Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:53, 1 March 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)

Rebuttals

Prior to this dispute, TM editors commented on my civility and helpfulness so these accusations of incivility and obstructiveness are a surprise. Much of the evidence they are compiling against me is repetitive.

@BKeithbob -

He links to an RfC on talk:Prem Rawat, but fails to note that the discussion ended in a compromise agreed to by all. That was a successful outcome on an unrelated article.

Kbob's accusation that I've engaged in "ownership" of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is not consistent with reality. I've made only 29 edits, while he alone has made 234. He and the other TM editors that are parties here have made 832 edits, on top of over 800 edits made by now-inactive TM accounts. Combined, the pro-TM editors have made over 1600 of the 2969 total edits to the article.

His assertion that I edited the navigation template incorrectly is contradicted by his own compliments.Template talk:Transcendental Meditation movement

I'll add evidence regarding the MUM stabbing material that was deleted by Kbob.

User talk pages are exactly the right places to talk to editors about potential problems with their editing. See WP:TPG#User talk pages: "...the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user."

It's clear that ChemistryProf is in Fairfield and he calls himself a professor, so the logical deduction is that he is a professor at MUM and thus a colleague of John Hagelin. ChemistryProf was engaged in a heated dispute over Hagelin's biography. I think it was legitimate to ask him to either disclose his connection to Hagelin or withdraw from the dispute. None of the Fairfield TM editors have acknowledged knowing any of the four faculty members about whom we have biographies.

@Hickorybark - Hickorybark has an academic style of expression so it's easy to assume he's also on the faculty of MUM. If so, then he's also John Hagelin's colleague. Hickorybark has edited both the Hagelin bio and the relevant theory article, Flipped SU(5). He complains that I supported the inclusion of the (well-sourced) word "crackpot" but he missed the fact that I later suggested it could be removed in place of more relevant criticism, a compromise to which TM editors agreed.

@Roseapple - This editors has made relatively few contributions, but she too has removed sourced, negative material without discussion. Regarding COI, she has identified as a teacher and created the article on the Maharishi School MSAE in Fairfield, so there is a implication that she is a teacher at the school. I've worked on hundreds of school articles. There's no need to hide an affiliation with a school.

@Bigweeboy - Bwb apparently took offense at being referred to as a "true believer" by another editor, and came to me for redress. I don't know what he expected me to do. I told him, basically, "if the shoe fits, wear it." "True believer" is a term commonly used to refer to hard core members of the movement, and has even been applied to Merv Griffin. I don't see any reason that I should have regarded it as an insult requiring administrative action, and even if it were I would not be the person to act because I'm involved in the topic. Since becoming involved a year ago, I haven't used administrative tools on any of the TM-related articles, so my status as an admin is irrelevant to this case. In my role as an experienced editor, I've warned many editors on all sides about unhelpful behaviors. Bwb accused another editor of being a sock puppet on the basis of making his first edit to a TM-related article, but didn't tell me who he thought the puppetmaster was. I merely pointed out that other editors, including TimidGuy and Olive, have also made their first edits to TM-related articles to show that it is not a meaningful piece of data when taken alone.

@Luke Warmwater101 - I stand by my assertion that Luke made a non-neutral and unhelpful edit when he added, without any prior discussion, a large amount of material on an obscure paper not mentioned in any secondary source and which promoted fringe science. Reducing the size of the entire section devoted to that single paper required a lengthy talk page discussion, in which the TM editors never came to a consensus about even reducing its size.Talk:TM-Sidhi_program#Canada_study The movement has conducted at least 42 such studies on this exact topic, the Maharishi Effect, so giving each one that much weight, even the 140-word paragraph that it's been condensed to, would create a very long and unreadable article and there is no reason to give this particular study extra weight (or really, to even mention it beyond listing it as one of many).

@Littleolive oil - I will include a section in my evidence on the "Sexy Sadie" saga which Olive mentions. For now, Bigweeboy never explained why that song should be removed from the Maharishi bio, despite repeated requests. The fact that he asked people if his private draft was OK, without mentioning any of the changes, does not excuse his non-neutral edits. Separately, Olive has made many charges of harassment and has repeatedly accused me of mis-characterizing her comments. When I've asked her to describe the harassment or point to the mis-characterizations she's refused, sometimes saying that the details would have to wait. I hope that she'll either substantiate those charges now or stop making them.

@ChemistryProf - It's a bit over the top to accuse me of "complicity in WP rule violations". No rule was broken at any time. He and other editors were trying to remove a well-sourced, negative characterization of John Hagelin, who is apparently a close colleague of ChemistryProf and the leader of the US TM movement (Raja of Invincible America). See my comments in "@Hickorybark" above, this is just the same complaint repeated.

@Kevin Carmody - I assume that this account would have been included in the CU/SPI if had not been stale at the time as he says he lives in Fairfield. A person of the same name is on the staff of MUM. Kevin's user page links to a website which a has the most complete overview of all of the TM movement that I've ever seen. is

Evidence presented by Jmh649 (Doc James) (984 words)

To summarize my concern we have a small group of editors associated with the TM movement who have been actively promoting TM while suppressing the general scientific / legal consensus regarding said movement. Issues of WP:CIVIL are minor with the main issues being WP:RS, WP:DUE, WP:COI, WP:AGF and WP:NPOV.

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 issue 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

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

WP:AGF

• KBob sees those who disagree with him as the "enemy" . TimidGuy says that we should use WP:MEDRS sources for health claims which I agree. Yet here TimidGuy and KBob complain about my removal of non compliant sources.

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 all 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

KBob's table: only conclusion it seems is that as time goes on 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?

WRT claims that we have editors on "two sides" if one look at the section on characterizations what we were missing regarding TM was the POV of the US, French, German, and Israel governments. As well as the POV of major scientific figures, religious leaders, and "anti cult" groups. The POV of these organizations is now provided along side the self characterizations made by the TM movement. Carl Sagan has referred 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.

Far fetched aspects of TM were also omitted. For example an "advanced" form of TM which supposedly allows you to fly, makes you invisible, as well as provides eternal life was not discussed. The Maharishi Effect was not mentioned ( where supposedly if enough people practice TM crime will decrease ).

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 coffee house and edit. This is not a violation of WP policy however for the duration of this ArbCom I will edit only from my home to demonstrate my authenticity as a single, independent editor.
• SPI CU 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. Fairfield is a diverse town filled with farmers, all kinds of new age seekers, some do TM, many don't.We should consider carefully before labeling Fairfield a "pro-TM town" based on the market dominance of its IP provider 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 WillBeback, TimidGuy, Jmn649 and KalaBethere 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 before ANI. I am 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. To use an expression from WP:COI have made many "edits for the enemy"

SPI's and Noticeboards (x = participation)

• 2010: Correlated participation between WillBeback, Fladrif, and Jmh649 while "Fairfield editors" had sporadic participation and were outnumbered in all cases except their own SPI. No indication of sock/meat puppet activity ie loading the vote.

• 2009: Correlated participation between WillBeback/Fladrif and likewise with LitlleoliveOil/Keithbob. Other “Fairfield editors” participation is variable with no indication of vote loading despite them outnumbering their opponents in 43% of the cases. Note: KalaBethere, Tuckerj1976, Jmh649, Dbachmann and LukeWarmwater101 had no participation in 2009.

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

CU has determined IP's are unrelated. However, technology that beats the CU system may exist and The7thdr is a determined sock with 5 previous incarnations. I urge the Committee to carefully examine the compelling behavioral evidence in this case and rule in favor of sock and/or meat puppetry.

User:Jmh649 Disruptive Behavior/POV

• In previous ArbCom: edit warring, incivil behavior, “personalizing editorial disputes”. Six-month editing restriction 7/1/09 violated and blocked
• Starting on his first day (Jan 19th) he has been making massive deletions of published research on the TM articles: despite a request for discussion first.
• Threats: "If you continue to make such edits you will be block from editing" and and 3RR
• Strong POV on TM re: cults pseudoscience and opposing editors
• After 30 days Transcendental Meditation is 4th most edited article.

User:Fladrif Disruptive Behavior here

• Blocked: incivility/personal attacks. Edit Warring
• Fladrif accuses me of POV editing and deleting sourced material. However, if you read the talk threads he cites below, 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.

User:Will Beback

WillBeback is civil, highly skilled, and has made many great contributions to WP. He was/is also involved in other contentious articles that feature alternative organizations (PremRewat, LaRouche) and their subsequent ArbComs. A year ago he was admonished , restricted and blocked for improper behavior. Also criticized at Prem Rewat for POV pushing “ should not be allowed to push his opinion against other editors the way we are witnessing currently”.

TM Article Ownership: “I wouldn't want to come back to this article in 2011 and find that it's been removed again” WillBeback created, and has the highest number of edits on, the Transcendental Meditation movement article. He has placed wikilinks to this article in the lead of almost every TM related article and made it the template hub for every TM related article, replacing the prior template hub Transcendental Meditation.

Anti-TM POV: “new religious movement, has been called a cult, and has been accused of promoting fringe theories and pseudoscience, including dubious medical treatments." WillBeback also created the Maharishi University of Management stabbing article and had it featured in the Did You Know section despite objections.

Alignment with editors who share his POV (Fladrif, Jmh649, KalaBethere)

• Requests Email: " you don't have email activated, but if you'd like to chat” and KalaBeThere
• Collaborates with Jmh649 to delete sourced content
• Defends Fladrif's incivilities Defends KalaBethere poor behavior
• Preps Fladrif and KalaBeThere for “formal dispute resolution”.

COI Accusations and Harassment

While I agree with WillBeback's objective of resolving COI issues, I disagree with his methods. Instead of presenting evidence at COIN, Will often harasses editors on their talk page. His method is:

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

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

Redefine WP:COI to suit the situation

• “any editor with a significant commitment to the ”
• “if editors are friends, colleagues or neighbors”
• “do anyone here think that MUM does not have a conflict of interest with regard to MVAH?”

Insult, badger, intimidate Note: I do not condone User:Tothwolf's disruptive behavior.

Mis-characterization of Evidence

• SPI: WillBeback's diff shows that I deleted and asked for discussion. WillBeback reverted and we went to the talk page. Will mis-characterizes this as "3RR violation/edit warring"
• Case page: WillBeback's diff shows I proposed deletion of a paragraph on the MUM lawsuit/stabbing, from the TM article. There was clear consensus. WillBeback and Fladrif were present, but chose not to participate in the discussion. After 7 days I made the change. WillBeback mis-characterizes this as "tag team editing"
• SexySadie: Bigweeboy posts Sandbox version of 'Beatles' section from Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, asks for "feedback". There are no objections, and 7 days later, he inserts the Sandbox version. WillBeback mis-characterizes this as "another case of ignoring outside input"
• PremRewat Arbcom: User:Jayen644 points out 7 "misrepresentations" of evidence by WillBeback resulting "from frustration leading to errors in perception"

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. On TM talk page discussion of Neutrality Tag I wrote that, as 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, again looked at the TM article. I noted tag-team edit-wars by TimidGuy, olive and an IP editor to exclude reliable sources and to misrepresent others The editors involved were faculty members of Maharishi University of Management who had stated that their purpose as editors was to edit the TM articles. WP:COIN had addressed this problem previously, but decisions there were openly defied. The futility of dealing with concerted and coordinated efforts to resist correction of these problems, led me to started a new thread a COIN.

TM Movement employees push the POV of the TM Movement

• The COIN archives document with diffs POV pushing

• Two editors state they are MUM faculty. See SPI. Other editors posts suggest they are also MUM or other TM Org employees, and closely associated with TM Org 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 substituting 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 removing mention of the Maharishi’s first book on Transcendental Meditation, a “banned book” within the TM Org. .

-Trying to delete text that the TM-Sidhi program claims to enable invisibility, walking through walls, superhuman strength, flying, etc...first claiming bias, then falsely claiming that the reliable source (JAMA) didn't mention TM-Sidhi, then wikilawyering that it would be copyright infringement to cite the source.

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, not confined to Misplaced Pages.

TimidGuy is the 76.76 sockpuppet; dissembled at COIN, initially lied at SPI before later admitting it..

TM Org editors create a hostile editing environment

• TM-Org editors create hostile editing environment, including continual accusations against unaffiliated editors and administrators of bias, intimidation and incivility, baseless COI accusations, and tendatious refusal to comply with admin directions or to conform to noticeboard consensus.

• KBob's frivolous sockpuppetry allegations, which he persists in even after disproven by CheckUser!

• 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 and/or off-line connection to the TM editors, making his involvement and use of adminstrator tools questionable and abusive. Aggressively defends TM Org editors over many articles and many years, frequently using threats to intimidate other editors. Numerous mash notes on other TM Org editor's talk pages, and extensive off-wiki communications. Statement at SPI that he had confidential information about them. Multiple editors and admins have noted and commented on this connection, bias and abuse.

Responses & Rebuttal

@ KBob Re Doc James

Doc's edits were pursuant to WP:MEDRS and unanimous consensus of uninvolved editors and admins at Fringe Theories, the Reliable Sources and Project Medicine Noticeboards, which TM Org editors continue to ignore. Fladrif (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

@KBob Re Me

I do not suffer fools gladly. I have had my hand slapped as a result. Nobody's perfect. I stand by the substance of every cited diff.

@ TimidGuy

• Insists on editing depite COI because there are no neutral editors.
• Continues to prevaricate about lying at SPI about the 76.76 sockpuppet, where he wrote:

"I have used two different sock puppets in the past... One was inspired by Philosophus, ... I used it for three edits but ...got blocked after that third edit. And I created a second sock at one point for editing some technology articles, but it's long since been abandoned." TimidGuy (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

@ Hickorybark

• Writes WillBeback is hostile and ignorant and I'm mistaken and deranged - special pleading repeatedly asserted TG, HB, olive and ChemistryProf. They alone are qualified to edit; all other editors and sources are mistaken, uninformed and biased. All other editors are uncivil. Occams razor explains this:
• Who will edit Flipped SU(5) if not Hagelin colleagues? Someone who won't plagarize, perhaps. Fladrif (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
• MUM stabbing shows no bias. Many other campus crime articles.

@ Dreadstar

Incorrect timing on your bogus outing ban; my mistake. Withdrawn.

• Wikistalking charge is absurd; TimidGuy and I worked cooperatively and cordially on Warnborough. Was I also wikistalking Orlady?
• COI claims evidence fundamental misunderstanding of COI policy and a lack of judgment to apply admin tools. No demand that TM-Org editors stop editing the TM articles, so not a good faith argument.
• Asked TG if he had connection to Warnborough in light of his "burnishing" its reputation.(Orlady's assessment) I asked; he said no. The end. Not a good faith position by DS.
• WP:Call a spade a spade applies. Crying incivility is SOP to avoid scrutiny of their own editing. Each cited comment in-context, shows that TM_Org editors delete, misconstrue, and lie about reliable sources; substitute OR, self-published primary sources and personal opinion, make legal threats, wikilawyer, tendatiously edit, defy policy and consensus, defy neutral administrators, edit war and more. That is the threat to the Misplaced Pages's integrity, not pointing out the threat in strong tones. Fladrif (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

@ David Spector

• David previously posted that Will Beback is a neutral editor.
• I have no connection, past or present, with TM, any of its competitors, nor any org opposed to it. WillBeback has said the same.
• Agree that an editor employed by a TM competitor or org opposing TM, has a COI. Such editors should, as David does, not edit directly.

@ ChemistryProf

Hagelin discussion was TM-Org edit war to remove reliably-sourced assessments of Hagelin and his research. CP's objective was to "neutralize" the criticism. Uninvolved third party said CP was emotional. WillBeback's role was completely neutral and civil.

@ "Precautionary"

Drug company conspiracy? CP also claimed this} I have no connection to Pharma.

@ Durova

IUB filings related to CLEC service only; no conclusion can be reached re count of LISCO ISP customers.

Evidence presented by Kala Bethere

Sockpuppet investigation started by Kbob closed when found to be unquestionably  Unrelated.

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)

User Kbob's accusations were found to be unfounded and the alleged "socks" unrelated in any way by two Checkusers. "* I agree that the users are unquestionably  Unrelated.Brandon (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

{{SPIclose|archive}}"... was the conclusion of the final Checkuser.--Kala Bethere (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism by Primary Sources

WP defines "Vandalism" as any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages." A popular method of Vandalism by TM-advocates is to insert many different scientific papers...often penned by TM movement employees or TM associates. These constitute blatant insertion of primary sources and a deliberate attempt to comprise the integrity of WP. Therefore such deliberate acts constitute vandalism and go against the spirit of WP policies.

Here's a relatively brief list of editors deliberately vandalizing the Transcendental Meditation entry by adding Primary sources, all by well-known TM movement affiliates. As I have time and resources, I will add others. Please feel free to use my user page for examples I may have missed.:

TimidGuy Wallace RK. Physiological effects of Transcendental Meditation; Wallace RK, A wakeful hypometabolic physiologic state. American Journal of Physiology ; Travis, F. T., Tecce, J., Arenander, A., & Wallace, R. K. (2002); TimidGuy, Physiological differences between Transcendental Meditation and rest

TimidGuy, Electrophysiological correlates of higher states of consciousness during sleep in long-term practitioners of the Transcendental Meditation program, Patterns of EEG coherence, power, and contingent negative variation characterize the integration of transcendental and waking states, Psychological and physiological characteristics of a proposed object-referral/self-referral continuum of self-awareness,

76.76.233.169 adds avis, F.T. & Wallace, R.K. (1999). EEG and Autonomic Patterns during Eyes-Closed Rest and Transcendental Meditation Practice: The Basis for a Neural Model of TM practice after KeithBob had added a sentence describing it.

At my start of posting to TM-related entries on WP, I was amazed at the amount of primary sources being used. I also found solid opposition by the defendants in the TM-org related IP sockpuppets case's seemingly organized opposition to the removal of these violations of WP use of sources, where bias and primary sources hold little value.

I posted some of these to the TM entry talk pages. TM-related users began immediately trying to modify them. So I began collating lists of primary sources on my user page. It has been helpful, as it turns out that such sources were badly in need of removal and replacement with reliable, independent reviews, which were already commonly available for decades, with some being quite recent. I could see in the past inclusion of these reviews had been contentious, much of their conclusions had been removed slowly over time as the core group of TM editors controlled content, esp. as disgruntled reformers would eventually leave, it appears due to consistent pressure from these same TM sockpuppet defendants.

I will try to add more diffs as my limited time allows. I came to WP hoping to participate in editing of numerous subjects, but have found that editing of the TM-related entries has become not only all-consuming of my time here, but uses more time than I can normally provide. I again encourage other parties to share any of the above incidents, as diffs, on my talk page.

I thank you in advance, --Kala Bethere (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Harassment and the Use of Pseudo-civility-as-a-weapon

At the beginning of this case, user Kbob tried to deflect my time and energy by falsely accusing me and Tucker, along with other old WP editors, of Sockpuppetry, a serious lapse in ethical editorial standards. While I was exonerated from any such charges, I feel it was an attempt to harass me. It was mostly in the form of User space harassment under the veil of "civility". It's real goal was to create a "wall of shame" on places other users would be likely to look.

I am no expert on the past uncivil editors of the TM-related WP entries, but a simple perusal of these persons writings I was accused of sockpuppeting showed a very different style, approach, a Thelemic tone and IP addresses which seemed to come from England or Great Britain.

I believe these personal attacks were merely a way to deflect Kbob's own sockpuppetry.--Kala Bethere (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Tuckerj76

What an insult to poor Kala Bethere

See here ], and here ] for rebuttal and results (Which Kbob refuses to update for some reason) Tucker 05:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

TM organization editors attempt to intimidate none organization editors away from the page on arrival

I created this account on: 17:28, 7 February 2010. My first edit was (unfortunately for me to the talk-page of the TM article here ]. I simply added a reference that I had found for the attention of the editors (as can be seen most of edits have been directly to the talk-page for discussion and not to the article) ]. (I have made only about 15 changes to the article and most of these have been correcting formatting, typos and a revert of what I thought at the time was one case vandalism)

Within 7 days one of the confirmed TM sock-puppets seems to attempt to begin the process of harassment to get me to stop contributing ]

Within another day I am added to this arbitration (of which I know nothing about as an involved party by a TM organiosation sockpuppet ] I am added with the words that I am Curiously Missing, an odd choice of words ]

Within a further day TM org editors are attempting to get me and another user banned from WIKI editing by accusing us of being both the same editor ]

Within a further day these users have manged to conduct a detailed investigation and attempt to fabricate evidence that we are the same editor. They then formulate an official SPI ]

Once the results of this are concluded and published they continue to harass both editors by claiming the results are untrue ].

They then continue to harass both me and the other party (examples include: ], ],

Other examples of this tactic to scare-off none TM organization editors seemingly critical of the movement include with inuendo and legal scare tactics: ], ].

Tucker 19:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Innuendo begins against the Clerks of this case!

As a continuation of the evidence above: Note that TM organization editors have taken an unusual interest (and amount of resources)in my edit history, even counting my word count here and attempting to get an Clerk here to tell me (in this case correctly) to shorten it ]. They made no such plea with their fellow organization members. And when they felt that the Clerk had not sanctioned me regarding this (although he/she did indeed inform me ] per wiki guidelines)? They begin the innuendo and veiled threats against one of the Clerks here! Suggesting (in this now deleted comment (in an attempt,pt to hide it?) by Kbob that the Clerk in question appeared to be giving me "special treatment" ]

Tucker 19:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Further rebuttal to Kbob regarding Tuck Sockpuppets

Well, all I can say is that he/she/it can't have been very good with this technology you cite if they were found to have had 5 sock puppets so quickly in the past. To be truthful this is getting just a little embarrassing now don't you think? Kbob has been PROVEN to be a sock puppet by IP alone (never-mind editing behavior). This desperate attempt to deflect the issue and attention from the Fairfield editors is becoming a little obvious. I might also add, that this is looking a lot more like "harassment" of Kala Bethere (together with the comments from BWB, Olive Oil and Kbob already referenced), then the harassment they keep accusing everyone else of inflecting on them The SPI is closed, find something else. Tucker 18:38, 26 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 common to Timidguy and has been used to scare off a few editors. Tuckerj1976 (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Rebuttal to Hickorybark

See here ] And also: @Hickorybark Can I ask a question by the way? ( As someone who lectures in science methodology at a postgraduate level (for 40 years): do you teach your students the following

"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 11".

, 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!12"

Tucker 22:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Rebuttal to The David Spector ref The Anti-TM Editors

See here ]. Tucker 05:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

KeithBob: SPI's and Noticeboards (x = participation)

Your table (POV Pushing Team) proves what exactly? I am a little confused. Tucker 05:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit. Sorry, having discussed this with Kbob ob this talk-page ] I think I now understand the reason for the table. As I said here:

"You are saying with this table that you believe the largest "POV, tag-teaming" team on the TM articles is yourself, TimidGuy, Littleolive, Bigweeboy, LukeWarm and ChemProf?" (given that they number the most on the table at a count of 6)]

Tucker 06:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Rebuttal BWB:

"As it apparent from my editing history, TM is one of my main interests but I have edited over 1400 different articles" ]

And like Keithbob his top Article edits would be?

# 387 - Transcendental_Meditation
# 157 - John_Hagelin
# 136 - Maharishi_Vedic_Approach_to_Health
# 127 - TM-Sidhi_program
# 124 - Maharishi_Mahesh_Yogi
# 113 - Maharishi_University_of_Management
# 67 - Transcendental_Meditation_movement

]

His top talkpage edits?

# 28 - Bigweeboy
# 20 - Fladrif
# 15 - Will_Beback
# 12 - Kala_Bethere
# 9 - Throwaway85/PIRAdraft
# 6 - Keithbob

] His top userpage interactions?

   * 24 - Bigweeboy
   * 8 - Throwaway85/PIRAdraft
   * 6 - Bigweeboy/Sandbox
   * 2 - Keithbob/Sandbox
   * 2 - Littleolive_oil/Sandbox
   * 1 - Littleolive_oil/Sandbox2
   * 1 - Keithbob

] Tuckerj1976 21:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Mantra

Final comment (more of a question really and perhaps a little humorous)

I have read all of the evidence here and a question has arisen while contemplating the Fairfield residents evidence: Considering the frequency with which they are used, the words/phrases: Harassment, Peer-review, biased research/journalism against TM and Coincidence, are these TM mantras? Tucker 18:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Abridged and Revised Evidence presented by Hickorybark

My original statement is here.

COI and NPOV

In initiating this hearing, Will Beback appears to be seeking administrative license to dominate the TM-related articles by suppressing responsible, informed contributors and asserting his own opinions, 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.

What has led Beback astray, I believe, is his apparent lack of 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 his

• reluctance to defer to mainstream institutions and procedures for conferring scientific legitimacy;

• 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;

• inappropriate fishing for personal information: Hickorybark is "invited to disclose …” and “Hickorybark has an academic style of expression so it's easy to assume he's also on the faculty of MUM.” (I am not, and I have sent my personal information to ArbCom.)

Astonishingly, Beback is so intent on pinning down COI that he is totally uninterested in my having the expertise to upgrade the problematic Flipped SU(5) page. If he succeeds in getting me banned, who will he find to do content-editing on Flipped SU(5) who doesn’t know (and respect) John Hagelin? Interest becomes COI when it results in advocacy and POV-pushing. In science, personal circumstances, affiliations, etc. do not invalidate research, provided proper scientific method is adhered to. Similar considerations apply to encyclopedia editing: the maturity of the editors, their willingness to work collaboratively and their ability to edit from a NPOV can outweigh circumstantial evidence of COI. This is true in real-world determinations of COI and is especially true for Misplaced Pages, where the protection of privacy and the presumption of good faith have made it possible for a large and enthusiastic community of knowledgeable, informed and qualified editors to produce an impressive compilation of high-quality articles.

Mainstream acceptance of TM

A ball-park sense of where the truth lies in a contentious dispute—or more precisely, where the reasonable, mainstream perception of the truth lies—can help to determine whether an editor is being obstructionist or responsible, engaging in advocacy or hewing to the NPOV. We can use as our guide Jimmy Wales’ understanding that, “NPOV does not require us to present all these views as if they are equal! This is one of the things that's hardest to remember about NPOV. If a view is the majority view of a broad consensus of scientists, then we say so.”

Beback's anti-TM editing and the prominence he gives to hostile sources is inconsistent with the mainstream validity the TM organization has acquired and merited. The scientific legitimacy of the Transcendental Meditation program has been earned through a substantial body of peer-reviewed publications, conducted at dozens of universities and research institutions over the last 40 years, leading to tens of millions of dollars in competitive research grant funding. Beback is engaging in advocacy by overriding the peer-review process, thereby dismissing the judgment of hundreds of journal editors and reviewers, and numerous grant referees , as in “there are systematic problems” with the TM research, and “most of those studies have been conducted by the faculty of MUM.”]

Further evidence that the TM 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. By creating an article exclusively devoted to the "Maharishi University of Management stabbing," Beback is aggressively POV-pushing. Every college and university in America has problems with violent crime without getting comparable treatment in Misplaced Pages's pages. Harvard’s article, for example, has no mention of murder or crime, or even lawsuits of any kind. Nor does it mention Harvard's high suicide rate.

Validity of content

Although I have not been active on the core TM articles, a quick review shows that they read like lurid gossip columns. On the Transcendental Meditation page (Access date: 2/27/2010), there are 19 references to "cult" or "occult," and 30 references to "religion," which is surprising since neither the mainstream press nor any TM-organization characterizes TM as a religion. It may be noteworthy that there are people who label TM a religion, but why do Beback, Fladrif and Kala Bethere make that the dominant theme? A 30-year old court case (Malnak v. Yogi) is referenced 11 times, including in a section heading devoted to the topic, even though school principals, boards and the public are largely ignoring that case and have adopted TM in a significant number of schools in the USA.

By contrast, the Jim Jones article mentions "cult" only six times, even though his group is the paradigm case of a cult, and it resulted in more than 900 deaths. The Hamas page never mentions "cult," even though it psychologically entrains teenagers for murder and suicide and critics frequently refer to Hamas as a "death-cult." All but one of the "Other Sites" links is to positive or neutral websites, whereas on the TM page, fully half of the links to "Further Reading" are hostile, including "TM and Cult Mania" and the "Demon-Haunted World."

Additionally, there is prima facie evidence of collusion between anti-TM editors and this anti-TM blog, funded for the sole purpose of discrediting the TM organization. Note that this blog had detailed information about the upcoming TM Arbitration on January 29, a full 17 days before I was notified.

Conclusion

The “cult/pseudoscience” POV of the anti-TM editors is far removed from the mainstream scientific consensus regarding the validity of the TM research and from the general public’s view of the TM organization as established, responsible and respected in the fields of meditation, meditation research and alternative health generally. Consequently, the COI charges underpinning the current investigation are a “red herring,” a diversion intended to distract attention away from the real problem, which is the use of WP pages to attack and discredit the TM organization. Hickorybark (talk) 21:20, 1 March 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

As it apparent from my editing history, TM is one of my main interests but I have edited over 1400 different articles. On close examination, you will see that a good percentage of my edits are grammatical, correction of punctuation or spelling, rewording, or reformatting, even on the TM related articles.

Sockpuppet Case

I am not a Sockpuppet. I am my own man and I edit on my own as shown by my edit history. I do not influence other Wiki editors on what, where and when to edit, and no other editors influences me on what, where and when to edit. I try to follow Wiki guidelines to the best of my ability and respond to other editors in a civil manner. I enjoy the lively discussion on the TM related talk pages, and this is part of my motivation to keep coming back. I sometimes think of the editors on these pages as characters in a soap-opera, and enjoy seeing the roles develop over time.

Frankly, I was surprised by the resent accusation of Sockpuppetry. I am not sure how much IP history Wiki keeps for each editor, by if the investigator of the recent case had reviewed my IP activity over a number of months, it would be plainly obvious that I am not a sock. In fact, I have been editing from the United Kingdom from about December 20. During this period, there have been numerous edits from other editors whom I am supposed to be in sockpuppetry with - Timid, Olive, Kbob - so a brief review of the IP records will show the accusation to be completely false. You are welcome to investigate my current IP address.

As I mentioned in the Sockpuppet investigation, in June 2009 I signed an edited as BwB while logged into an account (Mrsjolly) I had set up for my wife. I told the story of this on my talk page here

On 13 July 2009, while visiting a friend in Fairfield, I made 2 talk-page comments signed as BwB that showed up as IP address 76.76.228.104 - one on the TM-Sidhi talk page, and one on the TM talk page.

I am editing this section on Friday, 26 Febraury while logged out so my IP will be visible. BwB at --213.6.99.249 (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

And now logged in as Bwb. --BwB (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Will Beback's non-Admin-like editing

I am sorry that Will felt it necessary to bring this case to Arb, but am glad that this issue can be brought to others attention. As others have mentioned, Will is an intelligent editor. However, I think that, as an administrator, he may have become too involved in the content of the TM related articles and lately in the more heated debate on the talk pages. Perhaps if he had tried to apply more of his administrator knowledge and skills to these contentious articles and talk pages, some of the edit warring, name-calling, polarization of editors and uncivil behaviour could have been avoided. The following are examples of actions that failed to promote consensus and civility:

1. Will supports and protects editors who support his POV. He also silently supports their bad behavior against editors who do not share his POV. When I posted on Will's User Page the derogatory use of the term "True Believers" made by Kala Bethere, Will Beback's response was to accuse me of COI. WillBeback then attacked me by posting on my UserPage ""Teacher, teacher - Johnny insulted me! He said I'm dirty. Well, Peter, you are covered in mud. Are you complaining about the content of the statement or just about the way it was expressed?" This was not the best way to deal with the issue I presented.

2. When Kala Bethere made more derogatory comments to me, on Will BeBack's UserPage, Will tells Kala Bethere to "take the high road" and avoid becoming an "edit warrior", but makes no effort to correct Kala Bethere's incivility.

3. When I posted on Will Beback's UserPage about the possibility of KalaBethere being a sock puppet, he defended Kala by investigating the edit history of Littleolive oil and TimidGuy.

4. As Olive describes in her evidence below, Will took me to task about the reworking of the Beatles section of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi article, even though I had posted my revisions to a Sandbox and invited others to participate.

I may have misspoken by saying that BeBack took this case to ArbCom. He did not take the case to the ArbCom. It was MuZemike who did so. Sorry for that error. --BwB (talk) 09:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Uncivil Editors

Here are some examples of uncivil comments towards other editors on talk pages or edits to articles that have received no censure from BeBack:

Kala BeThere

Kala Bethere is guilty of repeated incivility.

“the utter disgust and contempt I have for, alleged, "omission by silence" editors”

“Littleolive Oil……. I think you need to have a long, hard look in the mirror”

“Littleolive, quick, go look in the mirror! Your nose, it's growing!”

“Poor Littleolive Oil still is beating her ‘peer review’ dead horse if as if she didn't hear. If you've ever spent any time around TM True Believers, this exact same "peer review" card is a common one commonly dragged out, as is the ‘I didn't hear you" excuse’”

“Sadly for your argument Little Olive Oil………. What are you trying to hide other than your admitted COI?”

Fladrif

There are numerous uncivil comments from Fladrif directed towards me and other editors. I will not take the committee's time with a long list, a recent example with suffice where he calls me "clueless":

"The lawsuit by Hendel was dismissed BECAUSE TM and TM-Sidi were found to be a religion!!!!! 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. This material is going back in.Fladrif (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion

I am not a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. I am a neutral, independent editor who endeavors to followed Wiki guidelines and to be civil to other editors, while focusing on the content of the articles. Since I have no control over the Wiki activities of other editors, I request that my individual edits be judged on their own merits, and that my record is considered seperately and distinctly.

I welcome this arbitration and look forward to participating as much as I can given my current busy schedule.

My understanding is that the focus of the process is to determine if the named editors edit the TM related articles with a COI, and will not be focused on whether or not the TM technique is a religion, or TM-Sidhi related research is pseudoscience, or if the TM Movement is a cult, or if the Maharishi is a saint or scoundrel, all of which are irrelevant to my editing history. --BwB (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

@Hickory - Thanks for this articulate and compelling argument, outlining the anti-TM POV editing in the TM related articles. --BwB (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

@Durove - Thanks for the IP analysis.

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.

Fladrif has obtained Iowa government reports on filings of LISCO utility revenue taxes. The figure at the company's website appears to be a cumulative total of all the customers the company has ever had. Based upon the assessment rate, LISCO grossed $268,000 in 2008. That translates to an active customer base of only a few hundred people.

LISCO IP ranges

It has been debated at this arbitration whether the Maharishi University of Management and the LISCO ISP truly parallel the circumstances of the Scientology arbitration. The Church of Scientology itself had its own dedicated IP addresses; that affected the case remedies. LISCO is a very small ISP which has few customers other than the Maharishi University of Management; LISCO's ownership apparently has ties to the TM movement. So a key question is whether the MUM-LISCO relationship may be treated as functionally equivalent to the Scientology IP addresses. One way to resolve that is to survey unlogged edits by LISCO IP addresses.

According to this report and the Soxred range contributor search, LISCO IPs and unlogged edits are:

• 69.18.0.0/18 (16384 possible IPs)
• 216.251.32.0/20 (4096 possible IPs)

Taken as an aggregate, these unlogged IP edits do not behave like a single purpose account. The majority of unlogged LISCO edits are not to TM topics.

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 (some of whom appear to be involved in this dispute). 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. For background on my published research on the TM movement’s fraudulent and deceptive practices, please see: ]

Evidence of Dishonest Editing by Kbob

In his effort to defend censoring out information attributed to my JAMA article, Kbob strung together a string of outrageous falsehoods:]

"I also suggest we remove the sentence: as the reference source given is a JAMA news article on Maharishi Ayurveda and the TM-Sidhi program is never mentioned in the article. Also 'promotional posters' are never mentioned either."

I discussed the TM-Sidhi program in 5 different places in my article (Skolnick AA. Maharishi Ayur-Veda: guru's marketing scheme promises the world eternal 'perfect health.' JAMA.1991;266:1741-1750.), including a quote from JAMA's editor Dr. George Lundberg explaining how the journal had been deceived by TM authors into publishing a PR piece:

"At that time, we did not know that 'Maharishi AyurVeda,' 'Transcendental Meditation,' and the 'TM-Sidhi' programs promoted in the article are brands of health care products and services being marketed by the TM movement."

I also reported how lucrative the TM-Sidhi program has been for the Maharishi:

One extremely profitable example, reported in The Skeptical Inquirer (1980; 4:7-8), involved the rental of a gymnasium at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst during the summer of 1979 for TM's yogic flying courses. Three thousand students enrolled, one third of whom paid $3000 each to learn the Maharishi's TM-Sidhi program. According to promotional materials, the TM-Sidhi program allows one to master the forces of nature to become invisible, walk through walls, fly through the air, and have "the strength of an elephant." The Skeptical Inquirer article says that the other students learned more down-to-earth TM skills for $800-$1000 tuition and that the TM movement reaped between $3 million and $5 million, before expenses, from the courses at the University of Massachusetts."

The latter shows Kbob's second blatant falsehood. I clearly discussed TM's "promotional materials" that claim the TM-Sidhi program allows one to master the forces of nature to become invisible, walk through walls, fly through the air, and have 'the strength of an elephant.'"

Other editors tried to inform Kbob of his errors with citations from my article, Kbob ignored them and continued to assert his false claim despite documentation to the contrary.

Kbob then topped it off with a final falsehood, implying that I wrote a possibly vindictive article because I had been sued by TM. That statement twists the facts far enough around to be considered libelous:

"Furthermore this article is written by Mr. Andrew Skolnick who was involved in a law suit with Maharishi Ayurveda so he is hardly a nuetral source for information."

I did not write the JAMA article on the deception of TM researchers because I was sued. I was sued because I wrote an article the TM movement wants badly to discredit. Kbob once again highlights TM's strategy: Sue critical reporters and then claim they had an "axe to grind" because we sued them.

If there is one "superpower" achieved through advanced TM training it is the power to tirelessly lie through one's teeth, as this shameless example demonstrates.

Evidence of Dishonest Editing by Little Oliveoil

In trying to delete information sourced to James Randi, a world-renowned authority on paranormal claims, Little Oliveoil deceptively claimed, "Randi is not a reliable source. He has a high school education and was a magician." ] Kbob followed that by repeating a slur written by mystery novel author Michael Presscott -- hardly an authority on the the physics of "yogic flying" or any other area of science: "From What I can tell Randi really is the Flim Flam man."

What is flim flam are efforts of the TM movement to censor Misplaced Pages though edit warring and ad hominem and dishonest attacks against TM's critics. For those who may not know why Randi is considered a leading authority on the deception used by paranormal scam artists, here are a few facts: Randi is a recipient of the prestigious and coveted MacArthur ("Genius Award") Fellowship. Among many other honors, he has received the Forum Award from the American Physical Society, the Humanist Distinguished Service Award from the American Humanist Association, honorary degrees from colleges and universities, and countless other awards for his work exposing the criminal acts and wrong doing of con artists who prey on people's ignorance and gullibililty. His writings have appeared in major periodicals throughout the world -- Nature, New Scientist, the New York Times, Encyclopaedia Britannica Medical & Health Annual, Compton's Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Americana, Physics and Society, Technology Review, Los Angeles Times, to name a few.

This is the authority two TMers here tried to discredit as "a magician with only a high school education" and a "Flim Flam man." As long as TM's attack dogs are allowed to keep rewriting Misplaced Pages articles, this battle will continue ad nauseum and drive away contributors who decide to spend their time on more constructive projects.

Rebuttal to Kevin Carmody

Please see ]

Rebuttal to Hickorybark

Please see ]

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

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. I assumed good faith, assumed that he wanted to set a high standard for the article, even though MEDRS doesn't require that all primary sources be removed. 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. He also added a claim that the effects of TM aren't substantiated by science that's from a 30-year-old book by James Rand.

Doc deliberately misrepresents sources. He wrote that TM worsens hypertension and cited the ARRQ review, but the source says the opposite in the Results section of the abstract (see p, v). He misrepresented a 2008 research review he added to the article. He wrote, “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.” Using magician James Randi's website as a source, Doc wrote 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." When Doc added the blog as source, he misrepresented what it said. It talks about a single studywhereas 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 deliberately 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

Responses to other accusations

Please see my brief rebuttals page.

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 a hostile and abusive editor who continually makes uncivil remarks and personal attacks. This is a long-term pattern of behavior since his involvement with TM articles over a year ago. Fladrif has been warned by several administrators about his behavior, and blocked twice for personal attacks. Fladrif's bad behavior is so consistent that he had to be warned to be on his 'best behavior' for the upcoming RFARB. Even after this warning, Fladrif was unable to contain his vitriol and continued to make uncivil comments.

User:Fladrif seems 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. Fladrif's first COI accusation against TimidGuy was in reference to Warnborough College, unrelated to TM. 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. These are in no special order:

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 was monitoring the page long before then., and before Fladrif’s first edits there.. 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 also misstates 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 first edits to TM, where 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. The diff he presents does not show me as being on a "first name basis" with User:Sparaig; "Hey Andrew.." is the automatically added section title where I added a Template:Unsigned. "Hey Andrew" is User:Sparaig on a first-name basis with User:Askolnick.

Response to Jmh649 (Doc James)

• My inclusion in this list is far-fetched; even a casual look at my history shows that I’m not an editor who ‘primarily edits TM related pages'. I cannot agree that What the Bleep Do We Know!? is a TM article – it mentions the subject, sure, but it’s not about or produced by TM. I edited it because I had just seen the film, looked it up on WP, and saw a lot of OR and incorrect information in our article, certainly not because it included TM. It is on my list of top-edited articles because it required a lot of clean-up and discussion.

Evidence presented by David Spector

I depart from the assertions/diffs organization in my section, as others have already provided useful diffs and I want to present a good, neutral statement of the problem.

Note: I object to using Scientology as the governing precedent since there are significant factual differences between these two cases.

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.

The editors are unwilling to admit 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 that show many benefits from practicing TM. Since most of these studies are self-conducted by TM advocates, this isn't enough to convince mainstream scientists and medical researchers. In the face of such ambiguities, a good encyclopedia should simply report both POVs and/or present a summary of the research and its limitations and criticisms. Arguing about the research yields only deadlock. Good editing of any controversial article requires cooperation between editors, exactly what has been lacking here for years.

Here are specific assessments of the two sides in this stalemate:

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 primarily 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 cherrypicking and wikilawyering) to justify their editing decisions. They seem completely unaware of their WP violations.
• They clearly believe that they are doing important work, providing reliable information showing the many benefits of TM.
• They have been extremely secretive, avoiding admission of their organizational affiliations. However, it is now known that at the very least, two are professors at MUM.
• No one knows if they are meatpuppets, planning with each other in RL. No one knows whether they tag-team to force their changes to stick. They do 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 would violate WP:COI) 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 and relies on pseudoscience. I definitely agree with the part about dangerous medical claims, such as that whispering a sound can cure cancer (in MVVT), and pseudoscience, such as invoking the Meissner effect when explaining the Maharishi effect and 'invicibility', but disagree that TM or the TMM are in any way religious or lacking in benefit. These editors claim that their objections to TM are obvious; they aren't. I suspect that some of them see Maharishi Mahesh Yogi as a money-making charlatan, which he most certainly was not. I suspect that some of them see TM as disguised Hinduism; actual Hindus would disagree, as do I. I suspect that some of them see TM as just relaxation; this would not account for its many benefits.
• Most are secretive about their RL affiliations. Some of them may be drawn from the well-known opponents of TM whose agenda is to spread negativity about TM. Some of these opponents claim (with little or no evidence) that TM is a dangerous cult and that only they can provide proper 'exit counseling' or rehabilitation. Of course, such an identification would establish COI violation.
• 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. They seem completely unaware of their WP violations, including alternate WP:PUSH and WP:UNCIVIL.
• Unlike the pro-TM editors, the anti-TM editors dispense with civility when faced with any resistance to their authoritarianism (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, authoritarian 'voice'. Fladrif, for example, one of the bullies, behaves well in other venues, making significant and intelligent contributions. I speculate that a hidden 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.

Responses

My responses are included here by reference.

Evidence presented by Littleolive oil

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.

I attempt to edit on a middle ground, rather than editing for or against, monitoring content on both sides of the fence. These examples come to mind.

• Comments removing the pejorative comment “nonsense” in BLP
• John Hagelin “crackpot”: I created a rewrite using the term, despite my 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:
• Addition of pejorative content on religion
• Removing advert like material, POV content MUM
• Attempts to compromise

Underlying POV/Bias

Inevitable in collaboration is individual, underlying POV, and bias. If acted upon 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",

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 to describe 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 be considered reliable per this neutral comment collaboration with well respected medical schools and universities, NIH grants of over 25 million dollars, mainstream 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 balance, 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.

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.

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 a 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

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.
• Additional COI accusations, and attempts to have editors admit to affiliations so CO accusations can be applied:

-Fringe theories NoticeBoard

-Kbob's user page

-My user page page

-BWB's user page (thread)page

-And even during arbitration

I believe Will means well, but the end he desires and defines does not justify the means he employs.

Fladrif makes accusations of COI as here

What's the point?

Misplaced Pages doesn’t block or ban 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 Will Beback One can be both helpful and civil but also engage in behaviours that are a concern. My own concerns can not have been a surprise since Will Beback recently discussed them in other places. Will Beback makes multiple assumptions. Can he support them.

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

• Argues that transcendental meditation as a subject is not subject to WP:FRINGE:
• Bait-and-switch technique. Focuses on the secondary nature of sources rather than looking for independent sourcing, in effect providing a biased source list (generally his tactic): , , , , , .

ChemistryProf

• Acting as an attack dog: , .
• Even to the point of editing his own comments to make them more inflammatory:
• Proposes a revamping of Misplaced Pages guidelines (likely WP:PSTS) to fit his POV-pushing:
• Then attacks the entire project:
• Does not seem responsive to the advice I gave: that he take a less combative role:

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

Not a sockpuppet or meatpuppet

I am an independent editor. I edit neutrally and follow the WP guidelines, with the main goal of increasing the accuracy and respectability of Misplaced Pages (for an example, see ). I work with other editors and compromise often. My sporadic editing on WP began about three years ago and has been largely restricted to two or three of the articles connected with the Transcendental Meditation (TM) technique, including the BLP article on John Hagelin. I am aware that this makes me appear to be a “single purpose editor,” and my only excuse is that I have limited time to devote to WP editing, only becoming an editor when I saw what appeared to be imbalanced and unfair treatment of these topics. From the start, my notion has been to help bring these articles to WP Featured status. I soon discovered that genuine cooperation from anti-TM editors is rare.

Focus on science

My edits have focused largely on the science content. I am an active research scientist and have read most of the research papers and reviews on TM and its related topics. I prefer precision and accuracy in presenting the science content (for example, see here ). Oversimplification often confuses the main issues. While my critical discussion has sometimes veered toward the other editors for what appears to be their non-neutral point of view, I refrain from ad hominem attacks and insinuations of incompetence. I am always happy to cooperate with editors that show an effort to see a topic from many angles and to work together to find the most ideal expression and the most reliable sources.

Rebuttal of Jmh649 ("Doc James")

Jmh649 (Doc James) claims in his evidence statement that the following edits were attempts to “weaken the conclusion” regarding effects of the TM program., , and . (The latter two are actually the work of TimidGuy, but I supported them on talk pages.) All these changes were attempts to represent the source more accurately and more comprehensively. In an earlier discussion, Doc James had agreed that since this source was a government report it was not peer reviewed. A main conclusion of the source was that the “majority of meditation research is of poor methodological quality” not that the “evidence base is of poor methodological quality.” Also, had I been more thorough in these corrections, I might have removed the parenthetical “including Transcendental Meditation” because there was no specific statement in the executive summary that research on the Transcendental Meditation technique was of poor methodological quality. In fact, data in the report showed that some of the TM studies were of higher quality than any other studies, the randomized controlled trials on blood pressure for example. But I compromised on this and left the phrase intact to avoid the angry protests of the anti-TM editor who put it there.

Will Beback complicity in WP rule violations

The “heated discussion” Will Beback mentioned in his evidence statement concerned a long paragraph about Hagelin that was replete with emotional tirades denouncing Hagelin as a “crackpot,” his research as “nonsense” etc. My position, stated clearly here after having made essentially the same points several times in the discussion over a period of days (see here 48. Reducing number of quotes, improving the tone), was that these quotes were being used rhetorically to promote the strong negative POV of one or more of the editors. Will Beback was a main player in this discussion, but although the rules and guidelines concerning the goal of maintaining an impartial, encyclopedic tone were perfectly clear, he waited many days through all this discussion before finally admitting that “crackpot” might not be an appropriate word. It is obvious from reading the discussion that if he had not wished for the strongly negative POV to prevail, he would have stepped in much sooner to point out the correctness of adhering to the rules on this. This is one of many instances where Will either held back from such discussions when he must have known better or where he actively supported the less accurate interpretation of WP policies or rules to allow a negative (non-neutral) POV to prevail.

Attitude of anti-TM editors toward WP

Recently I commented on a noticeboard that some editors show what appears to be excessive antagonism toward editors who may be experts in a field related to the articles being edited. I summarized the results of a poll given to members of a professional society. The poll concerned how many had been editors on WP and listed reasons why most of those who had been editors no longer participated. The poll ended with a question about accepting the use of WP as a legitimate source for students (grade school level in this case). Two of the vociferous editors recently involved in the TM articles (Jmh649 (“Doc James”) and –dab) were shocked that “only” 61% of those polled said they “would not accept use of WP under any circumstances.” Both editors confirmed that they do not see WP as an acceptable source. Yet neither of them could admit the possibility that their abusive behaviors toward anyone with expertise might play a role in the unreliability of WP. At different times, this attitude has been expressed by several of the anti-TM editors and may help to explain their lack of reticence in denouncing those who may be experts in the practice and knowledge of the TM program or in the scientific research on TM and its related programs. In other words, it is not the primary aim of these editors to create a reliable encyclopedia. Rather their primary aim seems to be to see that their POV prevails.

Evidence presented by Kevin Carmody

Importance of peer review process for published research

Both sides of the dispute seem to have missed an important point about TM research, namely that much if not most of it has been published in peer reviewed journals. Peer review often significantly delays publication, but it removes much of the doubt about author bias. MUM faculty generally submit their research articles to peer reviewed journals, because this is the standard to come up to if a research scientist wants to be taken seriously.

As a result, TM research is generally regarded as high quality by outside scientists, including NIH, which has funded quite a lot of TM research, usually through MUM faculty. See for example or .

Therefore, I cannot agree with Tuckerj1976 when he says that much TM research is considered low quality by other researchers (Misplaced Pages:ARBTM#Statement_by_Tuckerj1976).

The writing style in a peer reviewed journal must come up to a high standard of neutrality. I think this is a good model for Wikipedians to follow.

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.

1. Example of opponents of TM.