Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Proposed decision

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: Dougweller (Talk) & AlexandrDmitri (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Roger Davies (Talk) & Cool Hand Luke (Talk)

Arbitrators active on this case

Active:

1. Carcharoth
2. Coren
3. Kirill Lokshin
4. KnightLago
5. Mailer diablo
6. Newyorkbrad
7. Risker
8. Rlevse
9. Roger Davies
10. Shell Kinney
11. SirFozzie

Inactive:

1. Cool Hand Luke
2. FayssalF
3. Steve Smith

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

Plagiarism

There was no response to the question about the plagiarism allegations at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Workshop#Proposed decision and plagiarism. Could someone from the ArbCom please respond either here or there? Those are serious charges, and they seem to have been overlooked.   Will Beback  talk  22:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Would a Committee member please offer instruction on this pertinent question?

1. Has the Committee chosen not to make a determination about plagiarism and misuse of sources?
2. Has the Committee made a decision that sources have been misused, but the misuse is sub-actionable?
3. If the latter, please give examples and explanation.
4. If the Committee has chosen not to weigh the proper use of sources regarding evidence submitted here, then editors may resubmit that evidence for examination elsewhere. Is that correct?

Durova⁴¹² 14:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

(od) A few words about the nature of this dispute ... It's really about conflicting philosophies: on the one hand we have, for want of a better word, mysticism; on the other, rationalism. These are difficult enough to reconcile at the best of times, let alone when the editors are at loggerheads and determined to see the worst in everything the other party does. in this case, neither side is in the right and both sides have helped create the impasse.

There seem to me two very different ways to approach this. The first is to put all conduct by all editors under a microscope and impose sanctions on all and sundry for transgressions: this will cut deep into the editing universe and smother the dispute rather than resolving it. The second approach is to take the view that the opposing parties need guidance about how to comport themselves in future in order to actually start talking to each other to sort out the various problems, and back this with teeth if uninvolved administrators need to use them.

The focus of the principles therefore is about neutrality and verifiability, and puts editors on notice that further misconduct will not be tolerated. If individual misconduct continues, then the indviduals concerned have no excuse for avoiding sanctions. If it continues on a grand scale, then ArbCom can step in with liberal topic bans and blocks.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The proper attribution of sources is completely unrelated to philosophical issues. At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive56#User:Wispanow less than two months ago Jayen466 filed a complaint about an editor who was troublesome in several respects at a Scientology article. Jayen466 was attributing German language sources correctly while Winspanow was misrepresenting cited material. The irresolvability of philosophical differences between those two editors posed no barrier at all to determining that only one of them had allowed his attitude toward the subject matter to degrade his scholarship. At Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG the Committee made that type of determination.

A comparison of whether encyclopedic text is attributed to sources correctly is possibly the most valuable method of resolving certain long term disputes. Although is possible to be disruptive for a very long time without being uncivil, nearly every editor who is truly disruptive eventually cuts enough corners about sourcing to exhaust good faith explanations. When Wikipedia's dispute resolution system functions adequately, that type of behavior gets identified and curtailed before it exhausts the patience (and civility) of other content editors. Durova⁴¹² 18:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Roger, thanks for replying and giving your view of the case. It would have been helpful to get this sooner. I disagree with your view: I think this is a case in which a group has tried to take ownership of a topic in which they have a broad conflict of interest, and have used tag-team techniques to push their group's POV. I'm not clear why that view is rejected by you. However as for the question here I'd like to make two points:

One, it's typical in ArbCom cases to put the conduct of all editors under the microscope. It's not clear from this response why that standard isn't being used here. I'm sure we all researched "microscopic" evidence to meet that standard. I think we all put significant amounts of time into preparing our presentations. This approach seems to be saying, "It's a content dispute. We don't care about evidence of specific misbehaviors. The topic is now under probation. Go away." If this had been the answer we'd gotten in February we could have saved countless hours and effort, and the result would have been the same.

Two, one editor's misbehavior is the focus of specific remedies, so the focus isn't solely on neutrality and verifiability. An editor who was repeatedly uncivil is placed under special probation while an editor who repeatedly plagiarized material is not. There is still no direct answer as to why that behavior isn't clear and serious enough to merit a specific remedy. Editors have been banned for plagiarism before, and it's a violation of the project's core principles.

The focus on Fladrif, but not other editors, is consistent with the correspondence I had with one of the ArbCom members prior to this case. And the issue of plagiarism is reminiscent of recent allegations against an ArbCom member. Could those previous issues be affecting the proposed decision?   Will Beback  talk  19:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Further to Will's comment. If it is the committee's judgment that actually doing its job by focusing on the actual conduct of individual editors will "smother the dispute rather than resolving it" then the committee's judgment is seriously and fatally flawed. One need look no further than the conduct of the MUM faculty member editors and other members of the Fairfield contingent, and the message that Will received. The draft decision has already emboldened them to pursue wholesale rewrites of many of the involved articles, section-by-section, tendatiously revisiting disuputes long-since resolved with the input of multiple independent editors and administrators at dozens of talk page and noticeboard archives. Since the message ArbCom is sending is that there isn't anything they've done so far that is worthy of ArbCom attention or sanction, they're free to do whatever they please, continuing to defy with contemptuous dismissal any effort by admins or other editors to constrain their behavior, without fear of even so much as a hand-slap. And it sends the message to the world of editors that an organizaiton can indeed take over all topics even tangentially related to its interests, and relentlessly push its interests and POV...as long as its editors are reasonably polite about it. This approach is so completely wrong-headed and ill-conceived that it beggars belief. It guarantees that this matter will be back before another ArbCom proceeding in a matter of months. Fladrif (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

(To everyone commenting above) If there are recent instances of ongoing misconduct in these or other areas, please place them in evidence and put a link to that evidence in this section. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Once a cat has sat on a hot stove, it won't sit on a cold one. The Committee has decided to ignore virtually all the evidence previously submitted in literally hundreds of posts by dozens of editors. You really think, in light of that, anyone is going to go to the trouble of compiling even more diffs? Look at the evidence you already have before you. If you want more, do your own homework, and actually look at the histories and talkpages of the involved articles in the weeks since the draft decision was issued. Fladrif (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources is laborious to document, and once documented is nearly as laborious to verify. Editors rarely assemble this type of evidence because it is difficult to obtain a serious reading. No one on the Committee has yet responded with enough specificity to satisfy the doubts about whether the evidence that has already been submitted has actually received close examination. Under these circumstances, an invitation to submit more of the same type of evidence might reasonably be perceived as lip service. Durova⁴¹² 20:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to suggest that I have paid only lip service to anything; AGF might, in extreme cases, be extended even to arbitrators. If I've not focused on this case extensively to this point, it's because I have been occupied as the primary drafter in the committee's last two cases. The evidence page in this case, as all of you know, is massive, and I think it would be extremely helpful to me, and I believe to other arbitrators, to separate allegations of recent misconduct from older ones. Perhaps the purpose of this request is not as clear as it should be: our hope is always that editors who are the subject of an arbitration case learn from the arbitration process itself what types of conduct are and are not acceptable. Thus, if an editor who previously was, for example, was not paying adequate attention to sources in editing a group of articles, but in the past three months he or she has now become more punctilious in his or her editing, the situation is very different from if he or she has continued to be careless or worse—or even if he or she has temporarily stopped editing the articles, if it seems clear that he or she is ready to start in again as soon as the decision has been handed down and the coast is clear. Assistance from the parties—succinct assistance—may be of assistance in separating ongoing problems from historic ones. And it shouldn't be overlooked that the whole point of the discretionary sanctions remedy is to provide a swift and accelerated vehicle for addressing future ones (which is not to say that serious prior misconduct, of sufficiently severe nature can't and won't be acted on). Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The assumption of good faith does indeed apply to arbitrators. Nonetheless, a drafting arbitrator's workshop proposals mentioned misuse of sources without addressing whether it had or had not occurred. After that drew criticism as unsustainable, the proposed decision was modified to omit mention of the subject altogether. At this thread I submitted a brief list of requests for arbitrator feedback and that same drafting arbitrator responded without answering the questions--appearing to argue on principle that such questions ought not to be addressed in this proceeding. At this point in all fairness it does become pertinent to suggest that the involved parties may have become too discouraged and doubtful to submit more of that sort of evidence, regardless of how much good faith was behind the invitation. The list of requests for arbitrator direction remains unanswered so any arbitrator who wishes to demonstrate good faith--as opposed to extending theoretical arguments against expressing doubts in it--is welcome to answer questions 1 through 4. Durova⁴¹² 21:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

To Newyorkbrad: We were specifically told to stop adding evidence a month ago. Are you now asking for fresh evidence to be added?   Will Beback  talk  23:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The most recent case of plagiarism by Kbob occurred in September,[1] the most recent by Bigweeboy was in late November,[2] and by Hickorybark at the end of December,[3] as shown in evidence. That's less than two months prior to the filing of this case. A significant amount of the evidence against Fladrif is older than that. In previous RFARs it seems like the rough "statute of limitations" has been a year. Has that changed? Is evidence that's two months old too old to be considered?   Will Beback  talk  20:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Reminder of why this case was accepted

Let's just take a minute to remind ourselves of the circumstances under which this case was presented. The request was initiated by a checkuser clerk after multiple checkusers pointed an SPI request to the Arbitration Committee, and checkusers subsequently endorsed the request. In other words, it was the possibility of complex sockpuppetry, as identified by independent checkusers and SPI investigators, that was the primary motivation for accepting this case. The result of that aspect was the discovery of a single sock of a previously banned user, and no evidence of socking on the part of the editors named in the SPI. Other behavioural issues had not reached the arbitration level of dispute resolution, and there's not a lot of evidence that other dispute resolution methods were tried; in the situations where they were tried, they look to have been largely successful, even if some editors didn't like particular results. Few of the editors involved have block logs (and those who do are not the same ones as linked by the SPI request), and there were few warnings to any of the editors from uninvolved editors or administrators. Nothing brought forward in the evidence indicates that there are serious endemic problems within these articles, at least not to the extent that it is beyond the ability of the community to provide feedback, guidance and (small scale) dispute resolution. Risker (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The initial reasons for requesting the case may have been a checkuser result, yet as often happens at arbitration other weighty issues arose during evidence phase. The Committee was willing to rule upon improper use of sourcing at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG. Similar matters have arisen here, and several named parties are university faculty. Unresolved accusations of this type can have a very damaging impact upon professional academic careers, yet nothing in the proposed decision lifts that cloud from anyone's head. The Committee has demonstrated willingness to expand case scope with regard to civility. Why remain silent on this weightier issue, where the consequence of silence may make nontenured faculty reluctant to contribute at any controversial subject? Durova⁴¹² 22:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

As for the sockpuppet/meatpuppet issues: There are two issues that haven't been clearly addressed by the ArbCom:

One, we know that the TM editors have all edited from the same range. We have evidence that they all support the same POV (and there has never been a significant disagreement between them). If that isn't evidence of collusion then what evidence would be needed to show collusion or meatpuppet activities?

Two, the logged out edits of TimidGuy haven't been addressed. Some months after he said he had retired from Wikipedia an IP started editing aggressively. He was asked repeatedly to say whether he had a previous account but failed to answer, or treated the question as an improper invasion of his privacy. Even after the matter went to the noticeboards he wouldn't admit to being a returning editor. That seems disruptive as well as deceptive. Does logged-out editing never count as sock puppetry? Could we get a clear answer from the ArbCom of what kinds of deceptive editing are acceptable?

As for the other issues, I don't know what is considered "endemic". To me that would mean a long term problem. I've provided ample evidence of long-term problems. In addition to the long term POV pushing, tag teaming and article ownership, there have been numerous instances of plagiarism by three of the TM editors. Now Newyorkbrad says he only wants to see evidence of short-term problems. So which are are looking for - short term issues or long term issues? There's evidence of both.

The future of this topic looks bleak. With 7thdr/Tucker banned, Fladrif on the edge of being banned, and other editors scared off, this topic may end up with six active TM editors versus me alone. By what mechanism does the ArbCom propose that a single editor can achieve NPOV consensus when there are at least a half-dozen editors pushing their fringe POV?   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It could've been avoided by 7thdr not socking, etc etc. And by saying "TM editors versus me alone" you've squarely aligned yourself with the anti-TM group. Was this a slip or what? I know that you've tried to be neutral in this difficult topic. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Just because evidence is requested for an extraordinary claim does not mean that one is against the topic at hand. It must be keep in mind that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I do not think the characterization of this debate as being between a Pro and an Anti group adds anything. The mainstream scientific community finds that TM is no superior to relaxation therapy. No worse just equivalent. This is hardly an anti position. When one states that the mechanism of action is via a "unified field of consciousness" [4] it is not hard to understand why there is skepticism to the claim that TM reduces hospital admissions by 55% [5] and biological aging [6]. More of the "rigorous, peer-review published, scientific research" is here describing the ability to fly as a natural extension of TM.[7] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality is a difficult concept because it is essentially subjective. If one starts from the viewpoint that editors fall into "pro-TM" and "anti-TM" camps, you make the assumption that they are are equal viewpoints. This was much discussed in the Scientology case, which in that way does become relevant to this issue. One could argue that scientific opinion represents the mainstream view and "pro-TM" very much a minority view. From that perspective, Will is actually in the "pro-NPOV" camp and his protagonists are in an "anti-NPOV" group, because of WP:UNDUE. I hope arbitrators will be willing to weigh those different perspectives when reaching their decisions. --RexxS (talk) 03:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Doc James and RexxS make excellent points: the premise of two opposing camps deserves critical review and might not be applicable to this case. Even if that premise were applicable, it amounts to a serious swipe at the intellectual integrity of this case's named parties to segue from misuse of source material to editor POV as if the two concepts were inseparable. If arbitrators expect good faith about their willingness to parse evidence, surely they can extend good faith about its presentation. Durova⁴¹² 05:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have been following this case, but as I was not involved in editing these articles or content disputes, I shall not comment on individual editors. I do have the concern that the article has the potential to revert back to how it was several months ago, i.e. an article presenting a fringe POV, by an alledgedly "scientifically based" religious movement by tenditious editing. My concern the article would revert back to the way it was several months ago due to tenditious editing and continual disruptive arguing on the talk page serving to drive away editors who are just trying to uphold NPOV and DUEWEIGHT. Articles such as these tend to attract the most energy from individuals who want to promote the fringe viewpoint and those who want to restore NPOV simply do not have the same energy and thus are driven away. I have wondered if due to the size of the case, the evidence was only skimmed over? If arbcom is not going to pass findings and remedies on certain pieces of evidence, such as the suspicious editing from a number of edits from the same university and small town, I hope arbcom will be willing to revisit this evidence if drama persists on these articles. Hopefully I am wrong and some commonsense and calmness will descend onto these articles.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Will hasn't responded yet, but the fact that Will said "TM versus me" is very telling. He didn't say his efforts to stay neutral would be harder, nor that handling problematic Pro-TM editors would be harder to handle, etc. He seems to lumped the whole shebang into pro and anti TM camps, not pro and anti balanced article/NPOV efforts. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Rlevse, I hope you're trying to remain neutral in this. So far, I've only seen you addressing issues about people who aren't among the TM editors.

As for my comment, allow me to explain. I have tried to remain neutral. However if there's a situation where there are no "anti" editor to argue against "pro" editors then do we think that the TM editors will write NPOV material on their own? That's why I got involved in the first place - no one else was providing other view points in an effective way, or arguing agasint skewing the POV of the articles. I repeatedly asked the active editors to fix a couple of POV issues and they wouldn't so that's when I began to spend more time learning the details of this issue, about which I knew very little last year. If some editors are at one extreme, then even the most neutral editor will end up opposing some of their POV editing.   Will Beback  talk  14:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Will, no problem talking other topics, so...Roger posted a little ago about plagarism and I agree with him, including about the editors making progress. Also, the diffs I've seen had refs, but not quotes. Are you concerned about the refs themselves or lack of quote marks? As for COI, you filed several on the parties in the case and while some had some results and that with the framework in the PD Roger has come up with I feel will suffice. As for socking that you were so positive existed, the CUs found none on the pro-TM side - and note I did not run those, another arb did. You can't keep trying to change the direction of the case everytime it's not taking the course you expected. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has become very fractured. I'll reply to Roger Davies below regarding plagiarism, but for the moment let me say that copying text without placing it in quotation marks is plagiarism. Copying text from a TM ad as if it were an authoritative statement is just plain bad, POV editing. But apparently the ArbCom thinks that's fine.

As for the COI issue, two of the editors have openly admitted to being employees of Maharishi University of Management. Not only do they continue to edit that and closely related articles, they also actively promote the use of studies conducted by MUM staff, etc. But apparently the ArbCom thinks that unrestricted COI editing is OK.

I don't think I ever said that there were actual sock puppets involved in this case, in the sense of a single editor using multiple accounts. My concern was, and remains, that editors who push the same POV and who join together in consensus in talk page discussions were all editing from the same IP pool, and possibly even sharing computers. Logged out edits show that, in fact, most of these editors have edited from the same IP pool. I was also told that some of them have used identically configured computers (though its such a common configuration that it isn't considered meaningful on its own). While I've been informed, vaguely, that some of the editors also edit from IPs that are far away, the public evidence is incontrovertible. But apparently the ArbCom thinks it's OK for friends and neighbors to work together to promote the same POV and to skew the consensus on talk pages, which is otherwise known as meat puppetry.

I haven't yet seen anyone address the issue of TG's extensive logged-out edits. To those of us who weren't in on it, it was deceptive. He was asked repeatedly if he had another account, but he refused to answer. Apparently the ArbCom thinks its OK to edit deceptively.

How have I sought to change the direction of the case? Need I remind you that you wrote to me a couple of times in November saying you thought this matter would have to go to the ArbCom, and that you had to limit your further involvement so you wouldn't have to recuse?   Will Beback  talk  01:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

A statement like that can only proceed from a complete misunderstanding and misconception of what Will's role in this matter has been. He has unfailingly pushed a single "POV" - that the standards of Wikipedia for neutrality, reliability, and verifiability be followed. And, if he is indeed alone in playing that role in these articles, in contrast to the POV pushing of the TM_Org editors, then the articles will indeed once again devolve into the PR pieces that they were formerly. That you would lump him in as an "anti-TM" editor based on his comment above is so far divorced from reality that the utter wrong-headedness of the Committee's approach to this case becomes as understandable as it is lamentable. Fladrif (talk) 12:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this post, made two days ago, clearly illustrates Will Beback's standard POV and standard editing and/or game-the-system tactics.[8]-- — Kbob • Talk • 12:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that thread shows how Kbob is getting ready to use the (proposed) decision to get a topic ban against me. If Arbs think that the NPOV of the topic will be improve by banning Fladrif and 7thdr, and by topic banning me, then they're responsible for the outcome.   Will Beback  talk  14:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Will.. no one amongst the Arbs has suggested that you be topic banned (or for that matter, that Fladrif will be banned). When I looked over this case, what I was looking for (to establish the meat/sock thing).. was coordination. To be honest, I'm not seeing it. Is there a lot of editors in the area editing in similar patterns? Yes. But no indication of coordination. The plagarism comments do worry me, but it's going to take a bit more review on that before I can really say anything (someone suggested that instead of plagarism, this was a situation of misquoting, and as I said, I need to review that). What concerns me greatly is that we're trying to end the current battle.. and that everyone seems to be gearing up to fight the next battle. SirFozzie (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. As for a topic ban, there are two Admins in particular, Rlevse and Dreadstar, who have repeatedly blocked or threatened to block non-TM editors. Discretionary sanctions mean that either of them could warn and then topic ban me. The elaborate posting by Kbob that he linked to above is not the kind of thing one writes to resolve a minor editing dispute - it's the kind of thing one compiles as evidence of improper editing. As for coordination, I'm not sure what kind of evidence folks would be looking for that hasn't already been provided. They vote together, they agree with each other on every major dispute, they've never disagreed on anything significant, they've edited from the same IP pool, etc. What other kinds of coordination are there? Regarding the plagiarism, yes, please do review the evidence. I think it's clear, and in some cases occurred shortly before the beginning of this case. As for your last point, I agree completely. Other editors noticed that, as soon as the draft decision was filed, the TM editors seemed to ramp up their editing and aggressiveness, perhaps feeling they'd been exonerated. A decision that essentially says they've done nothing wrong, and that anyone who argues with them is open to being topic banned, is unlikely to create either NPOV articles or a peaceful editing environment.   Will Beback  talk  16:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If we are looking at the conduct of all editors, it is inevitable that yours will be included. Not least because of the nature of the allegations made and the sanctions last year in the Prem Rawat case, which has some similarities.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I just re-read RFAR/Prem Rawat 2. The only issue I can see that I was specifically admonished over was edit warring. To my chagrin, I ended up blocked over a single revert that apparently violated the hard-to-understand remedies in that case. Ever since then I have been very careful about doing anything that approached edit warring. I think I have learned my lesson from that case.

Let me suggest a similarity between the disputes. First, the Prem Rawat topic was dominated by three followers of Prem Rawat. Likewise, the TM topic is dominated by followers of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. The first Prem Rawat case ended by putting the article on probation, and reminding editors to edit with consideration of WP:COI. That remedy had little effect on the dispute and within a year there was a second case. It resulted in topic bans for the two dominating editors (Jossi retired, then snuck back almost immediately as a sock puppet). With the three problem editors removed from the dispute the dispute mostly evaporated. Talk:Prem Rawat had been among the busiest talk pages on the project, but since then it has been very quiet and the articles have been very stable. So while the Prem Rawat editors were claiming that if they were banned then anti-Rawat editors would re-write the article into an attack piece, that hasn't happened at all. In fact, there's have been very few changes in the past year.

Another similarity is that I had no significant knowledge or connection to either Prem Rawat or TM prior to editing the articles on Wikipedia. In both cases I got involved because it was apparent that there were POV editors controlling the topics. That's the kind of behavior that the ArbCom and the project as a whole should encourage. Does the ArbCom think that the Prem Rawat articles would have been better if I'd stayed away? Does it think that uninvolved editors should avoid getting involved with the TM topic? That's the message that discretionary sanctions sends.

"If we are looking at the conduct of all editors..." Aren't we looking at the conduct of all editors? Isn't that the point of this process? If any arbcom member, admin, or plain old editor has an issue with my editing I am always interested in improving, and my user talk page is open.   Will Beback  talk  02:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The point of the process is primarily dispute resolution. This can be achieved in a number of ways, and the committee traditionally decides the best approach on a case by case basis.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

For an example of productive discussion of this type, please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive56#User:Wispanow: the discussion shows how all of Jayen466's citations were correct, and consensus formed that Winspanow's misuse of sources merited a stern warning just short of formal restriction. The problem didn't occur again afterward, but if another AE thread were necessary any uninvolved administrator could see exactly where things stood in about five minutes' read. It would do a service both to the editors who need to improve their use of sources and to the Wikipedians who may need to follow up, if the arbitrators set forth their reasoning with equal candor. This isn't checkuser; this can be discussed in the open. Durova⁴¹² 17:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

There were specific prohibitions on misuse of sources in the draft I punted in the workshop. In the end, prompted by Brad's comment, I decided to go for something simpler.  Roger Davies ^talk

As a guidepost for moving forward, what would really be useful would be specific assessments of each editor's conduct to this point. Otherwise, at followup discussions onsite a consensus of uninvolved editors would suppose that none of the evidence merited a specific finding of fact, etc. Yet the vague cautions and hints that sub-actionable violations had occurred could really follow the editors around. With regard to the AE example both Winspanow and Jayen466 had accused each other of misrepresenting source material; automated translators weren't very good at handling that material so it came as a relief to Jayen466 to get cleared of the accusations. The best thing for difficult subjects is to get GAs and FAs; few people contribute them and the ones who do are more likely to remain motivated if they can seek resolution for documentable conduct problems without fear that unfounded accusations against them might gain traction. Durova⁴¹² 19:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Coming from a bit of experience within a related area, it is indeed accurate that GAs and FAs within a controversial topic area are generally helpful to stabilize the topic and provide constructive models moving forward. -- Cirt (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Speaking purely as an individual, a TM wikiproject would an excellent idea, especially if it had FAQs and so forth dealing with some of the more contentious topics.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction

Enforcement #1 appears to contradict remedy #7. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

How so?  Roger Davies ^talk 15:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Stifle is right, in that the maximum block lengths in the Fladrf remedy are shorter than the ones in the general enforcement remedy. They should be made consistent unless there's a specific reason for them not to be. (In general, see the enforcement section of the Gibraltar decision for language that can be picked up here—although in that case, the situation was the opposite, in that we had an editor who might earn a more severe initial block than others.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

They don't actually contradict each other though; it's just the tariffs and the article range that differ. That doesn't bother me very much as the editor can, of course, be sanctioned either under their own restriction (on any article) or under the discretionary sanctions (on TM-related articles).  Roger Davies ^talk 16:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Recusal

Should not Rlevse recuse himself from this proceeding? His level of involvement on the various talk and userpages of the involved editors [9] [10][11][12][13][14][15][16], to say nothing of love letters like these [17][18][19], create the appearance of impropriety to be voting on these proposals. I expect that these will suffice, and it will be unnnecessary to cite more examples. Will's evidence in the case showed that Rlevse is one of the "go to" admins that the TM-Org editors send new Fairfield editors to off wiki. Rlevse is nearly as knee deep in this as Dreadstar, and probably should have been listed as an involved adminstrator from the start. Fladrif (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Has Rlevse shared his correspondence regarding this matter with various with the other ArbCom members? He and I exchanged several notes regarding administrative warnings and enforcements in this dispute prior to the case opening. I think that it'd be best if the entire ArbCom has access to those and and any other discussions with parties to this case.

There is also the issue of plagiarism. One of the ArbCom members was recently accused of plagiarism. Having an allegation like that would understandably make it difficult to draft a remedy finding fault with an editor for engaging in that prohibited practice. Can Roger Davies comment on his feelings about plagiarism, and whether his personal circumstances have any bearing on how the plagiarism allegations in this case has been overlooked?   Will Beback  talk  19:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the WP:PLAGIARISM guideline, in particular, the Addressing the editor involved section. In this instance, the editors involved have said they'll be more careful in future and, as far as I can tell, have stuck to their word. As the recommendations in the guideline have been satisfied, there is no need for a finding.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussions on this page have gotten very fragmented. I'll respond here about the plagiarism issue, which was first raised a week ago on the Workshop talk page.

Let's look at the chronology of Kbob's editing. First, he noticed that another TM editor, Luke Warmwater 101, had copied material. He brings it to Luke's attention, notifying him that it is not permitted:

• ...it appears that you have quoted directly from his book. This is not permitted on Wiki unless the person is being "quoted" and then quotation marks are used. Generally we paraphrase info from sources unless there is a specific reason to quote the author. You can check WP:CS for more details. thanks --Kbob (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[20] Kbob clearly knew that it isn't permitted.
• From August 12-17 he engaged in at least a dozen instances of plagiarism. [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]
• On August 27, I noticed a couple of the instances and brought it to his attention.[33] (Littleolive oil immediately came to his defense.) He apologized and said it was a simple mistake, but didn't mention any of the other instances. He never corrected any of his other plagiarisms.
• On September 13 he did it again.[34]
• On October 19 he did it again.[35]
• On December 29 I asked him to review his edits and clean up and remaining plagiarism, but he never bothered.[36]

So he did it twelve times after he already knew it was wrong, and then did it twice more after being specifically asked to not do it again. And he never cleaned up his own mess. Three other TM editors have also engaged in plagiarism, including one instance in late December by an editor who says he's a professor.

I think that extensive, repeated violations by four editors is enough to at least merit a principle that plagiarism is not permitted, a finding of fact that it occurred, and an admonition not to do it again.   Will Beback  talk  04:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Will Beback, that matter was reviewed by independent, knowledgeable editors who had no particular axe to grind about the arbitrator involved, and no significant issues were identified. As noted below, if you had concerns that any of the arbitrators on this case should have recused, you had two months to bring it up. Risker (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Risker, have you reviewed the correspondence in this case between Rlevse and myself? In case there's any doubt, I give Rlevse permission to share it. As for the other matter, do you think that someone who has recently been accused of plagiarism can do the best job of drafting a case in which one of the charges is plagiarism?   Will Beback  talk  15:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

With respect, Will, the evidence page, which runs to about 18,000 words, contains just six words on plagiarism ("and has also engaged in plagiarism") so it's not and never has been a core case issue.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The big question here is, why is Fladrif only asking for a recusal now, after voting started? If he truly felt the need for this, why wasn't it requested at the beginning of the case, 18 Feb? Or when Roger posted his PD (30 Apr), or (best of all) when I removed the duplicate diffs and added the additional diffs (1 May) to the workshop page, which BTW Fladrif edited later on 2 May? I'll let each editor draw their own conclusions about how this looks asking for it now. No one at all has asked for a recusal til now. As for the Little Olive Oil links, I was responding to the kindness shown on my talk page after I was ill; I thanked EVERYONE, and eventually made them all Awesome wikipedians, so using that as a recusal point is absurd. I blocked 7thdr long ago and she was caught socking as part of this case in my role as an arb, verified by a second very experienced CU and Arb, that finding is merely a statement of fact. Arbs are not expected to recuse when acting in arb roles during a case -- the CU came as a result of evidence brought up in this case, which started in a an SPI filing. I've asked others about the recusing and they see no need for recusing from the case and point out that recusal requests should be made early, definitely before voting starts. As for recusing from findings about Fladrif, those I’ve consulted feel it’s not a clear cut case and I’ll think about it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration policy doesn't seem to set a deadline for recusal requests. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Who takes part? The primary responsibility is for arbitrators to recuse themselves.[37][38]   Will Beback  talk  04:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Re timing - Common sense. Plus I'm not really seeing the need here. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be an assumption of bad faith on Rlevese's part with respect to the timing of this issue being raised. I am raising it now because I am frankly shocked that Rlevese was voting rather than recusing himself, which he clearly should have done. Until he crossed that line, it was not an issue. As Will said, the relevant policy says that the issue of recusal can be raised at any time. Need is not the issue - it is hardly likely to make a difference in the outcome. The appearance of impropriety is the issue. You really think, just as an example that sending olive a "Awesome Wikipedian" day in the midst of a highly contentious COIN doesn't stink of bias? These explanations and excuses don't pass the smell test. You really want dozens of additional diffs posted here?Fladrif (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, no. You don't get to kick up a fuss and demand recusal of someone after they've voted, particularly after a two-month-old case, and after they've voted in a way that you don't like. All of that information existed beforehand: had you a concern at any point, you should have raised it well before this, starting with the arbitrator personally. Risker (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, Rlevse and I have had several discussions of his involvement in this case, some of them initiated by him. I asked him again at the beginning of the case, and even then he was considering at least a partial recusal. Have you reviewed that correspondence?   Will Beback  talk  16:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Precisely Will, I said it'd crossed my mind, I didn't say I was going to and you were okay with that; you can't tell only half the story here. And Risker hit it on the head, Fladrif and you by bringing this up now are merely crying wolf because you don't like all or some of the results. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well paarrrrrdon me! ;) I've suggested that we share the complete correspondence with the ArbCom. I'm happy to tell the whole story. "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" seems like a different situation. I will admit to being frustrated with the proposed resolution of this case, in part because of the impression that I and others have gotten that the submitted evidence wasn't given a full and fair review. (I can't really blame arbs for not reading evidence. I ran for the job twice and never regret losing - I don't know how you folks do it.)   Will Beback  talk  04:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Again with the assumption and attribution of bad faith. I said quite clearly that I do not expect that your participation or recusal would make any difference in the outcome here. The integrity of the process is what is important here. For you to complain about timing, and to attribute bad faith to those raising the issue, when the issue was in fact raised with you privately months ago, does not reflect well on your integrity or judgment. Fladrif (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. I suggest you read the policy. The issue may be raised at any point during the arbitration process. The arbitration process is still underway. How Rlevse voted has nothing whatsoever to do with it. It is that he voted, not how he voted. It is telling that Rlevese apparently believes that his edits of May 1 were the final straw that should have triggered a request for recusal at that time. That appears to be an admission that there is at minimum an appearance of impropriety in his continued participation, which raises the real timing question: Why did not Rlevse recuse himself sua sponte at that point in time? Pointing the finger at me and complaining about timing is a complete non-starter. Fladrif (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's not focus on the process to the detriment of the product.   Will Beback  talk  16:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'd like to apologize to both Roger Davies and Rlevse for questioning their ability to judge the TM matter fairly. I admit that I was quite dismayed at the proposed decision but raising personal issues was not the best way to respond. As an admin, I'm used to having folks tell me I'm biased against their cause because I did a procedural block or revert. I should know better than to respond the same way.   Will Beback  talk  09:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

NPOV editing

I believe that the last sentence in Proposed principle#4 ("In deciding the appropriate weight to place upon a claim or viewpoint, it is its prevalence within reliable published sources that is important, not the prominence given to it by Wikipedians or the general public") may contradict the NPOV policy – in particular, the sentence "It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common". It is a mistake to assume that the word "common" merely refers to sources, and this topic illustrates the point exactly. For example, many of the health claims made for TM have multiple sources published by their proponents, but mainstream medical opinion finds very little of significance in those claims, although there is a paucity of mainstream medical sources directly addressing them. If PP#4 were to pass, it would open the floodgates for fringe topics to concentrate on the proponent POV with much less weight granted to opposing mainstream scientific POV. In my very humble opinion, this would be a ludicrous outcome, and I would strongly urge the drafters to revisit that proposed principle.

I also find it rather unusual that the Proposed final decision contains five proposed principles concerning NPOV, yet no proposed finding of fact related to them, and with only an indirect reference in Remedies. On reviewing the evidence, I cannot agree that there was no editing contravening NPOV that warranted a finding. I would again strongly urge the drafters to revisit the Proposed findings of fact and at least offer ArbCom the opportunity to decide whether such contraventions merit an ArbCom finding. --RexxS (talk) 02:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Without commenting one way or the other, I hope that this statement as a premise, "For example, many of the health claims made for TM have multiple sources published by their proponents, but mainstream medical opinion finds very little of significance in those claims, although there is a paucity of mainstream medical sources directly addressing them.", and the subsequent points based on that premise will be looked at closely, and the accuracy of RexxS statement (no disrespect intended) not taken for granted (olive (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC))

As a note: Research on the TM technique is not the same as research on Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health or on the Maharishi Effect nor should those research areas be conflated and lumped under the term TM. (olive (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC))

(ec) Thanks for drawing attention to my unreferenced assertion, and I apologise for not stating my reasons. If I can be helpful in illustrating how I came to that conclusion, a PubMed search on "transcendental meditation" gives 279 hits. Sampling those indicates a predominance of primary studies, which WP:MEDRS clearly advises should be treated with care. Of the secondary sources within those results, I have yet to find one that offers a definitive conclusion, although several have statistically significant correlations which "warrant further research". I hope that the guidance documented at Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) concerning acceptable sources for medical claims will also be closely scrutinised, particularly in its much stronger preference for secondary sources ("general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies") than applies for general sourcing. --RexxS (talk) 03:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

In response to the additional note: a PubMed search on "Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health" gives 5 results; "Maharishi Effect" 24 results. I don't believe those in any way alter my conclusion. Hope that helps --RexxS (talk) 04:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, this case includes dubious claims made for Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health and Maharishi Effect as well as the relatively uncontroversial claims made for TM. Few medical sources endorse the concept that Yogic Flying can create a field of positive energy that reduces ill health, or that Indian herbs laced with heavy metals are beneficial, or that silently reciting the Vedas while blowing on an afflicted part is a worthwhile treatment for chronic illnesses like leukemia. I'm disheartened that the ArbCom treats editors who promote fringe medical treatments the same as those think that Wikipedia should not be a soapbox for commercial products.   Will Beback  talk  05:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The knack in this case will be getting Group A talking sensibly to Group B, and finding the common ground they can both live with that is supported by independent reliable sources. This can't be achieved by turfing people out of the topic. It's more a matter of assuming good faith (difficult though that may be), acknowledging that two very different belief systems exist and trying to reconcile them.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Rexx, all of the editors involved have been trying very hard to follow MEDRS. I believe that all of the primary sources in the TM article have been deleted in the research section, and that it now exclusively uses meta-analyses and research reviews. That section is still very much a work in progress. The separate EEG section includes primary sources added by Kala Bethere, but that will be fixed. It is the goal of involved editors to revise the article on Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health to replace all of the primary sources with secondary. I've listed a half dozen secondary sources on the Talk page that I was able to quickly find but haven't yet had time to work on that. Anyone would be welcome to contribute to that effort. Regarding mainstream acceptance of the research, it seems to me that we can just go with what the secondary sources say. Regarding the issue of the Maharishi Effect (see TM-Sidhi program), I really don't have any idea how to deal with that. I wish we could just exclude it from Wikipedia. TimidGuy (talk) 10:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I know this is a bit off topic but why would we want to exclude the TM-Sidhi program from Wikipedia? These are verifiable claims made by this organization. It is still being promoted as I have linked to above. I know some factions of the organization wants to distance themselves from this program as it casts further doubt on their other claims. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

TG writes above: I believe that all of the primary sources in the TM article have been deleted in the research section, and that it now exclusively uses meta-analyses and research reviews. Did this happen at the urging of the TM editors? No, they fought it. As recently as February, when this case started, Littleolive Oil complained about the removal of primary sources.[39] It is certainly not her goal to remove primary sources. Overall, the process of bringing that article into compliance with WP:MEDRS as been blocked repeatedly and strenuously by the TM editors.   Will Beback  talk  16:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Battlegrounds and how to remove them...

I had this kicking around in my head when I was reviewing the evidence posted in this case. Quite a few (not all) of the parties are "here for the TM fight". A lot of the evidence posted wasn't really on wiki evidence at all, just links to anti/pro TM material (blogs, tweets and the like). Putting aside that... We get to the concerns about meatpuppeting. Yes, a lot of people who study/believe/support in TM live in a certain area, which makes for a lot of background noise for any coordinated activities to fade into. How we resolve that, I'm not 100% sure. I don't THINK it falls into meat/sock relationships (I don't see the coordination required to call it that, but I'm reviewing still)

I've seen areas like this before. Areas so entrenched that you cannot really put out the flame, all you can do is try to cap it, and try to starve it of oxygen. Roger has chose one method to try to resolve this with the discretionary sanctions, and I cannot fault him for that (the least possible force required to resolve an issue is always the best).. but what I see here on the talk page and elsewhere does not fill me with hope that this will solve anything, but instead push the battles out to ArbCom Enforcement and quite probably somewhere down the line to a second TM case. I see some of that planning for these future battles already.

So, the question is.. will the proposed sanctions (on all parties) be enough to resolve this, and get the parties back into editing on the right path? Or, should we scrap this now, and start throwing topic/site bans willy nilly, and to try to starve it by reducing the flame at the source? Here's the thing, folks. Except for a few people with good faith concerns, if you're sitting back and saying "They won't restrict me".. I'd suggest a re-think. SirFozzie (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this proposed decision is unlikely to solve any problems with this topic, and would tend to push the conflict onto AE or ANI, or even here again. Maybe we should move back to the workshop. I certainly don't think that "throwing topic/site bans willy nilly" is a good solution. Have members of the Arbs reviewed all of the evidence? Rather than indiscriminate bans or blanket discretionary sanctions, would remedies targeted on the actual problems shown in evidence be a better way forward?   Will Beback  talk  16:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That is because the two sides are not showing signs here on this talk page of disengaging. We could make a WP:ARBMAC2-type decision if that is what is needed. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The disputes in this case are nowhere near as intransigent or severe as in that case. Further, I don't think this talk page is a good example of the editing process in this topic. Despite differences, the editors in this topic have mostly worked well together.   Will Beback  talk  04:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have read all the evidence (and printed most of it out). Based on the assertions made, it would be possible to put three or four heads of findings of fact for each of the following editors:

• Bigweeboy
• ChemistryProf
• David spector
• Fladrif
• Hickorybark
• Jmh649
• Kala Bethere
• Keithbob
• Littleolive oil
• Luke Warmwater101
• Roseapple
• TimidGuy
• Will Beback

However, whether enough of the conduct complained of is serious enough to merit a finding of fact or is sanctionable is another matter. For example, it seems likely there is some collaboration at some level among some editors but that falls far short of establishing off-wiki conspiracy.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Roger I think what you suggest above would be a good idea. A lot of accusations have been leveled and these deserve scrutiny or little will be resolved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

We'd discussed more individual sanctions, pretty along the line as Roger mentions just above, but decided on the approach in the current PD. Given behavior from both sides here on this talk page, I'm thinking more and more that we make need to walk down that path. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

In all walks of life, I've always had a great deal of sympathy with the principle of using the least sanctions necessary to modify behaviour. For that reason, I have no criticism of the lack of individually targeted Remedies in this case. However, I would not apply the same reasoning to Findings of fact – at present ArbCom is not even testing (with a vote) the possibility that other FoFs might be appropriate. If there were to be AE (or a follow-up case), then having documented FoFs ought to avoid anyone having to trawl through this case's pages to find relevant information. I may be wrong and ArbCom may conclude that there are no other concerns that merit a FoF; but if I'm right, then a chance would be missed to "fire a shot across the bows" and encourage editors to move in the right direction, without having to impose direct sanctions at present. --RexxS (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem is framing this as "two sides": trench mentality worsens chronic conflict. It is important to refrain from indiscriminate use of broad partisan brushes; one certain way to drive impartial editors away from an area is to pigeonhole them merely because they tried to help resolve a conflict. Within nearly every chronic conflict one sees a range of editors: some tendentious, some impartial, and others who hold a strong POV yet are capable of putting encyclopedic goals first. The way to stabilize an area is to identify which editors editors fall into these three categories and respond appropriately to each of them. The ones who really are tendentious will try to blow as much smoke as possible. At worst, the tendentious editors succeed in convincing outsiders that the area is an impenetrable mess; at best, the editors who can reform do reform and generate quality content while stemming the influx of new POV warriors. Durova⁴¹² 20:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

A good way to organize quality content and promote improvement would be to create a WikiProject. -- Cirt (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

At the community level, yes. In terms of arbitration what's needed is to identify whether a dispute includes editors who would stymie any community initiative. Disruptive editors go through the motions of collaboration while really just cycling back through the same points. The people who would create quality content basically need to be freed from wheel-spinning. Durova⁴¹² 22:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Following the topic bans of user:Momento and user:Rumiton, and the site ban of user:Jossi's sock puppet, the Prem Rawat dispute quieted down substantially. However there were still outstanding issues. We created a Wikiproject, initially under the auspices of mediators, to provide a central location for discussions. Wikipedia:WikiProject Prem Rawat That project certainly helped resolve the remaining problems. Others just faded out on their own when no one was interested in fighting over them. A similar project could be helpful in this topic, and may have the same benefit. I think that it would be a positive step, one that would help settle disputes rather than smothering them or pushing them off to AE.   Will Beback  talk  04:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That mention of Jossi is a reminder why I've been skeptical whether the evidence in this case really received a thorough review. In the first Prem Rawat arbitration I had submitted a detailed evidence presentation, then followed up when Jossi broke his pledge to avoid editing the topic: even though he drove an FA into formal dispute resolution one day after it passed FAC, the 2008 Committee praised him unanimously. One wonders whether that praise emboldened him to wheel war at the Sarah Palin biography afterward. It wasn't until the third arbitration that his conduct received adequate scrutiny. Although he had excellent social skills and a reassuring demeanor, it shouldn't have been too hard to see that his financial conflict of interest really impeded his judgment within certain areas. Durova⁴¹² 17:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Wills frustration

I must echo Will's frustration. I came to this topic as someone posted on WT:MED were I hang out. They requested assistance with the presentation of a health topic. A number of editors commented [40]. These were my first edits [41]. One will note the 2007 Review I added followed by primary research studies from the 1970s and 80 which were there before. I continued to edit this page briefly in the direction that the emerging consensus indicated but have since moved on to other topics which are more amenable to improvement.[42]

I care little about TM per say and am here to write an encyclopedia. It is disheartening to see this project being given over to WP:SPAs who seem to be attempting to use Wikipedia to promote their religion. I have edited many controversial articles and have had my share of mud thrown at me.[43] I beleive in the goal of Wikipedia "which is to provide, free of charge, the depth and breath of human knowledge to the world at large."[44] I have not been perfect in my editing and more than welcome feedback. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Doc James is an example of the sort of "disinterested" yet expert users that we should try to maintain. He's a medical doctor. Supposedly. ; I didn't solicit this comment, and have barely communicated with this user recently. Regardless, it's a nice thought and I agree.   Will Beback  talk  10:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly so. Consider the many editors who have been driven away from editing these pages, whose basic interest and input has been simply - when we're writing about science and medicine, let's be clear about what is mainstream and what is fringe; what is a reliable source and what isn't; what accurately reflects a study's findings or an article's conclusions, and what doesn't. Okrent's Law applies to these discussions, and there is a false equivalency being made and apparently accepted, at least in the draft in looking at this as simply two opposing camps of "pro-TM" and "anti-TM" editors. Fladrif (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Doc James, I disagree, I think that this is more than the usual case of a group of editors trying to promote their religion. Early in this case, evidence was submitted by Andrew Skolnick, a news editor from the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) who suffered horrrendous intimidation from this meditation religion including a multimillion dollar lawsuit for daring to publish a paper on their deceitful scientific papers that TM managed to get published in the JAMA by tricking journal referees, and presumably other journals. His evidence (which can be read in full here, User:Askolnick/evidence), stated that the movement infiltrates, extorts, intimidates organisations and academia. His evidence included claims that the management of this religious meditation movement conducts organised and sophisticated attempts to subvert, distort the scientific literature. He included in his JAMA publication a quote by a former member who stated he was taught to lie, cheat and deceive in everyway possible way and was taught that doing evil was okay because it is for the greater good, the greater good being bringing about a "New World Order" based on Transcendental Meditation. He describes how a lot of the TM scientific research is deceitful, which has gained publication by tricking peer reviewers. They intimidate critics with massive multi-million dollar lawsuits. Based on his testimony, alone, I would have expected remedies similar to those in scientology, such as ip based blocks to the fairfield area. I think that this is more than a dispute between two ideologies. This is about NPOV editors, versus a sophisticated financial organisation, which uses Meditation as its promotional tool.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

After reading Andrew's evidence, I was tempted to start contributing to the TM article, but I promised myself and ARBCOM as well, that I would never be involved in another arbcom case after the stress of the ADHD one, so I avoided the article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Editors who have a financial conflict of interest are not always at liberty to engage in real give and take. Often they are not even at liberty to pursue their organization's best interests: the article Health applications and clinical studies of meditation would be a sensible place to post a photograph of TM being practiced, yet the article contains no photograph of a person actually meditating. What often happens is that COI editors are under orders from their employers to pursue specific text alterations; the person who gives the orders has little idea how this website operates so they swim against the tide. I can't say for certain whether that COI model explains this conflict, but it seems to be consistent and might account for some of the problems. Durova⁴¹² 18:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I actually have mixed views on COI editing and SPA editing. COI editors can be ok, lets say there is a pharmaceutical which is really safe and effective, no significant controversy surrounds it. A drug company pays someone to lets say edit an article on a cancer drug, bingo we get a good quality article. No harm done, eh, in certain cases. Similar SPA accounts can be good, lets say we get some medical doctor, expert in parkinsons, disease, and edits extensively, productively and within policy, exclusively in this subject matter and knocks the article(s) to GA status, this is benefitial. In this case, I think the problem is some people are taking assume good faith to the extreme, and I think it is clear there are problems here with COI and SPA issues and IP range blocks are warranted, otherwise, editors will get burnt out and ownership will revert from the community/general public, back to the fairfield TM organisation. I do wonder, should perhaps the community rule whether COI and SPA are being disruptive and thus simply ban them according to consensus; if GAMEing are an issue, then arbcom could take the complex cases and rule if necessary similar to what happened in the scientology case, ip and account bans??--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, and MCA Universal has been copylefting a lot of artist headshots: perfectly legit and uncontroversial. Some of that content has been promoted to FP and slotted for main page attention. It totally depends on whether management understands where the synergies are. But when an organization tries to squeeze blood from turnips for several years, it behooves the rest of us to recognize that the type of adaptation Wikipedia seeks is probably not compatible with their organizational culture. Durova⁴¹² 19:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

What an apt figure of speech for the MUM editors. As I pointed out on the evidence and talk pages, the COI for the MUM full-time faculty members goes far beyond simply being faculty at a school, even beyond being faculty at a church school or seminary. They are being paid a tenth...let that sink in for a moment... a tenth of what the average faculty member is paid in the same position at other colleges and universities around the country. The lowest pay reported at any other university in the county...a couple of small bible colleges...is more than double what these people are paid. What level of ideological/religious/philosophical (use whatever term you prefer) dedication/committment/fanatacism (again, use what ever term you prefer) is necessary to serve as full time faculty at a tiny school, in a tiny town, in a remote corner of rural Iowa, for pay that can be subtantialy bettered by donning a paper hat as an apprentice fry cook at any fast food joint (and, no, I'm not making fun of the Rajas' crowns [45] ), to spend another four hours or more out of their day, every day, bouncing up and down doing TM-Sidhi in the sincere belief that it will bring about world peace and an uptick in the stock market, and then...then, to spend hour after hour on Wikipedia and countless other blogs, talk-pages, bulletin boards, etc...professing the wonders and benefits of TM large and small, and of the more esoteric areas of TM-Movement practices and beliefs largely unknown to the public, and attempting to supress or refute any material critical of any aspect of it? Even MUM calls them "exeptionally dedicated" and as "working essentially as volunteers" [46] and that an important part of their job is "popularizing Consciousness-based education and health care" [47] This doesn't even consider the celibate Purusha TM monks and Mother Divine TM nuns who do all of the above, and rather than get something approaching minimum wage, instead pay for the privilege of doing all this, nor the curious post, out of the blue, from TM HQ in the Netherlands, apparently unbidden, claiming that a MUM editor in Iowa wasn't being paid for editing Wikipedia. Curiouser and curioser. Blood out of turnips indeed. Did the arbitrators actually let that all sink in when they were framing what in the world was actually going on on these pages? Fladrif (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

As an a propos, the salaries arrangement is not uncommon in fath-based estabishments. A friend of mine, for instance, works as a catechist for a group of Catholic-run private schools in Southern France. She's paid the minimum hourly rate and is expected to "donate" two to three hours free for each one paid. Although she actually puts in full-time hours, she's officially part-time, being paid for about fifteen hours a week. The salaries of nuns working as qualified nurses are often paid directly into the coffers of the order of which the nun is a member, with the nun's needs being met by the religious community. Similarly, field workers for charities (doing say third-world famine relief work) earn a tiny percentage of the pay of the state-employed people they work alongside. However, this doesn't automatically mean that everyone donating their time is incapable of viewing things dispassionately (though it might be true in some cases).  Roger Davies ^talk 04:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps that type of consideration evokes different reactions among different observers. It wouldn't be hard to interpret a strong POV from that statement, and from there to accept the framing of this arbitration as the outgrowth of two pro- and anti-TM coalitions. It is very tempting to accept that framing, split the matter down the middle, and either sanction everybody or nobody. Durova⁴¹² 23:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I would be interested to know if arbitrators read all of User:Askolnick/evidence, which was linked to on the evidence page? Or was just evidence on the evidence page read?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I looked at it. I'm not sure how relevant it is to areas within the committee's remit. We are certainly not here to determine whether the TM movement as a whole is a good or bad thing.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Without accepting or rejecting the author's value judgment, it does present a thesis that is relevant and testable within the scope of this case. Askolnik asserts that TM proponents have gotten material published elsewhere via statistical sleight of hand and obfuscation. Several editors at this case have presented evidence at this case to contend that source material has been misused at Wikipedia. That really deserves a close look because it is one of the few areas where editor conduct is separable from editor POV, and the issue is central to our mission as an encyclopedia. Durova⁴¹² 05:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but don't you agree that almost any editor-related finding based on it would be pure WP:COATRACK?  Roger Davies ^talk 08:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

We have editors who work for nun-like wages at a small quasi-religious school where other faculty members conduct studies that "prove" various theories, some of which mainstream scientists call pseudoscience or quack medicine. Those editors argue strenuously for the inclusion of the studies on Wikipedia to support what we say about those theories, and against including material that calls those studies into question. Where's the coatrack?   Will Beback  talk  08:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

A lot of editors want ArbCom to stay out of content until the moment arises when arbitration might give the upper hand to their position. The real challenge--and one sees this from ANI to AE to here--is to separate and resolve conduct issues that get served with an admixture of content complaints. Some of that gets pretty far afield: the payscale of MUM faculty is of no interest to me. What is determinable is this:

• Have any of the named parties to this case misused citations in a severe or habitual way?
• Have people with demonstrable conduct problems acknowledged their faults and endeavored to reform?
• Regarding the hypothesis that teamwork operates in this dispute, have the parties who appear to be a given 'side' shown distinguishable differences of opinion? Have they attempted to moderate each others' conduct? Or do they employ spin and distraction when valid complaints arise against one of 'their own'?
• The above points could scrutinize any of this case's named parties. If and only if they demonstrate a certain pattern regarding MUM proponents, then Askolnik's presentation might be serviceable as background in terms of estimating the likelihood of voluntary compliance with Wikipedian standards among editors with an acknowledged or probable conflict of interest.

The bulk of Askolnik's ideas would probably be more serviceable, though, if he revised them for publication elsewhere in a vetted source. His assertions that the TM organization has manipulated peer review processes essentially amounts to special pleading against the verifiability and reliable sources policies; it would place the Committee on shaky ground to validate that. No intervention by the Committee is needed in order for Askolnik to seek publication at a reliable source, after which it could get shelf space in Wikipedia's mainspace marketplace of ideas. Likewise, if anyone from the TM organization is interested in adapting to Wikipedia better they are welcome to contact me; what MCA Universal is doing is brilliant (and hasn't landed them in any difficulties)--and there may be ways of adapting that approach here. All of that strays outside of arbitration, though, so please pursue that sort of discussion at my user talk page.

Getting back to this case, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Starwood#Principles bears relevance to this arbitration. In past cases since Starwood I have noticed a diminishing level of support among the arbitrators for repeating its findings, for instance here. This time it isn't even mentioned; I've asked about that and haven't received a reply yet. Am quite curious: have a majority of arbitrators decided to abandon Starwood? That seems to be an unspoken subtext near the core of this page's discussions. Durova⁴¹² 00:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

While I cannot speak for the other arbs, I think Starwood is still viable, despite its absence here.again, I'm looking for the coordination, the nudges to work together, etcetera to truly provide the multiple editors with a single voice. I'm continuing to review this decision and the response to it, to try to find ways to improve it and restore the harmonious editing environment. SirFozzie (talk) 07:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I understand what the Committee is trying to do here, which is to point out the principles that matter to the editors involved and give them notice that they will adhere to them starting now or else. I personally don't think this approach will work, because these editors have always been and always will be zealots for their cause. I believe it is physically impossible for them to correct their behavior based on a call to intellectual and moral reasoning. They're beyond that. Wikipedia's dispute resolution process is so long and arduous that they should have been reminded of Wikipedia's rules of neutrality, collaboration, cooperation, and compromise many times before now. Instead, I suggest that the Committee send them all to their rooms without their supper. In this case, IMO, it will take a proverbial SEE, significant emotional experience, to get them to wake up and realize that they cannot continue acting this way. In short, I suggest one year topic bans for every single editor that Roger listed above. Cla68 (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Cla68 has had no previous involvement with this topic, but has taken many opportunities in the past to criticize me personally. While I assume he's commenting here in good faith, he is not a neutral observer.   Will Beback  talk  20:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a genuine danger that mild warnings and calls to reason may have the opposite of the intended effect. Reasonable people do reassess their priorities, and are likely to consider whether their time is better spent elsewhere. Disruptive individuals usually take keen notice of editor burnout; burnout emboldens them. If one's fundamental approach is political rather than collaborative that's called outlasting the competition. Durova⁴¹² 17:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The group of TM editors have already outlasted many editors who apparently became frustrated by their inability to make any headway in the face of a team of like-minded editors who dominate the topic. The pro-TM bias in the articles have generated many complaints from by uninvolved editors. See Complaints by other editors. I don't see how this proposed decision which would change the dynamic that led to those complaints. (Even a general topic ban may just lead to the creation of new accounts by those willing to sock). If the community can't offer any support in the face of organized tag team editing, then maybe it's best just to revoke the NPOV policy and leave the topic to the editors who care the most, letting them push their POV without interruption.   Will Beback  talk  20:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Will, do you believe that you have any moral high ground here? Cla68 (talk) 22:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't claim "moral high ground", but I do claim that there is a team of POV pushers who have dominated the topic and driven away less-interested editors, resulting in dozens of complaints by uninvolved editors who've read the articles. The stabbing article is about a murder which received international attention. The TM editors had systematically deleted all mention of it from the encyclopedia. When I came across it in the archives I restored it and then Olive said she'd prefer it to be a standalone article, so I split it off. There has been no effort to AFD that article, nor have there even been any significant editing disputes. In fact, aside from the addition of a recent development, it hasn't been edited since January. I think meets all of Wikipedia's standards, including NPOV and V. I have also created or substantially enlarged several other articles within the topic, and I stand by all of my work. See List of Transcendental Meditation practitioners, Prudence Farrow, Natural Law Party, Natural Law Party (United States), Tony Nader, Bevan Morris, David Orme-Johnson, The Beatles at Rishikesh, Maharishi Group, Global Country of World Peace, etc.   Will Beback  talk  23:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If a dispute arises where everyone violates policy that badly then so be it, but many disputes have primary aggressors. Think what would have happened to the Prem Rawat dispute if indiscriminate bans had occurred: afterward Wikipedia would not have benefitted from Will Beback's featured article writing because Will would have respected the ban. But Jossi, who socked to disrupt Will's FAC, would likely have continued at the topic under a different account. Arbitration exists to separate wheat from chaff, not to declare 'chaff exists here' and sweep the floor clean. Chaff has a way of getting into the woodwork unless one is careful. Durova⁴¹² 02:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean to say that Wikipedia still does not have any kind of effective system for ensuring that banned editors stay banned? Then why are we wasting our time with all of this arbitration stuff? Cla68 (talk) 04:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I mean to say that that experienced editors in good standing are well positioned to detect disruptive sockpuppets. A clean sweep wipes institutional memory, which benefits those who bend the rules while penalizing those who do not. In the long run, the 'nuclear approach' generates too much bad fallout. Smart bombs are better. Find the legitimate targets, not the civilians. ;) Durova⁴¹² 00:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the evidence suggests that all the names on Roger's list have bent the rules to some degree or another and I'm sure that several on that list have good institutional memory. The problem is that the ArbCom has so far declined to press any heavy sanctions on the majority of those editors, instead inviting them to renew their dedication to neutral, collaborative editing. What has been the response to that? Threads on this pages stating, basically, "But Arbs! You're forgetting something. We're right and they're wrong!" I accept that you feel that at least one of the editors on that list should be permitted to continue on this topic. So, how about the ArbCom do this: Pass a finding on each and every name on that list clearly detailing each one's transgressions, then giving them all three days to write an essay in response, posted here publicly, in which they are required to reflect on the finding and explain why they think they should be allowed to continue to edit this topic, relating the reason to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Then, I would suggest that the ArbCom topic ban any editor who didn't accept responsibility for their mistakes in the essay and commit to follow Wikipedia's policies henceforth. Cla68 (talk) 04:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"It has long been known that one horse can run faster than another — but which one? Differences are crucial." - Robert Heinlein

If the default position were that every editor in a long term dispute deserved to be banned from the topic then arbitration would hardly be worth undertaking; the site might as well dispense with months of formalities and implement that at ANI. Cla68 may submit a proposal at WT:AGF for this notion of creating a local exception where the opposite assumption applies. Durova⁴¹² 04:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

SirFozzie's comments

At the previous thread SirFozzie commented to the effect that the Starwood principle remains potentially applicable to this case, and that in some way the applicability hasn't been demonstrated yet (please correct if this summary misstates that). Could we have clarification on what's needed there? In past cases where Starwood has been applied, several accounts have usually:

• Shown no recognizable difference of opinion.
• If editorial consensus goes against them, they renew the discussion after an interval with essentially the same argumentation and evidence.
• Supported each other uncritically, as in unusual interpretations of policy or changing the subject when an individual's conduct comes under scrutiny--instead of ever asking that person to change their conduct.

It hasn't been necessary to demonstrate compelling evidence of offsite coordination; Starwood appears to have been written for situations where that type of evidence was inconclusive. It focuses on onsite actions rather than their causes or motives. Has that not been demonstrated adequately here, or has the expectation changed? Durova⁴¹² 01:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

One thing that would help is to show how the two 'sides' here differ. Are both sides uncritically supportive of each other, or does one 'side' show more independence and diversity of thought? Take what you have said above and apply it to both 'sides' and see what results (in my experience, when a situation is as polarised as this, both sides tend to support and be similar to those on the same 'side' as them). Considerations like this are why I (personally) am wary of Starwood-style pronouncements. However, it may be that a majority of arbitrators will agree that a Starwood-style finding would be helpful here, so don't go totally on what I've just said (I'm only one arbitrator). To my mind, demonstrating disruption is more important than demonstrating similarity of editing (the latter can be coincidental or people independently agreeing). Carcharoth (talk) 02:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that response, Carcharoth. One example that arose during this arbitration case was Fladrif's civility: other editors who mainly agreed with him on substance asked him to tone it down, and nobody really argued against the proposed finding or remedy regarding Fladrif at the workshop. I happened to be active at that discussion so it comes to mind; there may be other occasions. One of the most challenging things to mentor (when I used to mentor) was to hold the people whose perspective is similar to one's own to the same high standards one asks of those who agree less frequently, and to give due credit when someone who seldom agrees is in the right. I promised mentorees that would be respected and valued and would stand them well in the long run. It sends a powerful and positive message when ArbCom distinguishes editors who put the project first in those situations. They may never agree on the underlying content, but it helps establish a baseline of trust. Durova⁴¹² 03:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am offended by ArbCom's choice to divide the editors on these articles into two opposing "sides" as if there were no neutral editors working on these articles. But to answer Carcharoth's question, no, the two "sides" if you insist on dividing us up that way, do not operate the same. During the brief time (a few months) I was editing TM and TM-Sidhi, before I gave it up as a useless effort, I openly disagreed, several times, with Fladrif's editing positions; I've been very much opposed on many occasions with Kala Bethere's editorial positions; I've disagreed quite strongly sometimes with Will's editorial positions, like splitting the TM research off into a separate article; I thought that was a terrible idea. Doc James doesn't really count because he was only actively editing the articles for about two weeks, but I didn't always agree with him either, though I was more likely to agree with him than not on sources, because he had a good understanding of MEDRS and did a good job of replacing primary sources with secondary independent sources. The idea that all the editors who have been trying to bring the articles more in line with NPOV were editing in lockstep is just absurd. I can't speak for other editors, but I've noticed that Will has cautioned Fladrif to be more temperate in his expression any number of times, and I too have asked him to tone down his language, besides the editing disagreements I mentioned above. So the idea that "our side" (I still object most vehemently to this characterization) are uncritically supportive of each other simply doesn't hold water. I have to agree with Durova; I really wonder how much of the evidence arbitrators actually read and understood; it seems almost as if the Committee has got this case mixed up with some other dispute. Some of the assumptions they seem to be making, such as that there are two entrenched "ideologies" at war with each other, may apply in some situations on the project, but not here. Woonpton (talk) 03:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it would help to write up those examples with diffs? Durova⁴¹² 04:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm assembling some diffs, but I'll have to post them later.   Will Beback  talk  11:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Still working on it.   Will Beback  talk  06:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Starting back through my contributions to look for examples of me disagreeing with other non-TM-related editors, I came across this, where I said the same thing on the workshop page in February as I've just said here, that it would be a mistake to accept the assertion that this is a case where "anti-TM" editors are arrayed in concerted opposition to "pro-TM" editors. I thought at the time that I was making an appeal to arbitrators, but I've been told since that most arbitrators don't bother to read the workshop, because they consider it just another battlefield where the two "sides" duke it out, and there's nothing to be learned there. I can see how the many battlefields that come to ArbCom's attention could result in a mindset among arbitrators that all ArbCom cases boil down to a battle between opposing "ideologies," but not all disputes are like that. Groups of editors with a strong POV and an interest in making sure articles reflect that POV seem to have learned that a winning strategy before the present ArbCom is to frame the dispute as a battlefield. The strategy serves their purpose well; it certainly has worked in this case, but it does not serve the encyclopedia well, because it encourages and enables a battlefield mentality, favors those whose purpose is to bias content in an unencyclopedic direction, and greatly reduces the probability that neutral editors will venture into the area in the future.Woonpton (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I do get your concern about people being lumped together into various camps, and I agree that it is not optimal. Most of the time throughout this case, however, there has been a very concerted effort to lump together several editors with allegations of collusion; indeed, even this page is riddled with such allegations. Risker (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Several arbitrators have been framing the case in binary terms where either two warring sides exist or none do. The evidence may point in a different direction: one conflict of interest exists in this dispute. With some parties that COI is self-disclosed; with others it is not denied and very probable. I am very curious whether that set of editors ever disagree with each other or criticize each other. The editors who are putatively 'on the other side' have no conflict of interest and do not always agree with each other and do criticize each other. Sometimes one 'side' of a conflict is more cohesive and/or disruptive than another. It is very important for arbitrators to make that distinction: one of our best hopes for stabilizing long term disputes is distinguishing which editors do not behave like blind partisans from those who do. Durova⁴¹² 20:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Woonpton, I don't agree with your assessment of where the problems lie and how to resolve them, or which editors are at fault. But rather than rehash the accusations, I think the more productive way forward is to assume good faith and try to work together to break the logjams. On the level of content, Arbcom will not be able to do this for us. Here is an example of what I have in mind: One major content logjam has to do with the replication of TM research showing significant physiological differences between transcendental experience and ordinary relaxation. Critical studies have argued that they aren't seeing significant differences. Here's why: Transcendental Meditation is a dynamic process with brief periods of transcendental experience embedded in lengthy periods that are indistinguishable from ordinary relaxation, daydreaming, etc. The more sensitive studies focus on the brief periods of transcendental experience, identifying them by correlates such as breath suspension or even asking subjects to press a button when they transcend. During transcendental periods the physiological differences are indeed significant and repeatable. The less sensitive studies just average over the 20 minute meditation period. Often the critical studies are the latter kind, which is why they aren't seeing significant differences. My point is, this is the kind of issue we can think through and explain with proper references to sources. With enough good will on all sides, I don't see why we couldn't generate high-quality, neutral text, with more emphasis on content and less on name calling and epithets ("cult", "pseudoscience", etcetera). Hickorybark (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hickoryback can you please provide an example of the best reference you wish to use to reference this point?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. Yes, I'll do a little research and see what I can find. Hickorybark (talk) 14:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Travis F (2001) "Autonomic and EEG patterns distinguish transcending from other experiences during Transcendental Meditation practice." International Journal of Psychophysiology 42:1-9. [48]In this study, a quiet bell was rung three times during a 15 minute period of Transcendental Meditation. Subjects were then asked to classify their experiences immediately prior to each bell-ring as either 'transcending' or 'other'. The results showed two physiologically distinct substates within the meditation period. Subjective reports of transcending correlated with differences in heart rate, breathing patterns, skin conductance and higher alpha EEG amplitude and coherence, especially in the frontal cortex. A more recent study also bears directly on the question of TM versus eyes-closed rest: Travis F, Haaga D, et al. "A self-referential default brain state: patterns of coherence, power, and eLORETA sources during eyes-closed rest and Transcendental Meditation practice." Cognitive Processing 11:21-30.[49] This is a random assignment, 10-week longitudinal study. Although it doesn't distinguish substates within the meditation period, it does show differences in EEG power and coherence between the TM group and the eyes-closed rest control group. Incidentally, the Research on EEG section in the Wikipedia Transcendental Meditation article is largely based on an encyclopedia article by Antoine Lux, who was primarily writing on Buddhist meditation practices and only tangentially on TM. His article, while interesting, doesn't review the TM EEG research from the past 20 years or more. Hickorybark (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

We're not here to decide content issues. Offering yet another study conducted by the staff of Maharishi University of Management will not resolve the underlying disputes. What would be more relevant would be a clarification of what conflicts of interest exist between the editors promoting these MUM-created sources and MUM itself, and how those will be handled in the future.   Will Beback  talk  22:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I realize that this is off topic but had requested Hickory to provide this for us. The best paper involved 30 people and was done at MUM. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Will's right, James - this isn't the place for it. But it may allow Arbs to see some of the nuances of MEDRS sourcing policy. Personally, I'd advise caution when using that paper as it's a primary, unreviewed source. Looking at Scopus to see where it's been cited, I can see the abstract from a review that ought to be examined. I apologise for being critical of another editor, but it's always better to let experts review primary studies, rather than apply our own criticism of "less sensitive studies" as Hickorybark unfortunately seems to have done above. --RexxS (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I just asked for the evidence as the MUM people keep saying how great it is. The best paper they come up with speaks for itself. What they consider sufficient evidence ( a 30 person primary research study published by MUM ) is not the same as what many of us say is good evidence. This is the divide. We have differing views of WP:RS.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a content issue, but the information that is given by Doc and Will is not accurate as regards these studies and casts an unfair light on some editors. The studies should be examined if an an accurate representation is wanted.(olive (talk) 02:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC))

Misrepresentation of sources is one of the issues in this case. I asserted that these two studies were written by an MUM professor, Frederick Travis. Is that a misrepresentation? I also asserted that some editors may have a conflict of interest regarding MUM. "Editors who have or may be perceived as having a conflict of interest should review and comply with the applicable policies." Is there any question that this applies to some editors regarding MUM?   Will Beback  talk  03:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The Arbs will make the decisions concerning this case not me, and I will respect whatever decision they hand down. My comment requested that they read if necessary and decide for themselves. (olive (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC))

One of the proposed findings concerns conflicts of interest. Does it apply to anyone here or is it going to be ignored by all parties? If it doesn't apply to MUM staff then I don't see how it's relevant.   Will Beback  talk  04:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

This exchange is also characteristic of a behavioral problem that has come up repeatedly. Olive accuses two editors, DocJames and myself, of misrepresenting a source but when pressed to explain she refuses to answer or changes the subject.[50]   Will Beback  talk  04:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I've put together a short page of relevant material at User:Will Beback/TM-Multiple editors with a single voice. The TM editors have never had any significant disagreements and support each other routinely. It's"endemic" and hasn't changed even now.[51][52][53][54] While it may seem biased to refer to the "TM editors", that's a fair and neutral description in this context. TM is the primary topic for all of them, and the sole topic for some. Some of them have professed to practicing for 20 or 30 years, and most have passed through or live in a small town in rural Iowa. Some may have financial ties to the movement, and some may know personally the people we're citing and writing about. In addition, the movement places great emphasis on "coherence", in which everyone's brain waves are in peaceful synchrony. And we've even seen a leaked memo which describes how the movement coordinates responses by members to blog postings.

Among the non-TM editors, there's nothing comparable. My guess is that Fladriff and 7thDr are former members. Aside from them I don't think any other regular editors have a special connection to TM. Doc James and Woonton seem experts in their fields who passed through briefly to try to help. Dbachmann is involved in myriad Indian-related topics, and he also just passed through by (like a hurricane). Personally, I don't know anyone who is fervently for or against TM, and just a year ago I knew little more about the topic than most of the ArbCom. None of the current editors (from across the spectrum) are identifiably posting to the few forums that cover this topic, and Wikipedia isn't an ongoing topic on any of them. There's no apparent anti-TM campaign of which Wikipedia is another battlefield. In other word, the non-TM editors have little in common. Except for Dbachmann and TimidGuy, I didn't know any of these editors before last March.

Rather than two opposing teams, this topic is dominated by a coherent team of editors protecting their topic against the usual Wikipedia rabble who are trying to make it more neutral. For the non-TM editors, resistance seems futile.   Will Beback  talk  13:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Your guess would be wrong. I have previously written several times that I have no current or former connection with TM nor any organization opposed to or in competition with it. Like you, I simply stumbled upon a topic about which I knew virtually nothing, in which I had little interest and about which I had no opinion, but which self-evidently was being dominated by editors who had already been found to have a serious COI problem, who were self-evidently and openly working in concert as a tag-team to push a POV, to supress reliably-sourced information that other editors had tried to add that they found to be negative, inconvenient or embarassing, and which, as a result, seriously compromised the articles and the integrity of the encyclopedia. Since then, I have learned a great deal more about the subject from reading the sources and the discussions, and have tried to reflect what reliable sources say on the subject, to make the articles more neutral and encyclopedic and to address these COI and POV-pushing issues. Some may, and apparently do, disagree with my approach at times, but, as I said in my very first post on the TM Talk Page: Here's a neutral viewpoint. I have no dog in this fight. I have no interest in editing the article. But, if you wanted the perspective of an entirely neutral observer on whether or not to leave the "neutrality disputed" tag in, here's my 2 cents: This is not a neutral article, and the tag should stay in[55] Fladrif (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

To the substance of the balance of the post, Will is entirely correct. The various editors who have been lumped together in the draft decision as a "anti-TM" "side" frequently disagree with one another on substantive issues, editing approaches and other matters. I have disagreed with Will on substantive and editing questions, as he pointed out. I have disagreed with Woonpton on such issues, as she pointed out. I have disagreed with 7thDr/Lotus Flower on a number of occasions. I have seen each of them, and others who would apparently be lumped into the purported "anti-TM" camp disagree with each-other from time to time on substantive issues, as well as style. They do not edit with "one voice". There is no evidence or suggestion that they know each other and regularly communicate IRL. I have never seen any of those editors tendatiously revisit again and again and again the same issues month after month and year after year, recycling the identical arguments to avoid and undo talk-page and noticeboard consensus and core Wikipedia policies. I have never seen them wallpaper a topic with material cribbed or copied wholesale, with or without quotation marks, from blogs or other self-published sources pushing a POV. I have never seen any of them function on talkpages as a reliable "me too" drive-by voice on any topic. I have, however, seen the "TM editors" do exactly that, and more, consistently speaking with a single voice, and all of that has been well-documented on the Evidence and Workshop pages by multiple editors. Fladrif (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

During the evidence phase of this case I posted a link to a sub page called "CHARTS: 2010 Edit History and 2009 Noticeboard Participation" which I think gave a broad overview of various editors activities and tendencies. It's still there, at the bottom of my evidence section, if anyone would like to look at it.-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

To the Arbitrators

I have not responded to accusations made on this page because I felt to do so would have created another accusation-rebuttal bog. However, I hope that if any of the accusations made here are seriously influencing the decisions made in this case, that all editors be informed so they have the opportunity to respond. If there is going to be another round of presentation of evidence, perhaps that could be clarified, and all parties could be notified. Thank you to the Arbs for their ongoing efforts in a long drawn out case.(olive (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC))

At this stage in the arbitration proceedings, it is not uncommon for uninvolved editors, such as myself, (commonly referred to as the "peanut gallery") to comment on the proposed decision, where it may appear that the proposals don't seem to reflect the Evidence or the balance of debate in the Workshop. Since the PD is drafted essentially by one arbitrator, this may provide useful feedback to other Arbs, any of whom can make alternative or additional proposals. I have no doubt that Arbs will not be swayed by unfounded accusations, since they have full access to Evidence and Workshop, and are capable of reaching conclusions based on those. For similar reasons, it is not helpful to attempt to begin another round of evidence, and I find the suggestions to adduce further difs ill-conceived. Nevertheless, if you feel that the drafting arbitrator's approach contains flaws, or that important findings have been omitted, then this would be a good time to pursue those views. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 23:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks RexxS. Should the Arbs have questions or a need to clarify, I'm sure they can find me. :o)(olive (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC))

Off-wiki communication and conduct

There has been no evidence of off-wiki communication or conduct in this case. The only times off-wiki discussions have come up at all, in my recollection, were when TimidGuy broke his arm and Olive let everyone know. Even if editors violated this principle by engaging in regular communication with each other off-Wiki, I don't see how that would come to light. There's some evidence that a few editors may live in the same small town. However there's no way we could know if they chatted together at the local grocery store unless someone admits to it. Further, none of the parties are known to operate website that comment on this topic, so I don't know what kind of off-Wiki conduct is being considered. Could someone explain how these principles will help this dispute?   Will Beback  talk  20:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

There've been allegations a-plenty. The purpose of the principle is to clarify what is and what isn't acceptable.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Did anyone do anything wrong?

• "For the record, one or more of the principles outlined applies to every editor who has participated in this case. Nobody should walk away feeling completely vindicated."

However, no principles have been tied to individual editors, so there's nothing in this decision that gives enough specificity to either help an editor realize they need to change their editing, nor enough to serve as the basis for any future enforcements. Since I have not been singled out, I assume that none of the principles apply to me. I'd guess that every party reading this decision would feel the same way about themselves. For example, although there is a principle listed regarding conflict of interest, I don't think any editors here believe it applies to them. If any of these principles really do apply to specific editors then I think the ArbCom should say so and link it to the evidence provided.   Will Beback  talk  05:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Within the proposed decision there seems to a presumption that all of the named parties have done something wrong. The Discretionary sanctions section allows sanctions to be imposed on a named party without prior warning in the case of gross misconduct in the topic area. Presumably, anyone else can engage in gross misconduct until they are warned. That would seem to be a green light for meat/sock-puppetry. But apart from that, you're right. --RexxS (talk) 11:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No, not really. That's already covered by policy, which are NOT overriden by ArbCom remedies.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, if that behaviour is already covered by policies, that would seem to beg the question, "what do the ArbCom remedies add to them?" – which I think is Will's point. --RexxS (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

We're talking perhaps at cross-purposes; adding an omitted word ("NOT") probably clarifies it. Apologies.  Roger Davies ^talk 19:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

If I may, the 'Discretionary Sanctions' remedy is a bit of a copy-paste that applies whenever they use them. So the language is generic for that purpose. If someone is named, they don't have to be warned. If someone is not named, the discretionary sanctions do not yet apply until warned. It appears for the purposes of this case, the only one named is Fladrif. Other cases could be more complicated but still use the same language.

The statement quoted above *"For the record, one or more of the principles outlined applies to every editor who has participated in this case. Nobody should walk away feeling completely vindicated." was by Risker and appears intended as an insight as to why she voted for the remedy and not to be taken as the remedy itself nor as a official unified Arbcom statement that everyone who participated in the case is now a named party. It simply means that people who aren't specifically sanctioned should not walk away with the belief that they were just and rightious with actions that were impeccible, but rather that their actions did not rise to a level of sanction but was still misbehavior nonetheless. It's like a very subtle difference between being 'Innocent' or 'Not Guilty'. Most people here are not guilty.... but still not innocent. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Everyone here has been making mistakes that have led to difficulties in the topic area. This is the time to review expectations and modify behavior as appropriate. Editors returning to problematic behavior will find repeat trips here less forgiving. Shell ^babelfish 15:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The concern I'm raising in this section is that the ArbCom is asserting that there have been problematic behaviors, but hasn't said who committed them. Comments like Shell Kinney's imply that editor could be held accountable for repeating those unidentified behaviors. So the ArbCom is saying, "don't do it again" without clearly communicating to any single editor what "it" is that they should stop doing.   Will Beback  talk  19:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Except it wasn't arbcom saying it. It was Shell Kinney making a personal observation about the Remedy itself. When all this is 'published' those comments won't be shown anymore, only the votes. It should be taken as good advice to people accused (but not sanctioned) of bad behavior that maybe they need to review their own behavior before a real sanction heads their way. Arbcom is not going to finger people for bad behavior without sanctioning them, so people are just going to have to be mature enough to realise what they did wrong on their own like responsible adults should be able to do. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know who you are, but you are misinformed. The ArbCom routinely "fingers" people without sanctioning them. For example, just last January it "fingered" JBsupreme for three different problematic behaviors, yet put no sanction on him .Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf. Even though he repeated those behaviors since then, it has simply warned him again. user:Miami33139 was also warned about specific behavior in the same case, but no sanction was placed on him either. I don't see how JBsupreme's behavior is more acceptable than Fladrif's but apparently there's some difference.   Will Beback  talk  07:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

By staggering coincidence, I also don't know who you are and I consider you misinformed. In the very case you linked it clearly shows JBsupreme as being given a finding of fact (fingered, if you will) and a remedy in the form of a formal warning (a sanction). Miami was also given a finding of fact, but a quick read of the FoF itself shows that he did not necessarily do anything wrong so much as failed to follow 'best practices' when doing so. The very next FoF explicitly states that the allegations against Miami were likely false and there was a very reasonable alternate good-faith explanation. In the end, Miami still got a remedy in the form of a reminder.

Of course, you could say that reminders and warnings aren't sanctions, but that's just splitting hairs about definitions of words. They may be very light (and in some peoples opinion toothless), but they are sanctions nonetheless. If you prefer, you can just assume that every time I said 'Sanction' I meant 'Arbcom Remedy wherein a particular person was specifically named', but I'm not writing that every time. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• • If anyone has questions about their behavior or what specific things they need to change, they can either a) look at the evidence to see what others consider a problem or b) ask specifically. If you're more the self-searching type, you can also read the principles and see if there are any places in your own editing that don't measure up to what's expected. One of the reasons that there aren't many specifics here is that most of the behavior didn't rise to the level we'd usually expect for an ArbCom finding; there's a bit here, a bit there and in general, we see people heading in the wrong direction. Any editor who wants to discuss how the findings relate to them specifically is welcome to contact me directly. Shell ^babelfish 20:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

In the immortal words of Mr. Ed, "Oh, Wilbur, how naive!" You've got editors here who were told by three different administrators at COIN that they had a conflict of interest on the TM-related articles and should confine themselves to the talk pages and not edit directly. And they argue here that no such thing ever happened. The first draft of the decision emboldened those same editors to tendatiously revisit long-settled issues and start extensively rewriting the articles at issue more to their liking. You seriously think that anyone not specifically named and as to whom there are not specific findings is actually going to go through some process of self-examination and clean up their behavior? Fladrif (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

If they don't, a simple proposed amendment or report to AE complete with clear evidence, will resolve the issue. Shell ^babelfish 22:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Like these? [56][57][58] We have two anon IPs', including one from Fairfield, plus Cicorp, showing up on the eve of this ArbCom closing, deleting sourced material, adding unsourced material, individually far exceeding WP:3RR and acting as a tag team to repeatedly revert the same material, making the same arguments. Sockpuppets? Meatpuppets? Both? Or one of the named editors, tendatiously arguing for the removal of text on the basis that it isn't supported by the source, when it is explicitly supported by the source, apparently because he didn't bother to read past the introduction. [59] Does any of this rise to your idea of "clear evidence"? If so, plan on doing anything about it? If not, what is your idea of "clear evidence"?Fladrif (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I take it from the reaction that the Cicorp edits cleared the bar of "clear evidence", but apparently not Bigweeboy's. What about this from TimidGuy [60] There, he edited the article today to state that "rounding" - a practice of intense and lengthy meditation repeated multiple times daily is a former, and not a current practice, asserting in his edit summary tht it is something that hasn't been done in the TM Movement in decades. No sources, just his assertion. As I pointed out on the talk page, that is simply false. The TM Movement in its official websites currently offer rounding courses, including weekend and week-long residence courses where rounding is taught and practiced. [61] It is taught and practiced at MUM in Fairfield, among other places, at which he is employed. Is inserting unsourced and demonstrably false information in an article "clear evidence"? Fladrif (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's see if I follow along. Some people may or may not be doing some things that they shouldn't be doing, but we're not going to say who or what, and at this point whatever they're doing or not doing isn't serious enough for us to identify who or what may or may not be doing it, and certainly not serious enough for us to do anything about it - at least not yet, but if they do it again, just come back to us with clear evidence that this inspiring come to Jesus talk hasn't worked the way we're certain it will, and by golly we'll get right on it. Maybe. Does that pretty much sum it up, or am I missing anything here? Fladrif (talk) 00:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There's been poor behavior all round, but only yours rose to the level where we felt specifically pointing it out was necessary. Perhaps you ought to give that a thought and dial back the rhetoric. Shell ^babelfish 03:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Please point out to me, with specific references to Wiki policies and clear evidence what it is about my question that is inappropriate or improper in any way whatsoever, or in violation of the letter or spirit of any policy. And then, when you're finished, please answer the question. Fladrif (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Fladrif's rhetoric aside, I'm not sure I understand the enforcement of this decision. WP:COI strongly discourages editors from editing articles where they have a conflict of interest. Editors have been warned repeatedly about it, yet employees of Maharishi University of Management have edited articles related to their employer repeatedly, either adding positive material or deleting negative material. My understanding is that those editors probably still believe that they have no conflict of interest. If they continue to edit those articles (aside from simply deleting graffiti), is that a violation of this decision? Would we need to come back here and make a special request for an amendment before tis decision could be enforced? Or would it be sufficient to go to WP:AE? Or just ask an uninvolved admin to do so?   Will Beback  talk  04:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Protection

• TM article semi-protected for a week. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it have been more direct to simply block the disruptive user? (Who, it turns out, edits from Fairfield, Iowa). user:67.55.221.3/user:Cicorp has been warned many times. 00:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

And you know/think the IP is Cicorp how? Guessing? You got CU data somehow? Or some other way? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Usually, when a named account and an IP make the same repetitive edits in the same general time period it's apparent that they are the same user. Even if they are different users, the problem with their edits still remains. However, since you have CU access this could be resolved easily.   Will Beback  talk  01:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Already did that yesterday. There is no named account on that IP. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

But if that IP was the only problem why not just block it rather than protect the page? I was taught that if an editing problem is due to only one editor then that's the better approach.   Will Beback  talk  01:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There were two IPs and it was ramping up as the case winds down, which is quite common, this will force them, if they are socks, to stay quiet or use their main account, so.... — Rlevse • Talk • 02:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Will, considering the single-minded and determined disruption caused by both the 71.xx and the 67.xx IPs, it's a reasonable assumption that they might pick up another IP and carry on if blocked. Semi-protection for a week will at least give the article a better chance for stability and hopefully encourage other IPs to start by posting to the TM talk page first. There's no downside to that. As I was looking at the recent history of the page, I was struck by the degree of consensus shown against the disruption, especially by yourself, Fladrif, Olive and TG. All of the long-time editors seem to have reached a way of working, so that your changes to the TM article have been as minor as "what section is the best place for this text". The fact that disputes have matured into discussions, and away from conflict, between the named parties in this case is surely a sign that consensus can be reached in any of the articles in this area. A week's semi-protection can only be a benefit when disruptive elements disturb that process, and I hope that Arbs or uninvolved admins will be sensitive to requests for protection on related articles, should similar disruption occur on those. --RexxS (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, I'm afraid you're wrong about things improving. Just last week Bwb sought to remove well sourced, relevant material that had a negative view of TM. Talk:Transcendental Meditation#Misrepresent source?. That's one of the behaviors that this decision addresses directly.   Will Beback  talk  02:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. Strip away the verbiage and what happened? BwB questioned a small bit of text; following some to-and-fro, he accepted your point. Three sources got a good examination; some possible improvements were explored. It all took place on the talk page; no edit-warring happened. I've seen a lot worse than that all over Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 06:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring was never a problem with this dispute. POV pushing, such as removing sourced material without a good reason, has been the main problem.   Will Beback  talk  07:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I only see 67.55.221.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) editing recently. 71.191.8.27 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) hasn't edited since 5/28. What do we do about Cicorp (talk · contribs)? Incidentally, that user may have a corporate name in violation of WP:CORPNAME (see http://cicorp.com/, a computer consulting firm run by TM practitioners). Note that Cicorp, the business, is located in Washington D.C., where 71.x geolocates.   Will Beback  talk  02:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This is complicated. The owners of Cicorp, <name redacted> control 67.55.221.X.[62] 67.55.221.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 67.55.221.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) have edited articles which Cicorp (talk · contribs) has also edited. One of the the IPs has edited ACT!, a software pacakge that Cicorp advertises training and consulting for. <name and personal info redacted> So there seems to be a strong connection between user:Cicorp and 67.55.221.X. I request a more thorough CU investigation.   Will Beback  talk  04:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The other IP I was referring to was on May 28. I think most people would call that recent. If you have a problem with the Cicorp username, see UAA. More later. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The username has now been blocked, but it doesn't help the disruption by the editor, whatever his name or number.   Will Beback  talk  10:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

 Unrelated Cicorp is NOT any of the 67.X ones you list above. The 71.191.8.27 one only edited on 28 May so it could be a case of forgetting to log in since it's only one day, but  Confirmed User:Cicorp = 71.191.8.27. Given that IP only appears on one day I'm not ready to call it intentional socking. Also note, with a Username block a user can continue editing if they choose a valid username to get renamed to. And no, no other accounts found there. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"CU isn't pixie dust". Cicorp, the business, controls 67.X. We don't need CU to determine that. The article was protected due to recent disruptive editing by 71.191.8.27, who is definitely user:Cicorp, and by 67.55.221.3, who is making the same kinds of edits. Whether it's intentional socking or not hardly matters - the issue is a "pro" TM editor who's acting disruptively. Can we at least add language to the proposed decision to cover accounts who are not named parties?   Will Beback  talk  01:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Standard policies would take care of that, but I've asked other arbs for their thoughts. The issue in this particular matter is not that this is a pro TM editor acting disruptively, the issue is that it's an editor actively disrupting. The side they are on does not matter, you need to keep that in mind. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If "standard policies" are sufficient to address this disruptive editor then I request the ArbCom to use those policies to deal with him.   Will Beback  talk  04:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(FWIW, standard policies are sufficient to deal with Fladrif's incivility and 7thdr's socking, yet those editors are dealt with here by name. It isn't enough to have a policy, it needs to be enforced to serve its purpose.)   Will Beback  talk  04:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Will Beback, I've redacted a significant amount of personal information that you have inserted here, most of which has nothing at all to do with TM articles. Linking a person's real name to his/her IP addresses is generally considered to be verboten around here, as you should know with your years of administrator experience, and having dealt with the negative impacts of such "investigations" that have affected Wikipedians. If you have any further questions or comments related to this, please submit them to Arbcom via email. Risker (talk) 05:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for fixing that. If a proper CU investigation had been done in the first place, when it was requested, I wouldn't have had to investigate on my own. Now that we've established that the user and IPs are the same person, who has engaged in disruptive edit warring in the middle of arbitration, what do we do about it?   Will Beback  talk  05:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've made a motion to add the user as a party to the case. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Workshop#Cicorp   Will Beback  talk  04:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Finding of facts for each editor

Roger suggested above that a finding of facts for each editor might be possible. Are there still plans to do this? I think that concrete finding would be very useful going forwards. There have been many allusion to guilt but these existed even before the case began.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The real problem not yet addressed

Hi. I'm a long-time, mostly neutral TM article editor concerned about the long term health of these articles.

I hope the ArbCom has noticed that the only folks who keep quibbling and complaining even after the final decision are the anti-TM editors, such as Will Beback, Fladrif, and Doc James.

They continue to show an obsessive pattern of whining, wikilawyering, being obnoxious, and acting as absolute authorities on who causes the problems (hint: it's never them).

They blame the pro-TM editors for working to ruin the articles due to POV, COI, etc., but the truth is that the anti-TM editors are just as much the problem as the pro-TM editors. Both sides should be politely invited to go edit other articles and let neutral editors rewrite and reorganize these TM articles so they are balanced, clear, and informative.

As things stand, neither side has any ability to provide an accurate, balanced view of this organization and its fascinating mix of sensible and nonsensical programs, projects, and policies. The truth is not black or white, so both the pro- and anti-TM editors, who believe it is, have always made a mess of it.

Lately, these self-important, one-sided attacks on the peaceful pro-TM editors as being the sole violators has become (or actually, remained) both tiresome and juvenile.

Even ArbCom seems unable to recognize and/or deal effectively with the dynamic of editors with obsessive POVs fighting each other instead of being able to work together to make a readable set of articles.

I regret that this paralyzed set of opposing editors will simply continue their useless games, as a result of decisive action having been taken against only one of the many polarized, obsessive, almost SPA editors on both sides. David Spector (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend that you WP:AGF. At best this seems like the pot calling the kettle black. I think you are the first and only person to comment here since the closing of this case. I have not BTW edited the TM article since Mar 5th 2010 and have moved on to many other articles as can easily be seen by my edit history. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

David, if there is any edit or comment of mine with which you disagree then I'd be happy to discuss it on our talk pages or by email. I don't think I've ever tried to depict the movement, or the TM editors, in "black and white" terms. It'd be great if the editors who feel strongly about this movement would stop editing the topic, and leave it to neutral editors. But recall that every single one of the TM editors have declared that they are neutral, in some cases repeating that assertion many times. The fact of the matter is that people don't edit a topic much unless they have an interest. There is no group of uninvolved editors waiting for a chance to edit. But any that might wish to make a small contribution are scared away from what one admin has called the "lion's den". If you look over the history of the topic, the "pro" editors have made the talk pages inhospitable to those who disagree, and many slightly interested users and even admins have come and then quickly departed after being accused of bias. Looking at the process issues, I think this RfAR was probably premature. Once the issue of sharing an IP network was set aside the rest of the case probably should have been remanded to mediation. The discretionary sanctions are likely to be a cause of some of that paralysis you mention.   Will Beback  talk  22:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Final decision

Where is the final decision? It would be nice for former editors who gave up to know what happened. Judyjoejoe (talk) 14:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It's at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement#Final decision.   Will Beback  talk  19:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)