Misplaced Pages

:Sockpuppet investigations/TM editors: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:22, 31 January 2010 editDreadstar (talk | contribs)53,180 edits →Comments by other users: resp← Previous edit Revision as of 01:07, 1 February 2010 edit undoWill Beback (talk | contribs)112,162 edits →Comments by accused parties: rp to KbobNext edit →
Line 135: Line 135:


:My accuser, in a formal, public forum, says that I am a 3RR Violating and Edit Warring editor and when openly challenged with diffs, he tries to brush it aside saying it is "invalid" and there are "more important issues to discuss here". The diffs show that my accuser violated good practices such as the WP:1RR essay which says: If someone reverts your change, don't re-revert it, but discuss it with them." and he has the nerve to accuse me of 3RR edit warring when there is no such evidence. Instead he has chosen to renew his tradition of carefully worded posts to try and trick or trap editors into giving personal information about their Internet provider, friends, residence and career. Then when an editor says he does not want to give personal information, he cries: "gotcha, your guilty". It's really disheartening to see such poor behavior from an administrator.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 14:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC) :My accuser, in a formal, public forum, says that I am a 3RR Violating and Edit Warring editor and when openly challenged with diffs, he tries to brush it aside saying it is "invalid" and there are "more important issues to discuss here". The diffs show that my accuser violated good practices such as the WP:1RR essay which says: If someone reverts your change, don't re-revert it, but discuss it with them." and he has the nerve to accuse me of 3RR edit warring when there is no such evidence. Instead he has chosen to renew his tradition of carefully worded posts to try and trick or trap editors into giving personal information about their Internet provider, friends, residence and career. Then when an editor says he does not want to give personal information, he cries: "gotcha, your guilty". It's really disheartening to see such poor behavior from an administrator.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 14:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
::I'm not sure what the problem is with the diffs provided. The principle is that if editors are editing with the same POV from the same IPs then they are indistinguishable from a single editor and may be treated as if they were a single editor for things like 3RR. If editors are friends, colleagues, or neighbors then that is relevant too. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 01:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


======<span style="font-size:150%"> Comments by other users </span>====== ======<span style="font-size:150%"> Comments by other users </span>======

Revision as of 01:07, 1 February 2010

TM editors

TM editors (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/TM editors/Archive.


Report date January 26 2010, 21:01 (UTC)


Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Will Beback

I sent this information to a checkuser, J.delanoy, who reported that all of the listed accounts have used IPs registered to the TM movement, in two locations, and that there were other significant similarities and overlaps between them. This is a request to confirm those findings and to determine whether WP:SOCK has been violated.

The Maharishi University of Management (MUM) is located in the small town of Fairfield, Iowa, the U.S. headquarters of the Transcendental Meditation movement. MUM is responsible for producing hundreds of studies showing the efficacy of TM technologies and products, some considered fringe theories or pseudoscience, which these editors have repeatedly added to articles.

(Note: Detractors of TM from Fairfield, IA, have also used IPs in these ranges to vandalize or add negative remarks about it. It's just a few edits, but they may be confusing.)

IPs

Several of these users have made edits while logged out, disclosing their IPs. The IPs belong to MUM or its ISP. I can send that information by email.

Sock or meat puppet behaviors

These accounts all promote the same POV. For some accounts this topic is their single purpose, while for the rest it is their primary focus. Collectively, they have made nearly half of all edits to the main articles, and a larger percentage in the minor articles. They also make a large majority of the talk page postings. Noticeboard filings about the topic have received strong responses from these accounts. (For example, four of the accounts participated in a WP:BLPN thread about a TM leader: .)

3RR violations/edit warring

These users have participated in few RFAs, including these two:

RFA/Kww 3
RFA/Dreadstar
Behavioral evidence

There is some evidence indicating these users may be one or two individuals. I can send that by email.

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims. I have only one Wiki user account and I always log in before making edits. I am not a sockpuppet.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC) I am happy to discuss my edit history with an appropriate administrator to clear this up. I have one account and I am the sole user of that account.-- — Kbob • Talk • 03:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's something I don't understand about IP investigations. If several different editors have the same Internet provider, and if that Internet provider dynamically assigns IPs, isn't it possible at some point that two different editors could have been assigned the same IP over time, especially in a small town like Fairfield? I've noticed that my ISP in particular frequently assigns me a new IP even if I don't shut down my computer. Also, I would point out that of the approximately 2,500 people living in Fairfield who practice TM, perhaps 150 at most are employed by Maharishi U. And perhaps 50 at most by a few other organizations. The rest are otherwise employed and moved here to be part of the community. So note that you can't assume that someone editing from Fairfield is employed by an organization here. And yes, I have used two different sock puppets in the past when I didn't understand the issues regarding them. Big mistake. One was inspired by Philosophus, who openly used a sock puppet to get involved in messy areas while leaving his other account pristine and whose use of a sock seemed to be accepted by everyone. I used it for three edits but not on any article otherwise edited by me. It 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)
I have one Misplaced Pages account, am one user, and have never created or used a sock puppet. MUM is not the TM organization, but is a university in Fairfield, Iowa whose library and computers are available to the public. (olive (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC))
As a single account editor who edits at home unless traveling, that I could be seen as a sock is quite beyond understanding. I am happy to address any questions either here, or if outing any personal information is a concern ( and for me it is given off Misplaced Pages harassment), via email. (olive (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC))

I am a little surprised by this, as I am very certain that I am only one person using a single account, no split personalities, no cheating. I do enjoy editing and try to do it fairly and follow the rules, so I am not clear as to why anyone would bother making this accusation. However, I appreciated the warning on my talk page and am sure Misplaced Pages will resolve this. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I am a neutral editor and am not a Sockpuppet. I make my edits when logged in as BigweeBoy. On one occasion earlier in my Wiki career, June 2009, my wife was considering editing on Wiki and we set up an account for her. By mistake I made edits while logged in as her, but signed it as BwB. This was discussed on my personal talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Bigweeboy#Sockpuppets and the 2nd account removed from Wiki. --BwB (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I only have one account, and I voted for Dreadstar for Admin because I noticed during the TM discussions that he was fair minded and always tried to accommodate editors' different points of view. User:Roseapple —Preceding undated comment added 19:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC).
I am curious as to why anyone would suspect I edit from multiple accounts. I have never had more than the one WP account. Perhaps it is because my edits tend to be sporadic, with long gaps in between. The truth is that I have a busy schedule and cannot afford to take time every day to edit articles, even when I know my edits would be useful. If that is not the reason for this accusation, I don't know what is. ChemistryProf (talk) 08:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I am completely new to all this, MuZemike. What do you mean by "handled privately"? Thanks, --BwB (talk) 10:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
This means that the filer of this case has information that he believes is best presented via a private communication such as email rather than here, a more public situation. So this isn't something that concerns any of the accused editors, just the filer and checkuser.(olive (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC))
I've moved this BWB. Hope that's OK with you.(olive (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC))
This may have to be handled privately due to concerns brought below. Normally we do that when there might be evidence which, if disclosed here, would effectively out a person's private information – something in which we try and not do. –MuZemike 18:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Don't mind the move, Olive. And thanks for your explanation MuZemike. --BwB (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, a number of months ago I asked my Internet provider about their somewhat frenetic IP server. As I recall, they were somewhat surprised it was the case, confirmed it was happening, said that it was indeed unusual, and didn't know why it was happening. My observation at that time for a period of a week or 10 days was that I seemed to have a different IP each morning, but that it seemed to randomly rotate among about four different IPs. And on a different point, I believe the university has a dedicated, shared IP, with all traffic from that IP appearing to be from a single IP. TimidGuy (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Let me ask the "accused editors" a question which could avoid the need to publicly go over individual edits or use the Checkuser tool: Does anyone here deny using IPs belonging to MUM or LISCO? If not, then it appears that the named editors are, at a minimum, members of a small community formed to promote TM. Is that incorrect?   Will Beback  talk  00:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Not even remotely correct. Lisco is a provider that serves much SE Iowa and is used by thousands of people. As I understand it, Lisco and one other provider provide bandwidth for MUM. IPs may be similar from both MUM and off campus because the provider is the same...But why the IP's come up as similar is unknown. I'll say again, I do not and have not ever edited with another editor nor do I tell other editors what to do or how to edit. I am neither a sock nor meat puppet.(olive (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC))

Which part is incorrect? These IPs are used in a small community, Fairfield, Iowa/Maharishi Vedic City, Iowa, that promotes TM, and many of them are specifically registered to MUM. So the question stands - does any editor deny using those IPs?   Will Beback  talk  00:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
IPs are assigned. Fairfield Iowa does not promote TM. You can't say this is sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry because of a town. That's not logical. (olive (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC))
The editors from Fairfield all promote TM. If we have editors using the same IPs, perhaps even the same computers, and working together to promote the same POV, then that's meat puppetry, and it's still a violation of WP:SOCK. I don't see anyone here denying that they are editing from Fairfield or even MUM.   Will Beback  talk  07:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Where someone edits from is not a violation. No one has to admit to editing from any where and is personal information. If editors for some reason were assigned the same or similar IPs that is not a violation and out of their control. Editors have stated they do edit independently and are neutral. Nothing more to be said here. The rest is assumption. The state of the articles and the edits will tell the rest of the story.(olive (talk) 12:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC))
Re:Meat puppet accusation: If these were meat puppets one would see patterns of numerous attempts to force edits when in fact I can't remember any occasions were major changes or even minor ones were forced into the article using agreement or consensus based on a piled up vote by these editors. One would also expect see many attempts to tag team a change, but that also is not the case, and one sees only a few instances where some of these editors may have agreed on a point enough to revert, and no more of those than in any article where many editors are working and some agree while others don't. There are no patterns of what could even be remotely construed as meat puppetry.(olive (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC))
There is evidence of tag team editing to promote a POV. The "Sexy Sadie" material is just one example of thatof that activity. However this is not the best page for those discussions. Here we're mostly interested in the evidence that multiple accounts are using IPs belonging to the TM organization, and other indications of possible sock/meat puppetry. .
I encourage folks to reread WP:SOCK.   Will Beback  talk  23:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anything about other editors so I am not interested in getting involved with emotional talk and speculation about conspiracy theories but I am also not a sock and I feel confident that this will be come clear when a neutral Administrator, instead of my biased accuser, looks at my edit and IP history. I just went to an IP address look up web site and my IP address doesn't even come close to any of the IP addresses listed on this page. For some reason I am also being characterized by my accuser as a 3RR, edit warring editor. However, the diff he provides does not show even one reverted edit. What it does show is that I deleted a sentence and asked for discussion on the talk page. My accuser then immediately reverted my edit. Now let's see, who is doing the edit warring? The editor who makes a deletion and asks for discussion? or the editor who ignores a request for discussion and reverts anyway? It seems to me the pot is a lot blacker than the kettle.-- — Kbob • Talk • 03:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

As for the McTaggart reverts, the diffs are clear. Immediately after restoring the properly sourced material I initiated a discussion on the talk page. Kbob deleted the material without such a discussion, so the point seems invalid. However there are more important issues to discuss here. Kbob, are you denying using IPs belonging to MUM or LISCO? Do you deny having a connection to MUM? Do you deny knowing any of the other editors in real life? Those are the relevant issues here.   Will Beback  talk  03:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
All the editors who stand accused sound so reasonable. Unfortunately their edit history does not substantiate their claims of innocence.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

TimidGuy (TG) and Littleolive oil (Olive) have been found to be using IPs in the same range. Back in February, Olive wrote that TG had broken his arm and couldn't respond. In August, 76.76, who we now know was TG, wrote that Olive was travelling and couldn't respond. Are TG and Olive saying that they don't know each other in RL?   Will Beback  talk  07:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

TG has admitted that, in late July and August, he was using IPs in the 76.76 range which kept changing. In early July Bigweeboy was using 76.76.228.104. They have edited with the same POV and using the same IP range. How do we distinguish one editor from the other?   Will Beback  talk  08:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

My accuser, in a formal, public forum, says that I am a 3RR Violating and Edit Warring editor and when openly challenged with diffs, he tries to brush it aside saying it is "invalid" and there are "more important issues to discuss here". The diffs show that my accuser violated good practices such as the WP:1RR essay which says: If someone reverts your change, don't re-revert it, but discuss it with them." and he has the nerve to accuse me of 3RR edit warring when there is no such evidence. Instead he has chosen to renew his tradition of carefully worded posts to try and trick or trap editors into giving personal information about their Internet provider, friends, residence and career. Then when an editor says he does not want to give personal information, he cries: "gotcha, your guilty". It's really disheartening to see such poor behavior from an administrator.-- — Kbob • Talk • 14:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the problem is with the diffs provided. The principle is that if editors are editing with the same POV from the same IPs then they are indistinguishable from a single editor and may be treated as if they were a single editor for things like 3RR. If editors are friends, colleagues, or neighbors then that is relevant too.   Will Beback  talk  01:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Comments by other users

I echo Will's concerns regarding these editors. They are all mostly WP:SPA which aggressively push unfounded scientific claims regarding TM and generally attempt to promote the subject. This activity has also occurred on the simple English Misplaced Pages . The WP:COI is obvious IMO. Well it may not be proven that they are the same person they definitely are acquainted. Many of their edits have inappropriately interpreted research studies to slate the conclusion to appear to benefit TM. This edit for example tries to make it sound like this exhaustive review of the literature was limited rather than the fact that the available TM evidence is limited. There appears to be an long standing issue of WP:POV Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Completely untrue and inaccurate Doc, and I'm not sure this is the place to make such claims once again. (olive (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC))

User:Roseapple and the Anon IP Editor 69.18.2.75 would appear to be the same person. However, this does not look like sockpuppet activity, but rather a matter of simply not signing in once in awhile, something nearly every editor (including me) neglects to do every now and then.Fladrif (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

In and of itself, editing while logged out isn't sock puppet activity. But if a bunch of accounts are using the same IPs and expressing the same views in the same articles, then that is evidence of sock or meat puppet activity.   Will Beback  talk  20:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
There are multiple issues being tossed around as if they are certainties. Its easy to try and pigeon hole people, group them together as having the same views, but its a gross generalization that applies, if it apples at all, equally to other editors working on these articles. What is obvious is that the TM articles are highly contentious and the fair approach is not to piggy back comments onto the back of a sock review especially when all the editors state they are independent editors, but to take the issues to another forum where all editors have the opportunity to refer to their own edits in defense of the multiple, convoluted accusations. I have never edited with any of the people mentioned, nor seen them edit, nor do I have the arrogance to tell some other editor what to edit . That the IPs are showing up as similar is unexplainable to me but I am no expert in this area.
Its also hard for me to understand how anyone could look at the number of edits, the times, the styles of writing, the expertise involved, and attribute all of that to one or two people. Just not logical. I can only assume that this will be sorted out. In the meantime accusations on several other pages while this is going on is not right, or fair, or in anyway shows respect for other people, editors or not.(olive (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC))
Whether a topic is contentious or not is irrelevant to this investigation. If, as there appears to be, there is a group of accounts using the IPs belonging to an organization who are all promoting that organization's POV and making the same kind of edits then that would probably come under WP:SOCK and principles delineated by the ArbCom. Whether the accounts are sock puppets or simply meat puppets is impossible to determine, so they are treated alike. In any case, this discussion isn't going to affect the outcome so let's let the volunteers do their jobs and see what the investigation shows.   Will Beback  talk  23:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
And hopefully false accusations won't matter either.(olive (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC))
What is that you were saying about false accusations? How about true accusations?Fladrif (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand the distinction that Will is making between an editor not signing in now and again, and the TM-Org and MUM IP's serving as sockdrawers. As User:Bigweeboy noted above, he edited a few times without signing in. He was sufficiently concerned about being accused of sockpuppetry, that he went to the trouble of having those posts re-signed. But, beyond that, there is clear meatpuppetry at minimum and likely sockpuppetry on a massive scale in these articles.

  • By their own admission, User:TimidGuy is a meatpuppet for a "colleague", apparently Anon IP User 208.145.207.60 , and Anon IP User 63.162.81.220 is a meatpuppet for TimidGuy..
  • The 76.76 Editors from August 2009 are obviously meatpuppets at minimum, and more likely sockpuppets, given an evident detailed knowledge of the edit and talkpage history of the TM-related articles as well as relatively obscure points of Misplaced Pages editing rules and policies that no novice editor would know.
  • The March 21, 2007 edits to the David Lynch, John Hagelin and Donovan articles by Anon IP User 209.152.117.83, an account assigned to Maharishi University of Management, were clearly those of a TM Org PR representative using Misplaced Pages to promoting an event at MUM.
  • Timidguy has also repeatedly said that he consults with TM-Org officials regarding these articles, including with the General Counsel of MUM and Maharishi Foundation Ltd.

I probably could go on, but the work can obviously be more efficiently done by CheckUser.Fladrif (talk)

When Misplaced Pages was new in 2002, a librarian on campus noticed it and asked me to write something. I wasn't familiar with Misplaced Pages, and didn't even take time to look at it, but went ahead and threw something together and e-mailed it to him. He posted it. Looks like he later made some additional edits. Years later, in September of 2006, I got involved in Misplaced Pages. Fine if you want to call that being a meatpuppet. The anon IP 63 edits to the religion section of the article that Fladrif calls attention to are by one of our current editors who had forgotten to log in. I recognize the language and style. Look at those edits in the context of the editing going on at the time and this will be obvious. The IP edits from August 2009 were mine. I had left Misplaced Pages and had no intention of returning. But I looked at the TM article in early August and noticed that errors and falsehoods had been introduced, and I would correct them as I noticed them. I didn't bother to log in because I wasn't planning to get involved again. I posted here explaining that even though it appeared that there were a number of different IPs coming in, they were all me. (And it you look at that link, you'll se that Fladrif realized it was TimidGuy). This is related to the frenetic IP server I mentioned above. Once I decided to continue editing Misplaced Pages, I went back to being TimidGuy. The IP 209 edits are unrelated. Remember that Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I did indeed ask the MUM legal counsel about trademark issues, and he was very helpful in helping me understand it. Misplaced Pages respects trademarks. Happy to address any other issues. TimidGuy (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
As I said, it was painfully obvious that the 76.76 edits were a sockpuppet. The link above to the COIN discussion makes it further obvious that TimidGuy intended and in fact used the 76.76 edits as a sockpuppet, and that his statements above denying his sockpuppet activity were knowingly false when he made them.Fladrif (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I am astonished that TimidGuy was the user behind 76.76, whose editing was so non-neutral that a separare thread was started at COIN. At no time during that discussion did the user reveal that he already had an account and a long history of editing the topic. It's worth recalling that TimidGuy stopped editing because, IIRC, he acknowledged having a COI regarding this topic. That use of 76.76 was not an example of collegial, transparent editing and it's an indication of the general problem.   Will Beback  talk  23:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Your recollection is exactly correct. TimidGuy acknowledged that he had a conflict of interest in the TM articles. I assumed, like you, that when the subject of his conflict came up yet again after being told by two different admins that he should not edit the TM articles, he voluntarily retired from Misplaced Pages in light of the conflict. To have him come back as an anon IP editor, vehemently deny at COIN that he had no conflict of interest, and defiantly refuse to disclose that he had previously edited the same articles, is the very definition of sockpuppetry. But, to compound the matter by affirmatively asserting that he had never done such a thing on this board, when he knew for a fact that it was a falsehood, is beyond the pale. And, his statment above that he knows for a fact that one of the 63. etc accounts is a current editor - all of whom have vehemently denied to have ever edited as an anon IP editor - confirms not only that that editor is a meatpuppet, but that the editor has made a knowingly false statement in its defense on this page. Does anything more need to be said?Fladrif (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Other than that Olive is the 63.162 etc user to which TimidGuy is referring. (See (63.162.81.220 22:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)) (olive 22:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)) Again, an admitted meatpuppet of TG, and made false protestations of innocence here, knowing that not to be true.Fladrif (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • This a real stretch: . Just because they’re editing from the city of Fairfield, Iowa or even the MUM campus some or all of the time; and sometimes - or even most of the time, express similar points of view or opinions, does not mean they’re meatpuppets or even sockpuppets. Some editors here are conflating a sock report with other accusations that should really be brought to ArbCom; there’s no solid evidence that the edits of the target group of this report have sufficiently violated policy so that the editors who made them need to be blocked or topic banned just because they happen to sometimes edit from similar or the same IP address range. Accusations that an editor or a group of editors are "promoting" the subject of an article, instead of abiding by Misplaced Pages policy, have to be proven with evidence. We must be especially careful when accusing editors of "promoting" the subjects of articles that are contentious in nature and attract a lot of detractors that attempt to add a great deal of negative material. And I have to add, TG's checking with TM legal counsel with questions about copyright status is not meat or sockpuppetry, it's merely investigating. Not too long ago, I wrote a school asking for verification of a contested item in its WP article, does that make me a meatpuppet of the school? No, not even if I attended or worked at the school. And we certainly cannot indict every IP in Fairfield, Iowa as being socks or meats, that’s ridiculous. Dreadstar ☥ 21:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Given your enthusiastic support of and repeated interventions using admin tools on behalf of these editors, to say nothing of the numeous mash notes you've left from time to time on their talk pages, I confess to having an insurmountably hard time taking your arguments seriously. Yes, that's an ad-hominem argument. No, it's not a personal attack. Yes, they should be topic banned, for a variety of clear, repeated and flagrant violations of a number of Misplaced Pages policies. But, as the only question at issue on this page is the obvious and now admitted sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry that is going on, I'll not get into that here. Fladrif (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
As Fladrif says Dreadstar does not appear to be independent of the ongoing issues with this group of editors and thus should not independently use admin tools per policy.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
To Dreadstar's points: Fairfield, Iowa is a tiny community (circa 10,000). The TM presence is only a portion of that. The movement places a strong emphasis on group participation in the morning and evening TM-Sidhi sessions, and 1,500-2,000 people routinely congregate in two buildings there to practice their technology together. I fully respect that process, and thank them for doing so on behalf of all of us. But the members of that very close-knit group in a remote location are among the most devoted members of the movement in the U.S. There's nothing wrong with that. But deep connection with a truth-system is fundamentally incompatible with the dis-attachment needed for writing an NPOV encyclopedia. That goes for disaffected former members as well.
On the matter of the legal threats, I think that TG backed away from those quickly and we don't need to dwell on them.
Regarding the promotion of a POV: for the purposes of this discussion, it's most relevant to focus in the fact that there are many accounts promoting the same POV while using the same IPs. The precise details of what the POV is, and why they'd promote it, are unnecessary here.   Will Beback  talk  10:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Will wrote, "I am astonished that TimidGuy was the user behind 76.76, whose editing was so non-neutral that a separare thread was started at COIN. At no time during that discussion did the user reveal that he already had an account and a long history of editing the topic. It's worth recalling that TimidGuy stopped editing because, IIRC, he acknowledged having a COI regarding this topic. That use of 76.76 was not an example of collegial, transparent editing and it's an indication of the general problem." Will, in that COIN you were unable to provide any evidence of a pattern of disruptive editing or any edits that weren't compliant with policy and guidelines. I invite anyone to examine those edits. Most of them entailed correcting errors and falsehoods. I explained above why I was editing as an IP. I didn't stop editing in February because of the COIN. As I said at the time I left, something came up in real life several days earlier that disallowed my further regular participation. I had planned on continuing to edit, but in a very diminished way. Then I fractured my arm, and the two things together led me to quit Misplaced Pages. I would point out that you've created a falsehood here, suggesting that I stopped editing because of having a COI, and I would ask that you retract it.
Fladrif, you claim that I vehemently denied having a conflict of interest. I believe that's a falsehood. Can you please give a diff. If you're unable to, please retract that statement. TimidGuy (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
TG, I asked 76.76 to please identify or log in to edit, which were good faith requests. The response was stonewalling. That lack of transparency is too common with this topic. If users are constantly changing personnas, yet using the same IPs, how can we distinguish them?   Will Beback  talk  12:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
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. I'm not going even going to touch on the passionate defense of your sockpuppet activity by olive and KBob, who now, in retrospect, were obviously aware IRL of your deception. As for allegations of falsehood, and demands for retractions and apologies, until I see you acknowledge directly that your statements on this board prior to your eventual admissions were intentional lies, I'm not inclined to dignify your demands with a response.Fladrif (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


  • In response to Will's rebuttal above, I’m sorry, but we still cannot indict an entire City in the United States of America because it 'only' has a population of 10,000 people, with a minority of the total population's percentage being TM practitioners, an indictment that has been made many times, including a statement made on this very page: "The editors from Fairfield all promote TM" . Additionally, how many Lisco customers are there? How many of those Lisco customers practice TM, much less work at MUM? Can it be proven that a vast majority of Lisco customers are MUM employees or TM practitioners?
  • Indicting an entire city or even an ISP on such flimsy evidence as has been presented thus far isn’t right or fair.
  • Regarding the purported “promotion” of a POV by the “TM editors”, I partially addressed that in my above post when I said “We must be especially careful when accusing editors of 'promoting' the subjects of articles that are contentious in nature and attract a lot of detractors that attempt to add a great deal of negative material." When editors come to Misplaced Pages and add as much negative material as they can, then editors who are trying to make the same article neutral may superficially appear to be “promoting a pov” because a lot of their edits are to make sure the other significant views aren’t lost. There’s nothing wrong with adding positive material or removing negative as long as it doesn’t violate WP policy and serves our readers. This SOCK report isn’t the place to make that case, a venue like ArbCom is.
  • Yes, by all means make sure these ‘TM editors” aren’t the same person or persons using different ID’s to circumvent policy, but do not conflate the more complex subject of COI, NPOV or even WP:SOAP editing in this SOCK report, take that issue to a more appropriate forum like ArbCom so evidence by all sides of this situation can be presented. They may be adding more positive content than negative, but that does not automatically make their edits “promotion” of TM. Prove that in ArbCom.
  • As far as TG talking to the Legal Counsel, he wasn’t making legal threats as far as I can tell, my comment was in response to Fladrif’s accusation that by asking the counsel for information on TM’s trademark status, that this was meatpuppetry, when it clearly is not.
  • The issue of TimidGuy's editing from an IP as described above is a slightly separate issue and should not affect the rest of the accused editors; while his use of the IP must be thoroughly investigated, with evidence provided to back up both the accusations and defense, I think that should be done separately than this particular report - so there's a lesser chance that it might unfairly spill over into affecting any of the other accused editors. If other editors knew of his use of the IP, then then that needs to be properly investigated as well. This report has already grown too large, and some of it is completely unrelated to the issue at hand.
  • Personally, I do believe that a majority of the various “TM editors” accused here are indeed different people, but they may all be periodically editing from the same IP address ranges in Fairfield and/or at MUM. Because they have unknowingly or knowingly used the same or similar IP ranges to log into their WP ID’s, all they really need to do is follow WP:SOCK Sharing an IP address, which I don’t think they’ve made fully aware of. COI, NPOV and SOAP violations should be proven at ArbCom. Dreadstar ☥ 19:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

{{RFCU}} is deprecated. Please change the case status parameter in {{SPI case status}} to "CURequest" instead.

Checkuser request – code letter: F  + D (Other reason and 3RR using socks)
Current status – Endorsed for Checkuser attention. (Other reason: Apparent sock drawer using IPs belonging to an organization.)    Requested by   Will Beback  talk  21:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

 Clerk note: If the filer is willing to send this information by email, then perhaps this should be handled privately. Will Beback, let us know what you want to do. –MuZemike 08:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I've replied to MuZemike by email.   Will Beback  talk  21:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

 Clerk endorsed after my communication with Will via email. –MuZemike 01:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Categories: