Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:02, 21 February 2010

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence presented by Will Beback

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

Evidence presented by Jmh649 (Doc James) (615 words)

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

Consistent misrepresentation of the research

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

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

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

The omission of material critical of TM

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

This group of editors primarily edits TM related pages

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.
3. User:Littleolive oil Most edited article is TM (591 edits)with 5 of 10 most edited articles 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).

My previous editing

I do edit aggressively 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 Rorschach test, and ADHD and have had my share of mud thrown at me. However in both of these instances my edits have remained firmly on these pages supported by the majority. My edits WRT TM are also well referenced and supported by consensus. Well I have editing many hundreds of pages I have brought one to GA Obesity ( another highly controversial topic ).

If you look at Keithbobs diffs you will find that the "well sourced" references are primary research studies from the 1970s and 1980s in direct contradiction to WP:MEDMOS.

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 and local coffee house and make WP edits. This is not a violation of WP policy. LISCO provides free wireless at many locations in Fairfield. For the duration of this ArbCom I will edit only from my home to demonstrate my authenticity as a single, independent editor.
• Kudos to Jpgordon for his SPI work. He also says "I've not analyzed any behavioral evidence". My casual review of the IPs on that SPI shows no overlapping edits between IPs and some IP's had no TM article edits. User: Ruinia's comments demonstrate that TM participants have varying opinions on Misplaced Pages TM articles. Kala Bethere has practiced Yogic Flying and Jmh649 has an uncle who practices TM, but this hasn't resulted in an allegiance to the TM movement. Fairfield hosts 'new age' programs that compete with TM ie. Oneness Blessing Noon Deeksha, , Shri Ravi Shankar Mind Body Spirit Center , Yoga For Life , Shri Devi Mandir Temple.. It also has several thousand residents who farm etc. and do not practice TM. We should consider carefully before labeling Fairfield a "TM town" based on the market dominance of LISCO.
• I use the Keithbon WP account and no other. I am no one's meat puppet. I edit independently. The talk pages that Will Beback, TimidGuy, Jmn649 and Kala Bethere communicate with each other in 'real life' via email. This is not a violation of policy. It think edit history and behavior is the key ingredient for a sockpuppetry decision. I trust in the Committee and their ability to come to a proper and fair conclusion.

Civil, Neutral Editing

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

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

• Vote to delete Maharishi Vedic Science
• Add criticism TM-Sidhi
• Remove promo MUM
• Add Lawsuit Section Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation
• Add criticism/remove promo Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health
• Add criticism Transcendental Meditation
• Add criticism Maharishi Sthapatya Veda
• Add religious ceremonies Maharishi Sthapatya Veda
• Remove supportive quote Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
• Removed promo Ashley Deans
• Remove promo Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic University
• Add deficiency tags Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic University
• Add criticism Deepak Chopra
• Remove promo EL's Maharishi Sthapatya Veda

Rebuttals

@Will Beback/Case page The diff shows, I made a talk page proposal, other editors supported it, I waited 7 days, Will Beback and Fladrif were present, but chose not to participate. How is this "tag team editing"?

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

User:Jmh649 and Disruptive Behavior

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

User:Fladrif and Disruptive Behavior

• Warnings and blocks for incivility and personal attacks.
• Edit warring and 3RR warnings
• More incivility
• Contempt for other editors
• Most recent
• TM related articles/talk pages are major focus

Evidence presented by Fladrif

My first edits at Misplaced Pages were in late Feb 2008. About a year and ~250 edits later, I first looked at the Transcendental Meditation article because I was interested what other articles editors I had interacted with were involved. The TM talk page was discussing whether a Neutrality Tag should be removed. I wrote that if anyone was interested in the opinion of a complete outsider with no interest in either the subject matter or in editing the article, the article did not appear to be neutral. A few week later, I looked more closely at what was going on in the TM article. There were some very serious problems with highly problematic and apparently coordinated editing, including extensive edit-wars to exclude reliable sources and to misrepresent others The editors involved most vigorously in this behavior at the time were self-identified as faculty members of Maharishi University of Management who had stated in their profile pages that their purpose as editors was to edit the TM-related articles. Multiple pages at WP:COIN had already dealt with this issue, resulting in direct instructions from at least two administrators to not to edit those pages. Within days, confronted with the reality of what was going on and the futility of dealing with a continued concerted and coordinated effort to resist any correction of these problams, I started a new thread a COIN.

TM Movement employees actively edit to push the POV of the TM Movement

• Extensive discussion at COIN archive, including information on COI as well diffs showing POV pushing by the conflicted editors: (i) coordinated tag-team edit warring to delete reliably-sourced material (ii) edit warring to misrepresent and misconstrue relevant and reliably-sourced material (iii) edit warring to include material not reliably-sourced

• Some editors who push the TM Org POV have identified themselves as current or former MUM faculty or closely associated with other organizations in the TM Movement. Refs at SPI. Other editors who did not specifically self-identified as MUM employees have made statements on profile andr talk pages suggesting that they are current or former MUM faculty, employees of other TM Org entities, and communicate with TM Org officials

• Anonymous editors from other non-Fairfield IP addresses assigned to TM Movement organizations push the POV of the TM Movement., .

• KBob strongly pushes the TM Org’s POV. His editing pattern is to make dozens of individual edits in a row. Embedded in these editing tornados is strong POV-pushing. In one instance, KBob made 100+ edits in a row, without discussion, to remove or misrepresent reliable sources and improperly insert non-reliable sources . In another, he deleted reliably-sourced material, first claiming that the source was “biased”, , then falsely claiming that the source didn’t contain the material. He argued for removal of references to the Maharishi’s first book on Transcendental Meditation, a “banned book” within the TM Org because it contains statements by MMY now embarrassing to the TM Org. .

I have neither the time nor the organizational resources apparently available to KBob and the other members of the Fairfield sockdrawer. I have no students or cadres of Purushas to do research for me and scour through scores of articles to compile hundreds of diffs, so I trust that the above examples will suffice.Fladrif (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

TM Org Astroturfing through employee sockpuppet/meatpuppets

There is no need to repeat the findings of the SPI, or to the matters posted there and at the RFA but I would emphasize that before TimidGuy ultimately admitted to being the 76.76 sockpuppet he appears to have knowingly lied about it at SPI..

Sockpuppetry by pro-TM editors does not appear to be something new.Fladrif (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

TM Org astroturfing of the interwebs, is not confined to Misplaced Pages. Fladrif (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

TM Org editors create a hostile editing environment

• TM-Org affiliated editors contribute to a hostile editing environment, constantly accusing other neutral editors and administrators of bias, intimidation and incivility, making baseless accusations of COI, refusing to comply with directions from administrators or to conform to noticeboard consensus. Fladrif (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Frivolous sockpuppetry allegations.

• As Will noted, they have over the years driven off most neutral editors, many of whom throw up their hands in frustration.

• Direct and indirect legal threats have been repeatedly made against other editors, including claimed libel, copyright and trademark infringement. TimidGuy regularly consults with MUM and Maharishi Foundation Ltd general counsel, and has stated that he must do so. Fladrif (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Rebuttal

@ KBob regarding Doc James

KBob's accusations against Doc James completely misrepresent the facts. Doc James got involved in the TM-related articles following an extensive discussion at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and Project Medicine The unanimous position of all of the uninvolved editors and administrators, and all of the involved editors who were not part of the Fairfield sock/meat drawer was that the research and medical research sections of the TM-related articles consisted almost entirely of improper reliance on Primary Sources that did not qualify as Reliable Sources under WP:MEDRS. The "massive deletions" that KBob complains of were all made pursuant to and consistent with WP:MEDRS and the unanimous consensus of a wide cross-section of uninvolved editors at multiple noticeboards. Doc James's continued involvement in the TM related articles is largely confined to implementing and enforcing that policy and consensus, in the face of continued, concerted and defiant attempts by muliple TM-Org affiliated editors on a daily basis to insert primary sources favorable to their position and to misstate and misrepresent the findings of reliable sources which they believe to be unfavorable. Fladrif (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

@ KBob re Me

KBob is quite correct. I do not suffer fools gladly. I have had my hand slapped as a result. Nobody's perfect. Fladrif (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Kala Bethere

I am not a sock puppet

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

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

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

Evidence presented by Tuckerj76

What an insult to poor Kala Bethere

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence presented by Hickorybark

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe that the quality and objectivity of my edits speak for themselves. They are directed solely toward improving the value of the information we provide to Misplaced Pages’s users. In initiating this hearing, Beback appears to be seeking administrative license to dominate the TM-related articles by suppressing responsible, informed contributors and asserting his own opinion, unimpeded. My hope is that the Arbitration Committee will be cognizant of how this would undermine Misplaced Pages’s mission to provide a reliable reference. Hickorybark (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Roseapple

I'm not a sock puppet

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

Evidence presented by BigweeBoy

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

Evidence presented by Durova

Internet connectivity in Fairfield, Iowa

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

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

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

I'm unclear as to what your point is. Lisco is a provider for numerous private residences as well as hot spots through out the city. This is a town of 10,000 people who pass through the restuarants, coffee shops. Could you clarify your post. Thanks.(olive (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

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.