independent of the personal interests of the researchers themselves.

With regard to the research on the Transcendental Meditation program, scientific legitimacy has been earned through the substantial body of peer-reviewed publications, over the last 40 years, leading to tens of millions of dollars in competitive research grant funding. In saying, “Most of those studies have been conducted by the faculty of MUM,” Beback seeks to invalidate this peer-reviewed research, overriding the judgment of hundreds of journal editors and reviewers, as well as numerous grant referees. Further evidence that the Transcendental Meditation movement has earned mainstream credibility is the increasing use of the TM technique as an educational tool at numerous schools throughout the world, as well as at Maharishi University of Management, accredited since 1980.

The issues about consciousness and its relationship to matter are the defining frontier of scientific research today. Because it’s too early for the scientific community to have arrived at an established, mainstream consensus, it is imperative that we adhere to the foundational principles of scientific method, the free and courteous exchange of ideas, as well as the highest standards of encyclopedia scholarship. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy concludes its article on Consciousness: “A comprehensive understanding of consciousness will likely require theories of many types. One might usefully and without contradiction accept a diversity of models that each in their own way aim respectively to explain the physical, neural, cognitive, functional, representational and higher-order aspects of consciousness. There is unlikely to be any single theoretical perspective that suffices for explaining all the features of consciousness that we wish to understand. Thus a synthetic and pluralistic approach may provide the best road to future progress.”

As we continue to sort out these issues, and how to present them in Misplaced Pages, we can use as our guide Jimmy Wales’ understanding of the three broad categories of theories: (1) “the majority view of a broad consensus of scientists,” (2) “a minority view of some scientists, scientists who are respected by the mainstream that differs with them on this particular matter,” and (3) theories “held only by a few people without any traditional training or credentials ….”

The four decades of TM research documents the value of meditation for stress relief, health and personal development and falls squarely into category (1); it is supported by the vast majority of scientists familiar with the field. Newer concepts, such as the Maharishi Effect, according to which consciousness is a field whose influence can be transmitted nonlocally, are still under investigation and fall into category (2). It represents a minority view by researchers who are highly trained and respected scientists.

What has led Beback astray, I believe, is his apparent lack of knowledge and understanding of the scientific method, one of the consequences of which is his failure to distinguish interest in a subject matter—even passionate interest—from conflict of interest. This has resulted in (a) his reluctance to defer to the mainstream institutions and procedures for conferring scientific legitimacy, believing he has insights into conflicts of interest that the peer-review process has overlooked, and (b) his intolerance of editors with whom he disagrees, assuming they are motivated by a COI. Needless to say, casting mud at other editors does nothing for the advancement of the Misplaced Pages project.

Of course Beback is very familiar with the Misplaced Pages guidelines on pseudoscience and fringe theories, but he uses his facility to further his partisan agenda. The standards for scholarly objectivity are not served by dismissively labeling peer-reviewed research as “pseudoscience” and “fringe,” or the TM organization as a whole as a “cult.” Moreover, in the editing on the John Hagelin page, by effectively helping to block any context for Peter Woit, who characterized Hagelin’s views on consciousness and physics as “nonsense” and Hagelin himself as a “crackpot,” Beback was more indirect. But these kinds of epithets have no place in the scientific enterprise, and finding sources for slanders is no substitute for good judgment.

The Arbitration Committee faces a real dilemma: In keeping with the implications of Beback’s indictment, do you want to limit contributions to editors who are either ignorant or outright hostile? It’s the readers who would, sadly, pay the price. Or will editors with a certain amount of expertise be permitted to continue editing? The material needs to be presented in an accurate, factual and straightforward manner. In the concrete ways described above, the TM scientists, Maharishi University of Management, and the TM organization as a whole have, over an extended period of time, earned mainstream legitimacy. I think this should be reflected in the Misplaced Pages pages, and I hope the Arbitration Committee will take this into consideration.

I am not a "sockpuppet" and I believe that the quality and objectivity of my edits speak for themselves. They are directed solely toward improving the value of the information we provide to Misplaced Pages’s users. In initiating this hearing, Beback appears to be seeking administrative license to dominate the TM-related articles by suppressing responsible, informed contributors and asserting his own opinion, unimpeded. My hope is that the Arbitration Committee will be cognizant of how this would undermine Misplaced Pages’s mission to provide a reliable reference. Hickorybark (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Rebuttals

@ User:Fladrif

Yes, I think your TM-related editing is "mistaken and misinformed;" but my primary objection is that you give too much prominence to sources who are hostile, and excessively so. Hickorybark (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

@ User:Tuckerj76

Thank you for your little list of references. I will assume that it was just an oversight that you neglected to include Carl Hempel, the single most influential philosopher of science of the 20th century. Hickorybark (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

@ User:Andrew Skolnick

It seems that we are in agreement on just one point: that the TM organization has acquired “the appearance of scientific credibility” in the mainstream scientific establishment. Although you allege that this is the result of a “long-standing and widespread campaign to infiltrate and deceive,” it behooves us to be particularly sensitive to and skeptical of conspiracy theories relating to a targeted group. Additionally, as an editor, you may be aware that Misplaced Pages’s mandate, as a tertiary source of established information, requires that we defer to the judgment of the mainstream scientific institutions and publications and not assume that they have been “bamboozled” on a massive scale, as you suggest. Also, thank you for disclosing the extent of your conflict of interest in these proceedings—your having been party to a lawsuit is particularly relevant, as you yourself observe. Hickorybark (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

@ User:David Spector

I appreciate your desire for evenhandedness, but the truth doesn’t always lie midway between opposing camps. In particular your discussion of the TM research does not accurately reflect its favorable reception within the mainstream, and several of your comments are mistaken:

• “... easily dismissed as being bad science....” is way too breezy.

• “100 good studies”— There are about 350 mainstream, peer-reviewed publications.

• “This isn't enough, though, to convince mainstream scientists and medical researchers”—$24+ million in NIH grant funding says otherwise.

• You don’t think there’s controversy “concerning the Darwinian theory?”

• I don’t know what you mean by “dangerous medical claims.”

• “pseudoscience”—this term is being bandied about on WP much too indiscriminately.

Misplaced Pages’s guidelines are that, although both POVs should be represented, proportionality in content and tone should reflect the mainstream position, as reflected in reliable sources. We are not mandated to “state the limitations of the research.” Hickorybark (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Roseapple

I'm not a sock puppet

I became interested in the TM article a few years ago and created the Maharishi School article at that time. I edit from my home, but have occasionally used a library computer. I think if you look at my contributions you'll find them quite innocuous. User:Roseapple

Evidence presented by BigweeBoy

I have been busy with other things in the last few days and will post my evidence in the coming days. Thanks. --BwB (talk) 12:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Durova

Internet connectivity in Fairfield, Iowa

Above, Keithbob states "LISCO provides free wireless at many locations in Fairfield." Tuckerj1976 also repeats "It has also been noted by the 'TM editors that Lisco provides free wireless access in the town of Fairfield'".

According to the Fairfield Area Chamber of Commerce, the three major providers of Internet access for their community are Iowa Telecom, LISCO, and Mediacom. The LISCO listing states "LISCO offers a variety of residential double- or triple-play packages and is adept at creating business telecommunications solutions to meet every need, including a virtual PBX service for a fraction of the cost of a stand-alone PBX system." So LISCO itself does not provide free wireless, although its subscribers may. The local public library for Fairfield has a NaTel Internet connection. The two local coffee shops are the 2nd Street Cafe whose Wi-Fi is an unnamed independent provider, and Cafe Paradiso, whose staff confirmed via telephone that they use LISCO. Other free wireless connections are the Thai Deli (a LISCO subscriber) and Burger King, whose staff confirmed via telephone that they use LISCO. The remaining free wireless spots are Kentucky Fried Chicken (no information on their provider) and several hotels. So there are three locations in Fairfield outside Maharishi University where Fairfield residents can access free LISCO connections, perhaps as many as five.

It stands to reason that the editing traffic to Misplaced Pages on this topic from three to five coffee shops and restaurants may be less than from the university itself, since the Misplaced Pages article for Maharishi University of Management lists 47 faculty, 200 staff, and 1284 students.

Unlogged IP editing to Jefferson County, Iowa topics

One question at this case is to what degree the unlogged IP edits to Transcendental Meditation topics are attributable to the general population of Fairfield, Iowa and neighboring communities. So I conducted a survey to test whether a substantial number of non-COI editors edit unlogged. One would expect that local IP editors unaffiliated with MUM who frequent the Fairfield wi-fi locations would also edit a range of articles about local geography, culture, and education.

Fairfield is the county seat of Jefferson County, Iowa. Jefferson County has had a stable population for a century of approximately 16,000 people. Currently about 10% of that population have a MUM affiliation (faculty, staff, or student). Nearly two-thirds of the total county population lives in Fairfield. An unspecified number of Jefferson County residents live outside cities in isolated houses and farms. Two of the communities in Jefferson County have substantial discussion of MUM in their articles: Fairfield and Maharishi Vedic City, Iowa (population 222). So to gauge the general level of LISCO IP editing this survey begins with the remaining six communities of Jefferson County.

Non-MUM communities in Jefferson County, Iowa

• Batavia: population 500, 2 unlogged edits in entire article history--one from Finland in 2006 plus one vandalism edit which was quickly reverted and blocked as an open proxy.
• Coppock: population 57, no unlogged edits in article history.
• Libertyville: population 325, no unlogged edits in article history.
• Lockridge: population 275, no unlogged edits in article history.
• Packwood: population 223, 1 unlogged edit in article history from Iowa Telecom.
• Pleasant Plain: population 131, 1 unlogged edit in article history from a non-LISCO IP in Indiana.

Other cultural and educational topics of local interest

• Fairfield Arts & Convention Center: no unlogged edits in article history.
• Stephen Sondheim Center for the Performing Arts: 6 unlogged edits in article history--December 2007 from Birmingham, England; January 2008 from LISCO; August 2008 from LISCO; August 2008 from Pacific Bell in California; April 2009 from Charter Communications in Minnesota; July 2009 also from Charter Communications in Minnesota.
• Indian Hills Community College (outside Jefferson County, nearest institution of higher education other than MUM): 6 unlogged edits in article history, 1 from Mediacom (a competitor to LISCO); 2 from the United Kingdom originating from an IP now under long term block; another Mediacom; the Tennessee Board of Regents; and a third Mediacom.
• The high school(s) of Jefferson County, Iowa could not be surveyed because no article could be found for them.

Across 9 articles unrelated to TM and MUM, a total of only 2 edits originated from unlogged LISCO connections. Misplaced Pages appears to have received minimal unlogged edits from LISCO subscribers relating to this region except at articles that relate to TM. The article about Jefferson County itself was excluded from the survey due to a specific mention of MUM in a logged editor's edit summary. If included it would have a moderate effect on the results: 1 LISCO IP edited the page in January 2007.

This survey found no unlogged LISCO edits to non-TM articles about Jefferson County geography, culture, or education within the last 18 months.

About LISCO

LISCO is an internet service provider that serves southeastern Iowa. It is based in Fairfield, Iowa and its website states "LISCO has had as many as 14,000 dial-up, broadband, and telephone customers" although it is unclear from that statement how many of those are Internet vs. telephone customers or how many customers it currently serves.

Evidence Presented by Andrew Skolnick

I was a Misplaced Pages editor until I was driven away about 4 years ago, frustrated by a similar campaign of outsiders hell bent on controlling articles affecting them. This current dispute just came to my attention. As a recognized authority on the deceptive practices of Transcendental Meditation researchers and spokespersons, I think it is important that I provide evidence of the TM movement's long-standing and widespread campaign to infiltrate and deceive academic and scientific institutions.

In 1991, as an associate news editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), I published a lengthy investigative report on the deceptive tactics the TM movement uses to promote its high-priced and unproven nostrums. I was given the assignment after JAMA's editors learned they had been tricked into publishing a deceptive TM promotional article written by Deepak Chopra (who was then the chief promoter of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's remedies) and two TM co-authors, Dr. Hari Sharma and B.D. Triguna (Skolnick, Andrew, "Maharishi Ayur-Veda: Guru's Marketing Scheme Promises World Eternal `Perfect Health," October 2, 1991, JAMA 266 (13): 1769–74). (For a report on Sharma's continued use of deception regarding his research: .)

Shortly after, the editor of "ScienceWriters: The Newsletter of the National Association of Science Writers" asked me to write an article on how the TM movement was able to infiltrate and bamboozle scientific institutions and publications to provide its pseudoscientific and occult claims the appearance of scientific credibility. (Skolnick, Andrew, Fall 1991, "The Maharhishi Caper: Or How to Hoodwink Top Medical Journals". ScienceWriters. .

In response, the TM movement filed a $194 million SLAPP suit ] against me and JAMA's editor, Dr. George Lundberg. Although the suit failed to identify a single defamatory statement in my report and was quickly dismissed without prejudice, it achieved its desired effect: The AMA ceased reporting on TM affairs and it put heavy pressure on me to stop writing about TM.

The frivolous suit also gave TM spinmeisters the argument that I was NOT an objective reporter because I was a litigant with an axe to grind. They further deceived the public by telling Newsweek and other news media that they had prevailed in their libel suit, falsely claiming we had "settled for an undisclosed amount" of money . There was no such settlement. Indeed, TM's threat of refiling that suit hung over the AMA's head as a means to keep the AMA and me quiet.

Much more recently, I had to go after TM's Ayurvedic operations in Germany after they published a counterfeit letter it claimed was sent by Ohio State University which they said showed I had lied about Dr. Hari Sharma. They removed the fraudulent letter from their web site after I obtained a statement from Ohio State University's Assistant Vice President for Research Communications that OSU never wrote such a letter.

I continue to watch in dismay as TM researchers and publicists continue to mislead and deceive editors, other researchers, and the public. In my opinion, the dispute being arbitrated here results from the ongoing efforts of the TM movement to infiltrate and deceive scientific and academic institutions.

I don't know which editor involved in this arbitration dispute is legitimate and which is not, but I do know that the TM movement has many writers, editors, and PR people working hard to bring about their guru's plan to bring "Heaven on Earth." I am not the least surprised some have dedicated themselves to editing out anything in Misplaced Pages that might hinder that plan.

To give an example of the absurd lengths the Transcendental Meditation's PR machine will go to promote Maharishi's world plan, here is one of my favorite news releases written by Dean Draznin, a tireless TM Purusha (monk) who was and may still be a chief PR person for the TM organization (he now has a PR firm in Fairfield, Iowa). In this news release, he claims a group of TM "Yogic Fliers" saved Texas from the terrible wrath of Hurricane Gilbert by bouncing on their butts to "enliven the unified field" and "increase coherence" throughout society and nature. I'm still looking for the news release reporting how a bunch of TM Yogic Fliers saved New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina. What Maharishi's army of "researchers" and flacks mostly do is look for "arrows" they can "draw bulls-eyes around," and then find a publication gullible or careless enough to publish their "scientific evidence."

There is an elephant in the room that some in this dispute don't want others to notice: Fairfield, Iowa is largely a company town and that company is the Transcendental Meditation movement, which owns and controls the university and scores of TM businesses and front groups. Hundreds of people in the Fairfield community are dedicated to convincing the world to buy TM services, products, and its dubious and often deceitful "scientific research."

My JAMA article concludes with a quote from Curtis Mailloux describing the "SIMS shuffle," a skill he said he learned while a member of the Student International Meditation Society, one of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's many front groups.

"I was taught to lie and to get around the pretty rules of the 'unenlightened' in order to get favorable reports into the media," says Mailloux. "We were taught how to exploit the reporters' gullibility and fascination with the exotic, especially what comes from the East. We thought we weren't doing anything wrong, because we were told it was often necessary to deceive the unenlightened to advance our guru's plan to save the world."

The question for this arbitration group is whether Misplaced Pages should be open to editors who dance the SIMS shuffle.--Askolnick (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Luke Warmwater101

Not a sockpuppet

I am a real person, flesh and blood. Not a sockpuppet, meatpuppet, action figure, rag doll, jack in the box, or any other kind of figurine. Moreover, I am a perfectly capable human being with a good head on my shoulders, and I think for myself. As a recent editor, I have just under 1000 edits on over 180 articles. While editing and reading Misplaced Pages, I have come across many contentious articles where feelings run high, but they seem to heat up particularly on TM related articles and talk pages. Prior to this case, when reading accusations of COI directed at me, I would generally ignore them, as I always felt the real problem was simply that I expressed a view different from the accusers’. Will admits that even those who share his POV are not neutral, yet, in light of the recent turn of events, it would seem that this is fine only as long as one shares Will's POV. If one's POV deviates from Will's, one risks being asked by him to leave Misplaced Pages.

Impartiality

My editing is neutral and impartial. I have never reverted, removed, or criticized any POVs that were introduced in a proper manner and were sufficiently sourced. I treat everyone with courtesy and respect . I most certainly have never ‘bitten’ any newcomers or ‘driven away’ anybody. In my editing, I adhere to Misplaced Pages guidelines. For instance, when I found an improper citation to a section created by Fladrif, I removed it to the sandbox, put in ‘citation needed’, and left the body of the text as it was ]. Incidentally, Fladrif did not extend the same courtesy to me: when I created a section in the TM-Sidhi article and accidentally put in an incorrect citation, Fladrif immediately removed the entire section ,.

POV vs COI

I understand and welcome that a topic like TM will attract people with strong POVs and that they may all be different. But some editors don't welcome other POVs. To me this case is not really about COI, it is about eliminating editors with a different POV. I admire and respect Will’s intelligence, dedication to Misplaced Pages, and tenacity, but I do not agree with the way he goes about achieving his objectives. When I reinstated some information to a study that Will had reduced from several paragraphs to a single sentence, he was quick to accuse me of not being neutral, . However, he did not say anything to Fladrif when he deleted an entire section of an article, as mentioned above, nor did he object when others repeatedly removed secondary sources with an opposing POV, or when someone behaved rudely to editors opposing his POV, even when the rude comments are posted on his own talk page. He did warn the editors who share his views to behave well, but only in reference to looking good for the upcoming arbitration [ Otherwise he is often protective of editors sharing his POV, against editors who do not share it, regardless of the fact that the former are attacking the latter, or if it will support his own objectives ,

It is evident to me that topics like TM will always attract two kinds of people: those who think that TM is a good thing and those who think it isn’t. Removing one set of editors for having a POV, regardless of the fair and respectful way in which they have been editing, protecting a second group, regardless of how abusive they have been on the talk pages, seems hardly useful to Misplaced Pages. If this is done, the result will be a series of slanted, one sided articles with much reliable and valid information removed because it does not suit the POV of the sole remaining group. If one compares an earlier version of the article 'Transcendental Meditation' to the current one, it is easy to see what has happened in the past thirty days: secondary sources have been removed, valid peer reviewed studies deleted en masse, paragraphs rewritten with pivotal sentences removed or changed to alter the original meaning of the source. . I do not see how anyone could learn anything from such garbled misinformation; it is not how I would want an encyclopedia to read. Hopefully, others share my view. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 08:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by TimidGuy

(refactored 2/25/10 for length)

Evidence against Doc James

Doc James deletes well sourced material and adds sources that aren't compliant. He deleted a 2006 study published by the AMA, because it's a primary source. But then he also removed a secondary source and at the same time he added a blog as a source. Olive and Will objected to the blog on the talk page. I delete blog the following day. Doc reverts.

Doc misrepresents sources. He added to the lead that James Randi says that the claimed science behind TM is "crackpot science." But Randi is referring to a specific analogy used by Maharishi: "One of the Maharishi's attractive analogies——in which he equates the solar system with the structure of the atom——is not only crackpot science; it is very bad crackpot." He misrepresents a 2008 research review. He writes “These conclusions were supported by a 2008 review which found equivalent effects from relaxation training and Transcendental Meditation.” The source says the opposite: “An old meta-analysis, published in 1989 about the effects of relaxation trainings on trait anxiety found that relaxation techniques had a medium effect size, while transcendental meditation had significantly larger effect size.” Doc writes that TM worsens hypertension and cites the ARRQ review, which says in the Results section of the abstract that TM reduces blood pressure. When Doc added the blog as source, he misrepresented what it said. It talks about a single study, whereas Doc writes, “Some of the ...”

Doc violates WP:LEAD. He insists the lead only include a finding from the 2007 AHRQ review comparing TM with health education. He makes no mention of four other comparisons that found positive effects. He deleted a meta-anlaysis of 9 studies that found that TM reduces blood pressure compared to health education and replaced it with a Cochrane review on anxiety that looked at a single study from 1980. He excludes summary of the other research reviews in the article. At the same time he added to the lead that magician James Randi refers to the TM research as crackpot science.

Doc and others disallow NPOV. Based on the 2007 AHRQ review, the lead and article say, "the definitive health effects of TM cannot be determined as the bulk of scientific evidence was of poor quality." There are differing points of view. The assessment was based on the Jadad scale. The authors of the report themselves discuss the other point of view — that the Jadad scale may not be an appropriate tool for assessing meditation research. Doc persistently removes any mention of Jadad. Here Kala removes the published, peer viewed version of 2007 AHRQ that includes a quote in which the authors say that it can be argued that the Jadad scale may be unsuited for meditation research. In the previously mentioned edit, Doc restores the JACM source but leaves out the sentences questioning the use of Jadad, and removes any mention of Jadad.

Evidence against Fladrif

Fladrif misrepresents sources. He wrote, “Some researchers of TM effects subsequently retracted the conclusions of their earlier studies on meditation effects, acknowledging methodological weaknesses and bias....” His source was a 1971 article in Time about two studies by Herbert Benson of Harvard and Keith Wallace, one of which was a questionnaire showing a reduction in drug use among 1,862 drug users. In the article Benson simply acknowledges the limitations of the study. This is not a retraction, which is generally considered very serious, and it’s one researcher and one study, whereas Fladrif generalized to “some researchers” and to "earlier studies." And here he distorted the source by taking material out of context. He writes, “and TM is regarded as being outside the mainstream of health system and mental health practice.” The source says, “Interestingly, in spite of TM’s status outside the mainstream of the health system and mental health practice, it has been subject to a significant amount of empirical evaluation, much of which has in fact supported its claims of effectiveness in countering the physiological effects of stress.” Fladrif misrepresented a 2001 AHRQ review on Ayurveda and diabetes. Fladrif misrepresented it as having reviewed all research on Ayurveda. He also misrepresented it by saying that the review included studies on Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health. There are many more instances.

Evidence against Kala Bethere

Kala removes secondary sources: 2008 AHRQ research review in Journal of Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 2009 research review in Pediatrics , 2003 research review in the Journal of Meditation and Meditation Research and in The Humanistic Psychologist (from APA) , 2009 review in Harvard Review of Psychiatry and 2006 research review in Epilepsy & Behavior.

Evidence against Tucker

Tucker began in Misplaced Pages editor on February 7 and within 10 hours found his way to the Rational Skepticism Collaboration project for canvassing. He removed the 2003 review sourced to the Journal of Meditation and Meditation Research. He removed it again after it was pointed out that the same review appeared in an APA journal.

Response to accusations of sock puppetry

Lisco's DHCP server has a lease time of 6 hours. After that period the DHCP server will assign a new IP. The result is that a particular IP might be assigned to one Misplaced Pages editor one day, and to a different Misplaced Pages editor another day. You won't find an instance of a single IP accessing two different accounts within the 6-hour lease period. There are two static IPs for campus, which are shared by all users on campus, but my impression is that most of the Fairfield traffic is coming from IPs other than these two: 69.18.50.85 or 209.152.117.83

Error in response by Doc James

Doc says that the Cochrane concluded that TM is no different from health education. The Cochrane review looked at a study from 1980 that compared TM to muscle biofeedback and relaxation therapy, not health education. And one more time he skews the AHRQ report, noting the finding on the health education comparator but not the other four comparisons.

Evidence presented by MuZemike

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

Timeline of events

My purpose is to outline and briefly summarize the events in the relevant discussion noticeboards from 2007 until present.

• January 2007: Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 2
  • User:Sethie reports User:TimidGuy with regards to the Transcendental Meditation (TM) article.
  • Sethie states that TimidGuy is a faculty member of a "college run by the TM Organization" (presumably Maharishi University of Management) as stated here.
  • TimidGuy started the TM article, which Sethie alleged "reads like an ad" (see first edit)
  • The allegation, in a nutshell is that, while TimidGuy shouldn't be disallowed to work on the article, he shouldn't have removed sourced information about the college or the movement because of his conflict of interest.

• April 2007: Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 5
  • Events regarding the TM article discussion:
    • Involved articles were Transcendental Meditation, Maharishi Vedic Science, Maharishi Ayurveda, Maharishi Sthapatya Veda, TM-Sidhi program, John Hagelin, Natural Law Party, and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.
    • Involved parties were TimidGuy and User:Sparaig (another TM practitioner) with User:Philosophus reporting.
    • Philosophus not only mentions TimidGuy and Sparaig but also other users in the TM article that potentially have COI problems. It's here where User:Littleolive oil (on the MUM's faculty) and User:Roseapple (another TM practitioner) are first mentioned.
    • Philosophus alleges that TimidGuy et al have been removing "critical edits" from the TM article or otherwise altering said critical information so that it is undecipherable to readers.
    • User:Dreadstar (under the doppleganger User:Dreadlocke) mentions that TimidGuy, a subject-matter expert on TM, has positively contributed without any bias and that said accusations of NPOV/bias have been untrue and unfounded.
    • User:Athaenara mentions about the low quality of the discussions that have went on in the articles' talk pages, saying that they "are prime examples of what happens when users confuse encyclopedia article talk pages with free webspace blogs".
    • It is mentioned here that User:Durova has recommended that TimidGuy limit participation to the articles' talk pages (presumably because of the COI). Also thrown on the table is the possibilities of an RFC to start, an RFC/U for user conduct issues, or Community enforceable mediation (which ended up becoming a failed pilot in WP's dispute resolution process).
    • From reading the end of that COI discussion, it looked a couple more neutral editors have started looking into it, and things started to settle at that point.
  • Events regarding the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi discussion:
    • User:Dseer is reporting with TimidGuy and User:Vijayante as the reported involved parties.
    • Dseer noted (as verified by the block log) that Vijayante has been blocked twice for violating the three-revert rule on the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi article.
    • The issues here regard the following: whether or not the Maharishi's relationship to his guru and teachings is "an invented controversy"; that Maharishi and his teachings are perceived as "secular and scientific", not religious; and whether or not the book (a book critical of TM written by Paul Mason) used to criticize the Maharishi and his teachings was not "neutral", not "scholarly" and "self-published".
    • TimidGuy dismisses the book used as a reliable source, saying that it is "apparently a self-published book by someone whose credentials as an expert on the Vedic tradition aren't evident".
    • Dseer reiterates that, while the involved COI editors are allowed to participate in the articles and discussions, they should not be preventing well-sourced critical information about the Maharishi, his teachings, or any controversy be added. One can infer at this point that it comes down to whether or not the sources used for this criticism are reliable.
    • Dreadstar repeats, almost verbatim, that TimidGuy is acting free of bias and well-within Misplaced Pages's policies regarding verifiability and neutrality. He further dismisses both Dseer's and Sethie's reports as attacks launched at TimidGuy and himself.
    • User:EdJohnston, in what it seems to be in a "third opinion" capacity, opines that Mason's book is not self-published and should not be dismissed on those grounds alone. He also asks Dseer to try to rewrite the disputed content himself in a neutral fashion.
    • User:Littleolive oil chimes in, saying that the article was very anti-TM in tone, and he intended to balance out the tone. He accuses Dseer of "not liking the article".
    • Durova reiterates that TimidGuy "has a clear and immediate conflict of interest" and again suggest that an RFC be opened on this topic.
    • The remainder of the 56KB-long discussion goes over whether or not Mason's book is reliable to use in the article.
• May 2007: Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 11
  • User:Sardaka is the reporting party with TimidGuy, Littleolive oil, and now User:Michaelbusch (also with a COI) added on as reported.
  • The report is quickly dismissed, directing to talk page of the TM article for relevant discussion.

Evidence presented by Dreadstar

User:Fladrif incivility and personal attacks

User Fladrif (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an aggressively hostile, rude and abusive editor who continually makes uncivil remarks and engages in frequent personal attacks. This is a long-term pattern of behavior, and has been consistent since he began editing the TM articles over a year ago. Fladrif has been warned by several different administrators about his uncivil behavior and personal attacks, and has been blocked twice for personal attacks. Fladrif's bad behavior is so consistently predictable, that apparently, the administrator leading this TM COI-POV investigation felt compelled to warn Fladrif to be on his 'best behavior' for the expected, upcoming RFARB. Even after being warned to be on his best behavior in preparation for this RFARB, Fladrif was apparently unable to contain his vitriol and has continued to engage in making uncivil comments against the accused editors.

From the beginning User:Fladrif has seemed to be editing from a WP:BATTLEFIELD mindset, by his own admission, Fladrif wikihounded editor TimidGuy to the TM articles, having no interest in the subjects of those articles and apparently only following TimidGuy to further engage with him. Additionally, by his own broad interpretation of WP:COI, coupled with his admission of having attended there, and comments like this, Fladrif has a COI regarding Warnborough College and should immediately stop directly editing the article.

Fladrif NPA and CIV highlights

A larger list is here

1. “..either TG is a pathological liar or utterly incapable of reading technical material. Usually, I apply ] to these kinds of dilemmas..” (more attacks in the full post)

   After being warned by an admin that calling another editor a “pathological liar” was inappropriate, Fladrif changed it to “serial deciever” instead:

   “..either TG is a pathological liar serial deciever or utterly incapable of reading technical material. Usually, I apply ] to these kinds of dilemmas, but I don't think you're stupid.”

2. “KeithBob, unlike some of the other editors here, about whose native intelligence I have serious questions (Yes, I'm serious, and no, I'm not naming names), you have never struck me as a stupid person. ... I have no patience for this deliberate obtuseness on your part”
3. “The arguments that you are making are so utterly absurd that it is impossible to believe that you, an intelligent person, is acutally serious”
4. “Olive simply announces that she won't agree to anything and promises an edit war if anyone crosses her. What's next - holding her breath til she turns blue and passes out?”
5. “TimidGuy and Olive,“ ”… the intellectual dishonesty being displayed here by the two of you is just staggering.”
6. “And, threatening to hold your breath until you turn blue - yet again - doesn't make your argument any more convincing.”
7. “Your intellectual dishonesty is beyond the pale.”
8. "...is frustrating to any non-TM-true-believer because it is virtually impossible to deal rationally with such an unthinking, uncritical and mindless approach."
9. “TG- your comment is typical of the intellectual dishonesty you continually exhibit on these talkpages and in your edits. This is absolutly and completely outrageous! BwB, you I excused for your typical clueless.”
10. “..is very clear from comments like CP's above, and his overwrought emotional outbursts over the Hagelin article, that he is incapable of coping with how this encyclopedia operates when it collides with his Weltanschauung”
11. “KBob, though it is nice to see that this time you actually bothered to read the source material before editing, which your edit summaries make clear that you apparently felt was totally unnecessary before rewriting this paragraph last time through. Bad form, and a bad habit you make a point of repeating. It is a recurring bad joke with these TM-related articles for the Fairfield contingent to insist on turning these article into unreadable quotefarms, in the apparent belief that no-one is capable of accurately summarizing what is written on the page. And why did this take you six edits? Other than artificially upping one's editcount,which you are doing with admirable gusto what is the purpose of consuming all this bandwidth?”
12. “KBob, you seem to be operating under the same delusion that plagued ChemistryProfessor..”
13. “There is considerable and transparent sophistry going on here…”
14. “one of the kool-aid drinking pro-TM true believer editors over the past week has almost 70 edits to the page, none of them based on any discussion or concensus,” “…asserting ownership over the article, all to push the POV of the TM Organization. That would be you, KBob.“
15. “Any admin, like WillBeback, who contradicts any article of faith of the TM true believers will soon be accused of bias and ignored by them.”
16. “I will not fall for the tired scam of the TM Cabal here..” “.. you don't get to delete reliably sourced material just because it doesn't square with the marketing plan of the TM Org. And, what is it with the lack of attention span of all you TM editors that you have to keep making new headers and breaking up the discussion? Stop it already!”
17. “Every single word in this post is absolute nonsense….And, there is plenty of concensus outside the TM Cabal to take a meataxe to this article. Now, aren't you late for a bunnyhopping session”
18. "..would expect no less from TimidGuy. Avoid the issue? Check. Ad hominem attacks? Check. Try to change the subject? Check. Obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate? Check. Check. Check. Conform his editing behavior to the unequivocal direction of three different admistrators at COIN? No way."
19. "TG, your self-serving posturing completely misrepresents your highly disruptive editing as the 76.76 sockpuppet, the POV and MEDRS violations proven in the diffs that were provided and documented, and your dissembling and stonewalling over being a sockpuppet"
20. "You've deliberately changed the meaning of the sentence, and you know it."
21. "KBob, your intellectual dishonesty on this is simply staggering. You have deliberately changed the meaning of the sentence, for the purpose, judging from your comments above, to assert the POV, supported by no source whatsoever."
22. "I've cautioned you before, TG, that if you're going to simply make something up, try to make something up which can't be falsified in about 30 seconds using Google."
23. "Your language is grossly misleading, and it does not require much of a stretch of imagination to conclude that it is deliberately so."
24. "Your inconsistent and contradictory positions make me question whether this argument is being pressed out of principle or mere expediency."
25. "Perhaps you missed my point, but I am perfectly willing to apply ] rather than accuse you or anyone else of bad faith or having a COI on the matter." ("Hanlon's Razor, just another way of calling the editor "stupid".)

• Even in this RFARB, he cannot be civil: “KBob is quite correct. I do not suffer fools gladly.” and seems proud of it: ,

Response to Fladrif

• Re: this false claim, Fladrif is incorrect, TimidGuy did not contact me about Fladrif’s attempted outing, I had been monitoring the page long before that time., and well before Fladrif’s first edit to the article or its talk page.. The block had nothing to do with TimidGuy, the attempted outing was against another editor – which, from the wording, was intentional and malicious, therefore grounds for an immediate block. Fladrif is also misstating the facts when he says “a ban that was promptly revoked by another admin”, I agreed to the unblock only after Fladrif apologized and promised never to do it again.. Fladrif even agreed that his comment could be seen as crossing the line. Fladrif's speculative cause/effect timing is apparently off too, the block was more than a week before his very first edit on the TM talk page, in which he stated the article wasn't neutral. This type of mischaracterization of events is fairly typical with Fladrif.
• Re: this false claim, the Arbitrators have the personal information I was referring to; it in no way indicates that I have any 'real-life connection' with the "TM editors" - I don't have a real-life connection with them, and would certainly not abuse or intimidate anyone on their behalf. And, I'm afraid that the diff he presents which purportedly shows me on a "first name basis" with User:Sparaig has been misunderstood by Fladrif; the "Hey Andrew.." is the automatic section title added, my only contribution was to apply the Template:Unsigned to an unsigned comment. "Hey Andrew" is actually Spraig on a first-name basis with User:Askolnick.

Response to Jmh649 (Doc James)

• My inclusion in this list is incredibly far-fetched, I think even a casual look at my editing history will show that I’m certainly not an editor who ‘primarily edits TM related pages,' and I cannot agree that What the Bleep Do We Know!? is a TM article – it mentions the subject, sure, but it’s not about TM, nor was it produced for TM. I edited it because I had just seen the film, looked it up on WP, and saw a lot of OR and even some incorrect information in our article, certainly not because it had TM in it. While it is on my list of top edited articles, it required a lot of clean-up and discussion with other editors.

Evidence presented by David Spector

I hope that the Arbitrators don't mind if I depart from the assertions/diffs organization of my section, as others have already used this organization well and I feel more comfortable providing a more informal discussion.

I guess my main assertion would be that most (if not all) of the current and past active editors of this article have violated WP rules and guidelines.

I will present below my analysis of what has been going on. I believe this will help provide arbitrators with a neutral background for making decisions about sanctions.

Note: I object to using Scientology as the governing precedent since there are significant factual differences between these two cases. The present case is complex and should be considered on its own merits.

Overview

In a nutshell, the problem here is not that there are two opposing POVs, but that both sides are more interested in self-righteously seeing their POV reflected than in writing an encyclopedia. This has forced each side to an extreme, arguing endlessly about each of many scientific studies and metastudies (reviews of research). Both sides focus on sources that have ambiguities, trying to exploit the ambiguities to favor their own POV. Since, due to these ambiguities, both sides are equally correct (or incorrect), the disputes rarely achieve consensus. Unfortunately, the truth is that there is no consensus opinion of TM in mainstream science (as there is, for example, concerning the Darwinian theory of Evolution, the stages of sleep, or the control over autonomic bodily functions by certain yogis who have been subjects of objective research studies). The TMM claims 600 positive studies, but most of these are easily dismissed as being bad science, redundant, or conducted by graduate students or other relatively inexperienced researchers. That still leaves about 100 good studies to show many benefits from practicing TM. This isn't enough, though, to convince mainstream scientists and medical researchers. In the face of such ambiguities, a good encyclopedia should simply report both POVs and/or state the limitations of the research. Arguing results only in deadlock. Good editing in the face of controversy over TM requires cooperation between editors, exactly what has been lacking here for years.

About Me

I have edited Transcendental Meditation for about nine years, off and on. I have always been completely forthcoming about my background in relation to TM (see David Spector). I studied with the originator of TM, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, for eight months in Europe in 1971-1972. My POV is pro in some areas and anti in other areas. Although my mixed POV is common among TM meditators in RL, it is unique here at the TMM articles.

Almost all of the dedicated editors at these related articles have an interest in the subject and sincerely want to improve the articles. However, the editors are polarized into two camps. This extreme polarization of POV and a failure of both sides to cooperate is the real reason that this arbitration became necessary, in my view.

The Pro-TM Editors

• The Pro-TM editors pursue an agenda of molding the articles to reflect the truth (as they see it) about TM and other techniques and programs originating with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. They are interested in accuracy as judged from their experience with TM and the TMM.
• In pursuit of this agenda, they use the WP policies and guidelines selectively (with frequent wikilawyering) to justify their editing decisions.
• They clearly believe that they are doing important work. They want WP users to have complete and correct information on TM, etc. They consider themselves good editors and never agree that they engage in cherrypicking and other dubious tactics.
• They are extremely secretive, not wishing to admit their organizational affiliations. However, it is known that with reasonable certainty that some of them are professors at MUM. Even so, WP:COI requires that editing results in some economic or other direct benefit to the editor, and this has not been shown.
• I truly do not know if they are meatpuppets, planning with each other in RL. I do not know whether they tag-team to force their changes. I do know that they frequently support each other in consecutive Talk or Admin entries. I do not know whether they are editing WP as part of their jobs for the TMM (which violates a WP rule) or as an amateur activity. There is much innuendo (in particular an old Blog posting stating that a group of MUM employees were tasked with 'protecting the truth' about TM on the Web by any means), but no reliable evidence and probably no way to obtain reliable evidence.

The Anti-TM Editors

• The anti-TM editors pursue an agenda of molding the articles to portray what they see as a fringe religious sect that makes dangerous medical claims (I definitely agree with the part about dangerous medical claims and pseudoscience, but disagree that TM or the TMM are in any way religious--this topic is not black and white, not simple and obvious). They see Maharishi Mahesh Yogi as a minor Hindu disciple who did little of real use in his travels and organizations other than to mislead the world into thinking that TM (which they see as simply a relaxation technique or a religion) is of benefit when it is not.
• They are somewhat secretive about their RL affiliations. I get the feeling that some of them may be drawn from the handful of well-known opponents of TM who seed FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) around the Web. Most of these opponents claim (with little or no evidence) that TM is a dangerous cult and that only they can provide proper 'exit counseling'. If this possibility could be proved, it would establish COI violation by such editors.
• The anti-TM editors do not want to be called that. They consider themselves neutral and evidence-based. However, it seems clear to me that they are just as attached to their anti-TM agenda and almost just as willing to engage in wikilawyering.
• Unlike the pro-TM editors, the anti-TM editors usually dispense almost entirely with civility when faced with resistance (particularly Fladrif: Examples, Doc James, and Kala Bethere). They appear to enjoy a 'good fight' in support of Science and Truth. However, they are constantly frustrated with the pro-TM editors, who always respond politely yet firmly.
• While it is true that pro-TM editors have scared non-POV editors away with their obsessive agenda, so have the anti-TM editors with their own obsessive agenda compounded by their bullying or authoritarian 'voice'. Fladrif, for example, one of the bullies on the TMM articles, behaves well in other venues, making significant and intelligent contributions. I can only speculate that his POV causes him to PUSH.
• I do not know if they are meatpuppets, planning with each other in RL. They frequently support each other in consecutive Talk entries.

Evidence presented by Littleolive oil

Desclaimer: I am uncomfortable with a format that’s based on giving evidence against other editors, and I have no wish to harm anyone with my comments. At the same time changes that correct a hostile, combative environment where bias is acted upon and treated as truth, however unconsciously are necessary. I stand by my neutrality, my edits, my attempts to adhere strictly to policy and to create articles that fairly represent sources. I also have an interest in the development of Misplaced Pages itself as one of the first online collaborative projects.

Accused editors I see are expected to “edit for the enemy” to prove their neutrality. I attempt to edit on a middle ground, rather than editing for or against, monitoring content on both sides of the fence, However, these examples come to mind.

• Comments to editor on removing the pejorative comment “nonsense” in reference to John Hagelin
• John Hagelin “crackpot”: I created a rewrite using the term, although removed later based on a suggestion by Will Beback and general agreement. My position on this was to try and create a rewrite that took into account all of the feedback we’d received despite my strong sense that in a BLP “crackpot” was not a good word choice. ,
• Delete then reduce content on awards given to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
• Support agreement to merge MVSC an article I did much of the writing on:

Underlying POV/Bias

Inevitable in collaboration is individual, underlying POV, and bias. Not a concern in itself, unless acted upon in which case bias can undermine the process of creating neutrality, setting an invisible, underlying standard for what is neutral. Civil discussion is the environment for establishing neutrality when bias is apparent. When the civil editor, Ronz, enters TM page discussion, editors work amicably together as in this discussion of external links, "Discussion of External Links" , with my comment on including a link I don't agree with.

Bias against a topic, and editor bias is evident, recently, sometimes accompanied by incivility

• Dbachmann: First statement Fringe Theories /N
• Will Beback follows me to artist Bill Viola assumes a TM connection and accuses me of biased editing. He later apologizes. My concern is the initial bias that would see the edit as non-neutral.

I haven't looked closely at your edits, but this is one of the first I checked. It does not appear to be NPOV. I hope you can explain how it improved the NPOV of an article about an apparent TM practitioner Will Beback talk 06:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC) The edit:

• DBachmann:
• Doc James:
• Kala Bethere
• Science Apologist

Further, paradigms have been established based on POV and bias

As an example of a paradigm built on a personal view or bias, Will Beback possibly innocently, opens his statement to the Arbitration Committee with a pejorative, one- sided definition, establishing a paradigm for the TM organization: He leaves out the 350 peer reviewed studies on the TM technique, 50 peer reviewed studies on the Maharishi Effect (a probable fringe theory although, most of the studies may br considered reliable per this neutral comment collaboration with well respected medical schools and universities, NIH grants of over 25 million dollars, main stream press that documents use of the technique in the schools, and ongoing research like this study seen in the press worldwide.

On the TM articles this bias is prevalent. Editors who do not edit according to this kind of standard/ paradigm, but attempt to add content that creates a balanced view, as I just did above are considered POV pushers, whose agenda is pushing the positive side of TM. In reality, the underlying paradigm was skewed to begin with. Paradigms out of sight are soon forgotten and information based on their scale, becomes the accepted truth and standard.

Add increased incivility to bias and the editing environment takes a turn for the worse.

Fladrif: , Kala Bethere: Dbachmann:

COI and Harassment

In contentious discussion COI accusations and more incivility couched in COI occur so discussion shifts from the edits to the editors. Harassment is used in further attempts to prove COI

In a discussion on deletion of content on Sexie Sadie, Will Beback seems to harass BigWeeBoy. Will ignores this obvious good faith attempt on BigWeeBoy’s part to get input He continues to demand a reason for deletion. BWB responds. I request to reopen the discussion and ask for editor input

Will Bbeback implies content is removed because no one is watching. Repeats again asking why content has been removed adding its poor reflection on anyone agreeing with the move. I request discussion.Will still says there is no explanation despite BWB's attempts to explain. Will seems to ignore BWB comments and continue to insist on his own version of what happened. Bwb's final comment Will brings the issue up on the COIN with his version of what happened

Other harassment on the COI issue.

Will Beback accuses me of hiding personal, oversighted information ( oversighted due to off Misplaced Pages harassment) and uses misguided attempts to prove COI He again, attempts to force admission of COI And defines or redfines COI Fladrif makes constant accusations of COI as here

What's the point?

Misplaced Pages doesn’t block or bann for bias, but what Misplaced Pages must consider is what happens if the core policy NPOV is adjusted or skewed because of bias, and if civil discussion, the only way bias can be sorted out in terms of editing, is interrupted by harassment, accusations, incivility, and whatever else destroys collaboration.

Comment to Science Apologist

I asked to have my user page oversighted because I have been subject to off Misplaced Pages harassment. There are several editors whom I have had the privilege of learning from, sometimes in collaborative situations, and who are more experienced than I, such as Ariel Gold, GTBacchus, and Dreadstar. I have admired them chiefly for their maturity, civility, honesty, and fairness. I would, and could have asked any of the admins I trust for assistance in protecting personal information. Your comments on this have no basis, and are assumptions. You might want to be more careful next time you comment about other editors and their motives.

Evidence presented by ScienceApologist

Here I shall present evidence that there was a concerted and coordinated effort to attack, malign, and attempt to get rid of editors who were not sympathetic to accommodating fringe beliefs in transcendental meditation on the part of multiple editors with a sympathetic POV towards the TM movement.

Little olive oil

• Tries to stifle through combative language legitimate discussion about her problematic editing: , , ,
• Tries to poison the well:
• In a classic Misplaced Pages:Civil POV pushing fashion, pays lip-service to civility in asserting that I'm both civil: but then turns around and accuses me of incivility: within 24 hours.
• Argues for ignoring WP:FRINGE:
• Makes vague threats:

TimidGuy

ChemistryProf

Dreadstar

Far from being an impartial admin, is firmly in a pro-paranormal camp and has at least on one occasion thrown his admin weight to help one of his allies (only partially restoring a user page after a renegged WP:RTV request).

• Implausible deniability:
• Before becoming an admin, Dreadstar made it clear that their sympathies lay with accommodating belief in the paranormal:
• Changes criteria in order to make his recall more difficult: after having established it in response to concerns over his sympathetic treatment to pro-paranormal POVs:
• Threw weight behind the pro-TM side in disputes: some 24 hours after changing his recall criteria.
• Removes content from What the *Bleep* Do We Know as late as December 2009:
• Votes against an adversary in the WTBDWK conflicts in all his RfAs: , in lock step with ally Littleolive oil: ,
• Restored Littleolive oil's talkpage without including previous history using admin tools as a favor to his ally to help her avoid scrutiny in violation of Misplaced Pages policy:
• Attacks another user who dares to suggest that a banned user might be using a sockpuppet: . You may note that this is another ally in the pro-paranormal camp.
• Reopens a discussion to investigate what he deems to be my misbehavior and the accusation he seems forcefully to oppose above:

Evidence presented by ChemistryProf

I will have evidence to insert tonight. More tomorrow

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.