Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:01, 27 February 2010

Sockpuppet accusations

Traditionally, requests for checkuser in the context of arbitration are filed at the workshop page Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement/Workshop#Motions_and_requests_by_the_parties. See this example. Durova 01:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any checkuser requests (though there may be some buried in the list at WP:SPI), but checkuser requests can be filed in the usual locations. This case is, in fact, based largely on checkuser results that were obtained prior to its filing, so I am really not seeing where this comment is coming from. There is no obligation for it to be filed as a motion; however, any checkuser results should be included in evidence. Risker (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

At the time this comment was written one of Keithbob's sections was titled as a sock puppet accusation against two other editors, and linked to a page in user space. The Fairfield IP addresses, etc. were CU'd extensively before the case began, yet it didn't appear that TM skeptics had been checked for possible socking. It was unclear what Keithbob intended to seek so the precedent was a courtesy link. As of 2007 that was the standard way to request CU after a case was underway; if that's changed since then I don't recall an announcement. Durova 06:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Risker, per your advice on procedures and options open to me, I have filed an SPI here. and will publish the results as part of the ArbCom case, whenever they become available. In the meantime I have retained a single sentence (and link) in my section on the ArbCom evidence page so that involved parties may be aware of the SPI and can check the SPI page if they so desire.Thank you.-- — Kbob • Talk • 07:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough,Durova; back in 2007, most of the checkusers were arbitrators, and certainly the best way to gain their attention was to post as a motion/request on the workshop. Today,there aren't that many arbitrators who routinely participate in checkuser activity, and we have gladly delegated the majority of this work to well-qualified, neutral admins (many of them, as can be seen in this case, former arbitrators). Both of you are entirely correct, it is important to review the work of *all* parties to this case. I'll make a point of asking the checkuser team to look at this, as the use of alternate accounts is a key reason for the acceptance of this case, and we cannot assume that it is restricted to one group of editors without actually having the evidence. Risker (talk) 07:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Good points. This last comment by Risker is quite sensible and sounds like a very good way to move forward on this. Cirt (talk) 07:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be a help to the community if the arbitrators announced a change in procedure. During 2007 I was advised specifically to file CU requests within the context of arbitration within the case itself, and JMFangio-Chrisjnelson demonstrated why that practice made sense: the impersonation account Jimfandango was created minutes after Chrisjnelson was blocked for personal attacks. It almost appeared DUCK-worthy, but Chrisjnelson hadn't done anything like an impersonation sock before. So the only way to structure a CU request was on Chrisjnelson. What came out of that CU changed the entire course of the arbitration: JMFangio was the reincarnation of a community banned editor, the impersonation sock had been created by a shadowy IP troll, and Chrisjnelson's bursts of incivility were basically explainable in terms of the baiting by those two other editors. The case was already in voting when that CU was run, so new proposals arose. Instead of banning Chrisjnelson he got a restriction which has since expired. He has nearly 60,000 edits now and is in good standing. It helped substantially that the checkuser was run by an arbitrator who understood the surrounding case dynamics and knew what was relevant. Durova 22:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I start veering off-topic as far as this ArbCom case is concerned, but do you think a hard-line rule on this is necessary? Basically there are two types of arbitrators that I see as far as CU usage is concerned: first, those who know how to use and do use CU in these cases; second, those who may not know how to use them or intentionally does not use them (in the same way some admins who mediate do not use their tools during their mediation) who leave running CU to those, either from the community or from ArbCom, who know how to use them. –MuZemike 22:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what the rules ought to be. In 2007 I was informed that it was a hard rule and the case demonstrated why that rule made sense. It would be good to have a clear announcement if practice changes. Durova 22:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, many practices have changed over the last three years, particularly with respect to checkuser, and in a case that is, at least in part, based on checkuser data we're going to put the best checkusers onto things. I'm not seeing anything onwiki that indicates that it was a "hard" rule, but I can certainly accept that you may have been informed that was the correct practice at that time. Risker (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Lease time of DHCP server

I wonder if it would be possible for someone to tell me which account is suspected as being a sockpuppet of mine. I think I could prove that it's not the case. In addition, I think it would help to find out what Lisco's IP lease time is. Yesterday someone explained to me that Internet providers let a computer hold on to an IP number for a maximum period of inactivity before assigning it to a different computer, referring to it as "lease time." Let's say that Lisco's lease time is 8 hours. I don't think you'd find a single instance in which an IP number being used to access one account was then used to access another account in less than an 8-hour period. I'll e-mail Lisco technical support and ask them. TimidGuy (talk) 11:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think folks are getting entirely too focused on the checkuser issues and not paying sufficient attention to the behavioural issues here. Risker (talk) 12:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. The lease time is 6 hours. TimidGuy (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

In most cases, a DHCP server will continue to assign the same IP. But Lisco's behaves oddly. I observed last August, and Lisco confirmed, that their DHCP server assigned a different IP number every day. MUM has two fixed IPs. I believe there has been very little editing from these IPs. But certainly you can assume that someone editing from Fairfield practices Transcendental Meditation. But you can't assume they're employed by an organization related to Maharishi. Of the 2,500 TMers living in Fairfield, a very small portion is employed by Maharishi-related organizations. Most are otherwise employed. TimidGuy (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That is an interesting claim. What is your source? I would have thought that the majority of TMers in Fairfield and Vedic City are either students at MUM, employed by MUM, or employed by TMM businesses. David Spector 02:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've seen several newspaper articles that put the TMer population in and around Fairfield at 3,000, but they're from some years ago so perhaps the numbers have dropped.   Will Beback  talk  03:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't find the source right now but it was from the last couple years. It was a figure given by Ed Malloy in an article about the community. TimidGuy (talk) 11:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Just found it in the 2006 Washington Post article.

POV Pushing Teams

An editor has added two tables labeled "POV Pushing Team: WillBeback, Fladrif, KalaBethere..... " It's news to me that I am leading a "POV Pushing Team". Could Keithbob please explain what POV I am pushing, and how the noticeboard postings listed have been instrumental in pushing that POV? Also, the table is not quite accurate (Littleolive oil seems to be missing from a couple of entries) - it might be better to link to archives rather than diffs in this table.. Does Keithbob think that the problems with the article are due to my participation or my engagement in noticebaord discussions?   Will Beback  talk  00:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Will I'll double check my sources to make sure that the tables are accurate. You are welcome to present your evidence or rebuttal in your own section.-- — Kbob • Talk • 00:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

As it stands, it appears that you are making an unsupported accusation.   Will Beback  talk  00:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I too have already questioned Kbob ref these tables and am equally confused as to what point he is attempting to make. An answer would be helpful Tuckerj1976 (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I cannot find any inaccuracies in the chart. If there is a specific mistake that you would like to bring to my attention please post it on my user page. I want the chart to be 100% accurate. Thank you-- — Kbob • Talk • 02:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what the point of this table is to tell you truth. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

(un-dent) Sorry Kbob but you still haven't explained the point of the tables. What exactly are you trying to say with them? Commander Shepard,:_{SSV Normandy}talk 02:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuckerj1976 (talk • contribs)

Sorry thought I had this custom signature thing working but it seems not to have linked to my talkpage. Trying again Commander Shepard,:_{SSV Normandy}talk 02:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuckerj1976 (talk • contribs)

Back to the drawing-board it would seem. Two posts above are mine Tuckerj1976 (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

(Un-dent)Doc James ref your comments here ] Given everything else that Kbob has said that cannot be the point that he is making (the size of what he perceives as POV Pushing teams). For if that is what the table is saying, then he is suggesting the largest POV pushing team on the TM article consisted of 5 editors in 2010 and they were:

TimidGuy Littleolive Keithbob Bigweeboy LukeWarm ChemProf ]

(Which of course is a total of 6 not five as the table totals them at). Tuckerj1976 (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Tuckerj1976 (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I've made the change to 6, thanks for catching that and alerting me.-- — Kbob • Talk • 11:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all Keithbob. So I am correct then? 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 your other statements a surprising addition. Thank you. Tuckerj1976 (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Substantiating strong terms

Olive used the strong term harassment at RFAR and then stated that she would be unavailable for several days. Her evidence now uses that term again in two section headers. Are these sections complete as they currently stand? Although it's possible to dislike another editor's request to discuss reasons for information about a song or to dislike someone's mentioning a previous COI disclosure, those diffs look like normal editorial disagreements. Perhaps it would be a good idea to substitute a milder term, unless perhaps there's something missing or a mistake in the diff links? Durova 04:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Its difficult to show in a few diffs the environment that was created. My wording stands. I mean what I said, and if the Arbs disagree with what went on I'm perfectly fine with that.(olive (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC))

A year ago Misplaced Pages's harassment policy changed its terminology and encouraged the word hounding for behaviors that are irritating but that cause nothing worse than hurt feelings. Harassment and stalking have real world legal implictions; it's better to maintain clear distinctions. Durova 16:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there has been an atmosphere of hounding on the part of the anti-TM editors, and that it has been especially directed at Olive. However, she also responds to them with "a chip on her shoulder", frequently interpreting ordinary editing comments as direct attacks against her and replying obstinately and curtly, as she did above. I repeat my statement that this situation is not a problem caused only by one group of editors. Both sides of the conflict have maintained an adversarial relationship that has been destructive of making progress in improving the article. I recommend that sanctions of some sort be placed on both sets of editors (I am willing to accept sanctions as well, if there is any doubt about my own functioning). We may benefit from having an entirely new set of editors who do not have such strong egos and inclination for conflict, to replace the current editors. David Spector 17:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The idea that a whole new set of editors should solve the problems with these articles seems not very useful or realistic to me. I have watched TM and TM-Sidhi for two years, and have watched neutral editors (those who would try to bring the articles more into compliance with NPOV) come one at a time, try to make a difference, and leave, discouraged by the impossibility of making meaningful changes against the concerted opposition of a group of TM editors who have remained stable over the whole time, while non-TM editors have come and gone. Yes, there have been a few non-TM editors who have been truly "anti-TM" and haven't helped the articles by their combative attitude, but this behavior has without exception been addressed very quickly, with warnings (often by Will Beback, which belies the accusation that he himself is "anti-TM"), sanctions, and blocks, so their behavior has already been addressed by admins and needn't be made part of this case. However, many people trying to improve these articles have not been combative or uncivil, have nothing against TM, but are simply neutral editors trying to summarize reliable sources accurately and bring the articles more in line with policy. To lump all these editors together as "anti-TM" creates a battlefield mentality and an atmosphere of conflict and hostility in the editing environment; it's that atmosphere that has kept me from editing or commenting in these articles at all until fairly recently. Woonpton (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that labeling editors creates a battlefield mentality. However, for many months the labeling has been one-sided and it is only now in ArbCom that the term "anti-TM editors" has come up. I disagree with you that 'non-TM' editors (yet another biased label) have come and gone. Will Beback and Fladrif have been participating very steadily for more than a year and The7thdr, KalaBethere and Tuckerj1976 are aggressive single purpose user accounts, have not been deterred. I would also suggest that the incivility of The7thdr, KalaBethere and Tuckerj1976 and others has driven away many neutral editors including Roseapple, LittleEagleFlower, Uncreated, Hickorybark and others who you may not be aware of. -- — Kbob • Talk • 15:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Kbob, this now not only getting embarrassing but a lot like your definition of "harassment every time you do it. Could you please cite evidence of when I have been "uncivil"? Or are you still insisting that I am at least three different people? Tucker 19:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Real names / positions

It is fairly easy to determine the real names, positions at MUM, publications / research completed by a number of these editors by a simple google search. These edits have commented on many TM related blogs and some write their own blogs. They have also completed some of the research they attempt to quote and writing books on the subject of TM.

Now before I post anything I was wondering about WP:OUT. I personally believe in transparency and have my name and university association on my user page, but I understand that many disagree and do acknowledge that transparency can lead to hassles.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to sure how useful that would be. The problem to me is not that they are part of the TM organization but the manner in which they edit to push a certain agenda and will do anything to hide any evidence to counter to their movements public image (an effort that seems to be highly coordinated. I do not really see a major issue with members of the movement editing the article, as long as they do reasonably and without the clear agenda to have been found on this article (I have only really studied the TM one) for the past four years. I do not believe that everyone that practices TM long-term are like these editors. Indeed I would suspect that many "TMers are reasonable people highly embarrassed by what has taken place here (see this editor for example who is not just grass roots but practices "advanced forms" of TM ]). All of the independent research on the movement suggest that most if not all TMers have no idea what the organization seems to be like when they first enter it (which would explain why the movement insiders editing here are so controlling of it's image on these pages) People practicing TM are not the issue, it is the manipulation of a certain group of editors (and we can only assume they are different people, the recent Checkuser findings would suggest otherwise and their are clear similarities in the writing styles of Timidguy, Chem professor and Olive Oil at least similar, just as there are similarities between BWB and Keithbob. It is not "TMers" that are the issue it is certain users to be found here. Dave Spector has clear associations with TM research yet he is aware of this and his editing does not seem to be in anyway problematic, even if I do not agree with many of his thoughts on the state of the research. Tuckerj1976 (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You might forward that information privately to ArbCom, but I doubt that it is necessary. Two editors have said they are MUM faculty. Less forthcoming editors' posts strongly suggest that they are current or former MUM faculty, employees of other TM-Movement organizations, or closely associated with TM Org researchers and officials. I think that is sufficient evidence. One editor states that she has been subject to real-world harassment, and had her profile refactored against the possibility that it was Wikpedia-related. I have no problem with that, understand and sympathize with the concern and have expressed my sincere hope that she referred the matter to appropriate law enforcement authorities.Fladrif (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It's apparent that at least three or four of the TM editors are on the MUM faculty, and it's possible that another is a teacher at MSAE. Their specific identities probably aren't relevant. But what's relevant is that those editors have edited articles about their institutions (MUM/MSAE), the president of their institutions (Bevan Morris), two of their colleagues (John Hagelin and David Orme-Johnson), and have added and discussed research conducted by those colleagues, all without making appropriate disclosures. The editors seem to act under the belief that if they keep repeating "I am a neutral editor" then the COI guideline does not apply to them.   Will Beback  talk  20:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Emailing the Committee would be the way to address search engine results in situations where a person has never disclosed their real identity voluntarily on WMF sites. Durova 20:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What seems to be apparent is that a lot of assumptions are being made. What's relevant is the policy. We don't have the prerogative to redefine the COI policy.(olive (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC))

Is it a false assumption that all of the main TM editors live in or near Fairfield? Is it a false assumption that several of them are on the faculty of MUM or MSAE? Is it an incorrect deduction that these editors know each other and the people they've written about? Please correct any errors. I haven't seen anyone deny those assertions. Instead folks take offense at the suggestion they are not neutral editors and claim harassment if asked about it. It would clear the air if folks who have no connections to MUM, MSAE or other MVED-licensed enterprises would say so. Otherwise it's a fair assumption that they are part of the overall organization.   Will Beback  talk  21:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Again as in the past, you are attempting to prove something because editors refuse to answer your questions. Even if I knew the answers, I still wouldn't answer you because its none of my business who works where or who knows who. Misplaced Pages was established on two fronts, as collaborative, and as encyclopedic, and its mandate as an encyclopedia must be verifiable and neutral information. While I could focus on where an editor comes from or who they work for, in doing so I would not be focusing on the encyclopedia. Neutrality builds an encycLopedia that has a NPOV. And as I said there have been multiple assumptions made in this case not based on fact. Unless there is fact for those assumptions, and unless they have real relevance to this case I see no point in a discussion on them. Hopefully the arbs will be able to tease out what is true and important and what is not. I respect your persistence in this but I believe it is misplaced. I might remind editors here also that outing has been in Misplaced Pages history a blockable, and in some case bannable offense.(olive (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC))

The connections between the Fairfield TM editors and the MUM, along with its faculty, its staff, and its research are at the heart of this case. Setting aside the other editors, can you explain your own connections? Do you think it's irrelevant to your editing of David Orme-Johnson if you're a friend and colleague? Is it irrelevant to your editing of MUM if you're a faculty member? Do you think it's fine to attack other editors and engage in edit wars over topics to which you are so close? As for outing, I haven't posted anything here that editors haven't posted themselves.   Will Beback  talk  22:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said, you are making assumptions.(olive (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC))

Are any of the assumptions I'm making incorrect?   Will Beback  talk  22:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the main issues are WP:RS, WP:COI, and WP:NPOV. Just because people are from MUM does not mean they will break these rules however in this case they have. And continue to do so even after being asked not too. Thus here we are.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have sent my personal information to the Arbitration committee.(olive (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC))

When I look at Will Beback's User Page I notice pictures of Mt.Baldy and the mention of Griffith Park, both of which are in the Los Angeles area. Should I "assume" that this is where Will Beback lives?. Since he has three pictures of mountains on his User Page should I also assume that he likes to hike? And since his User Name includes the word "back" should I "assume" he is a chiropractor? Should I "assume" then that Will Beback is really Will Backman (this is a fictitious name) a chiropractor that I might have found on the Internet who likes to hike and lives in Los Angeles? And if I didn't like Will Beback's editing on a related WP article, would I have the right to ask him if he is a resident of Los Angeles? a hiker? a chiropractor? a conservation activist? or if he has any friends, neighbors or strong associations with people in Los Angeles who are hikers or chiropractors? And if Will Beback refused to answer, would I have the right, or even the nerve, to say to him: "Are any of the assumptions I'm making incorrect?" And if Will Beback refused to answer would that be conclusive evidence for a "gotcha" on COI? And could I continue to badger Will about this even while an ArbCom, on that exact subject is ongoing? I tell you, just the idea of it, for me, is incomprehensible. But I can only speak for myself. Others, well, they will do what they will.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If Editor A posts "I'm a professor at tiny college X located in small town Y"; CheckUser confirms that Editor A posts from an ISP in the small town Y"; says in various posts "I talked with Editor B about topic Z"; Editor B also posts,"I'm a professor at tiny college X, and CheckUser confirms posts from the same ISP in small town Y; Editors A and B post from time to time that they have consulted with professors C and D and administrators E & F at tiny college X in small town Y about various things, what is it that anyone "assuming"? That they might be telling the truth? These aren't assumptions, they're facts. Are we to assume instead, (as one probably should), that the only people who post online are pimply 13-year olds masquerading as someone they're not - in this case the faculty at tiny college X in tiny town Y? No one, including WillBeback, has ever asked any editor to divulge nor publicly speculated as to their personal identity, and to suggest otherwise is a reprehensible misrepresentation. Fladrif (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

To Kbob. Might I add that not only have you all admitted to living in Fairfield in your SPIs, to be TMers, admit that most of you work for the TM movement, but the SPI has confirmed your locations and that you share computers (I would suspect that a Checkuser does not only check IP addresses, but other information also. Tucker 18:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Kbob conducted an imaginary investigation and guessed that I might be a chiropractor in Los Angeles. Continuing the imaginary situation, if I wrote mostly about Swedish lichen that background would be immaterial. If I devoted most of my edits to saying positive things about chiropracty, if I expanded the article on the L.A. Chiropractic College and wrote about the instructors there, if I deleted material about a rival organization, etc, then that background would became more relevant. If other editors had been complaining about my COI for years but I refuse to answer their questions or change my behavior, then it becomes a chronic problem.

When I asked him on his talk page, Kbob told me that "I have no conflicts of interest on any of the articles that I edit". I'm not sure how he defines a conflict of interest, but he has endorsed the principle that an employee has a conflict of interest regarding his employer so I assume that he was affirming that he does not work for any of the MVED-licensed businesses. I haven't heard any of the TM editors either confirm or deny that they know John Hagelin, Ashley Deans, David Orme-Johnson, or Bevan Morris, four MUM faculty who nominally live in Fairfield. Seven of the nine TM editors from Fairfield have edited the Hagelin article, two have edited the Deans article, four the Orme-Johnson article, and one the Morris bio. Kbob has edited them all. Perhaps editors should re-read WP:COI#Close relationships.   Will Beback  talk  21:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Now let's talk about assumptions. I assumed when KBob finally wrote he didn't have any COI, that meant he wasn't employed by MUM, MVED or any other TM Org entity....until a sentence later he accused you of having a COI. At that point, my assumption that KBob defines COI the way any other person would define COI flew right out the window. I no longer assume that KBob was saying that he wasn't a TM-Org employee, only that he meant for other people who weren't paying close enough attention to infer that. Fladrif (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Some editors never admit to their conflicts of interest. Others try to redefine conflict of interest to claim they don't have one. Misplaced Pages even saw one individual who watered down the COI guideline while making pro forma disclosures; finally he got indeffed after socking to disrupt a featured article candidate. One way of reading the evidence in this case is that a couple of people are attempting a creative interpretation upon the harassment policy in order to assert that inquiring about conflict of interest is a type of harassment. I don't know whether that's an accurate reading, but if it is then the most practical response is to stop asking and let the evidence speak for itself. Durova 22:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)