This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Keithbob (talk | contribs) at 01:42, 19 February 2010 (→Sock Puppet Accusation against Tuckerj1976 and Kala Bethere: add link to Sandbox). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:42, 19 February 2010 by Keithbob (talk | contribs) (→Sock Puppet Accusation against Tuckerj1976 and Kala Bethere: add link to Sandbox)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)|
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerk: Dougweller (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Risker (Talk) |
| Misplaced Pages Arbitration |
|---|
 |
| Open proceedings |
| Active sanctions |
| Arbitration Committee |
Audit
|
| Track related changes |
 | 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
TM background
When I started editing this topic a year ago I had little knowledge of the larger movement. I've compiled a short page that lists some of the more notable details as background. User:Will Beback/TM background
Evidence presented by Jmh649 (Doc James)
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.
Evidence presented by Keithbob
I am Not a Sock Puppet
I am not a sock puppet. I work on WP at my home using Iowa Telecom. My IP address is 69.66.89.118. I will leave this post unsigned so the Bot will confirm my IP here. Signed, Keithbob. Ooops! I forgot to log out. OK, hopefully the Bot will leave the IP stamp here now. KB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.66.89.118 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC) My IP address was not listed on the SPI page, so not sure why I am being accused. The only thing I am guilty of, is on occasion, I take my laptop to the public library or local coffee house and making WP edits using the free Internet provided by local Internet provider LISCO. This free Internet access is provided by LISCO at almost every public location in this town. I commend the CU for his diligence in examining the overlapping IP addresses randomly assigned by LISCO. However even a superficial analysis of the IP accounts cited on the TM SPI page makes it clear that there was no editing overlapping between those IP accounts and some have never edited a TM article on WP. In addition, as demonstrated by User: Ruinia's comments on the ArbCom request page. Fairfield is a town with many kinds of people with diverse opinions and points of view, even on the WP articles related to TM. So I urge the Committee to consider carefully before condemning an entire town of 10,000 plus people based on their shared use of LISCO.-- — Kbob • Talk • 01:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Sock Puppet Accusation against Tuckerj1976 and Kala Bethere
NOTE: Full report, details and copious diffs are here:
- These Users appear to be disruptive sockpuppets of a banned User:The7thdr.
- They are single purpose accounts whose very first edits were on the TM article.
- They exhibit similar language, editing patterns, personal interests, bias' and agenda.
1. Single purpose accounts 2. Critical of research on TM 3. Citing WP:MEDRS to make massive deletions of secondarily sourced text on scientific research. 4. Citing WP:FRINGE 5. Having a special interest in Bhuddist meditation practices 6. Repeatedly accusing Littleolive Oil and Timid Guy of COI 7. Use of the terms “intellectual dishonesty” and “omission by silence” 8. Expressing interest and knowledge in the mantras 9. Interest in the lyrics of the Sexy Sadie song 10. Pretending to be new to WP-- — Kbob • Talk • 01:30, 19 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.