Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consistent misrepresentation of the research

I first edited this topic area Jan 19 2010 after coming across a discussion at WP:MED[1]. My first edits were adding a 2007 review article which was somehow missed in favor of primary research from the 1970s. [2]. One issues since then has been multiple attempts to obscure and / or misrepresent the conclusions of this review by editors from TM movement. I have provided example below.

Most of the results of the review were removed from the lead here and the remaining bits were reworded to make it less understandable by Olive [3] Again Olive tries to change the meaning of the text to make it sound like this review is limited rather than the evidence it is based upon being limited. [4] and again [5] An attempt to reword it so that the review does not appear to related to TM [6] Here TimidGuy attempts to obscure the conclusions of the review [7] And again[8] and again [9] Here he claims a different review is an update of the 2007 review which it is not [10] Here Chemistry Prof attempts to weaken the conclusion [11] And again [12] And again[13]

I subsequently added a Cochrane collaboration which was not in our article. Here TimidGuy adds text not in the summary of this review in what appears to be an attempt to weaken the conclusion [14] And again[15]

The omission of material critical of TM

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

Sock Puppet Accusation against Tuckerj1976 and Kala Bethere-- A full report with diffs can be found here:[16]

• These Users appear to be disruptive sockpuppets of a banned User:The7thdr.
• They are single purpose accounts whose very first edits were on the TM article.
• They exhibit similar language, editing patterns, personal interests, bias' and agenda. — Kbob • Talk • 01:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am Not a Sock Puppet

• I work on WP at my home using Iowa Telecom. My IP address is 69.66.89.118.[17] I will leave this post unsigned so the Bot will confirm my IP here. Signed, Keithbob. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.66.89.118 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC) My IP address was not listed on the SPI page, so not sure why I am being accused. The only thing I am guilty of, is on occasion, I take my laptop to the public library or local coffee house and make WP edits using the free Internet provided by local Internet provider LISCO. This free Internet access is provided by LISCO at almost every public location in this town.[reply]
• I commend the CU for his diligence in examining the overlapping IP addresses randomly assigned by LISCO. However, a casual analysis of the IP accounts cited on the TM SPI page looks to me like there is no overlapping edits between those IP accounts and some have never edited a TM article on WP. In addition, as demonstrated by User: Ruinia's comments [18] on the Request/Case page, Fairfield is a town with many different kinds of people with diverse opinions and points of view, even on the topic of WP articles related to TM and even amongst those that are current or former practitioners of TM. As demonstrated by Kala Bethere and Jmh649, having practiced Yogic Flying[19][20] or having a relative who practices TM, [21] doesn't automatically result in a positive view of the TM movement. Fairfield is also a mecca for 'new age' people who do not practice TM and other 'new age' programs are lively in the town: Re-Awaken the Prophetic, Oneness Blessing Noon Deeksha, [22], Shri Ravi Shankar [23] Mind Body Spirit Center [24], Morning Star and Yoga For Life [25], Shri Devi Mandir Temple.[26]and so on. So I urge the Committee to consider carefully before condemning an entire town of 10,000 people based on their shared use of the IP company LISCO. Starting today and for the duration of this ArbCom I will only edit from my home and will use no other IP address at public locations for my WP edits to demonstrate my authenticity as a single, independent editor.
• I have never used any other persons WP account and I have never allowed anyone to use my WP account. I am no one's meat puppet. I edit independently. I also see from the various talk pages that Will Beback, TimidGuy, Jmn649 and Kala Bethere are all communicating with each other in 'real life' via email as permitted by WP. So editors working together on the same article are permitted to communicate together in a routine way outside of WP. It seems then that one's edit history and behavior is the key ingredient to arrive at a decision in regard to this sockpuppetry case. I will therefore be posting evidence soon to demonstrate that my edit and behavior history is without sock puppetry, meat puppetry or COI. I appreciate the opportunity to provide information to the Committee and trust in their ability to come to a proper and fair conclusion.-- — Kbob • Talk • 01:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing behavior

I have always endeavored to edit with civility[27], collaboration and mutual respect.[28] I have never been cited by an independent administrator for edit warring. In fact I have never been formally warned or blocked by an administrator for any reason and my behavior has never been the subject of an ANI post. At the same time I would also say that as an editor I am not perfect. I have made mistakes [29] [30][31] and I continue to learn and grow along the way. -- — Kbob • Talk • 10:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral editing

Since joining Wiki 18 months ago I have logged 10,000+ edits and contributed to hundreds of articles with 3063 of my edits being on the 25 TM related articles in the TM Movement article template. I have participated in wide range of Talk Page discussions, Third Opinions, RFC's and Notice-boards. My highest priority is the progress and well being of WP. I understand and abide by the policy of WP:COI. I am a neutral editor who respects, honors and follows WP policies. I have been characterized as a pro-TM editor but I feel that my editing history demonstrates that my edits are motivated by WP policy including WP:NPOV and are not the product of a blind allegiance to any movement or ideology. I champion a balanced and accurate representation of reliable sources from all significant points of view.

Here some examples of my "edits for the enemy" (listed old to new):

• Vote to delete Maharishi Vedic Science[32]
• Add criticism to TM-Sidhi [33]
• Remove promo text on MUM[34][35][36]
• Add Lawsuit Section to Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation[37]
• Add criticism and remove promo text on Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health [38][39][40][41][42]
• Add criticism to Transcendental Meditation [43]
• Create criticism/reception section and text for Maharishi Sthapatya Veda[44]
• Add text on religious ceremonies to Maharishi Sthapatya Veda [45]
• Remove supportive quote from Lennon in Maharishi Mahesh Yogi [46]
• Removed promo text Ashley Deans [47]
• Remove un-sourced promo text to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic University[48][49]
• Add deficiency tags to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic University[50]
• Add lawsuits and criticism to Deepak Chopra [51][52][53]
• Remove promo external links at Maharishi Sthapatya Veda[54]

Rebuttals

@Will Beback on the Case page:

• says "tag team editing" citing this diff. [55] on the case page. When we look at the diff we see that a) I made a talk page proposal b) other editors supported my proposal c) Will Beback and Fladrif were active on the talk page at that time, but made no objections to my proposal even though I waited for 7 days before making the change. I don't understand how this could be seen as "tag team editing"-- — Kbob • Talk • 13:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Will Beback re: my edit totals

• I made a big error. [Remember I said I wasn't perfect? :-)] I have corrected the number in the text above. The new number represents sum of all my edits as listed in the Revision History section of each of the 25 articles listed in the Transcendental Movement 'menu' or template which appears at the bottom of every TM article. Will Beback is also correct in pointing out that the Revision History tool does not include talk page edits. Thanks Will, for alerting me to this mistake.-- — Kbob • Talk • 02:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jmh649 and Disruptive Behavior

The Committee should be aware that although User Jmh649 has made many useful contributions to health related articles on WP he has also been the subject of controversy and administrative discipline. In a previous ArbCom case, Jmh649 was found guilty of edit warring, incivil behavior and the “personalizing of editorial disputes”. As a result, he received a 6 month editing restriction in July 2009 [56] which he violated soon after and was blocked for 48 hours.[57]

Unfortunately his behavior on the TM articles have also been characterized by edit warring[58] and the deletion of well sourced, health related, content. On his first visit to the TM article (January 19 2009) he made the following massive deletions of sourced content.[59][60][61][62][63] [64][65][66][67][68]

User:Fladrif and Disruptive Behavior

While editing on the TM articles, Fladrif has received a number of Administrator warnings and blocks for incivility and personal attacks.[69][70][71][72][73] as well as warnings for edit warring and 3RR from administrators and editors.[74][75][76]

I don't have the time to do justice to the topic. My first edits at Wikipedia were in late Feb 2008.[77] About a year and ~250 edits later, I first looked at the Transcendental Meditation article because I was interested at the time in what other articles editors I had interacted with were involved. The TM talk page was discussiing whether a Neutrality Tag should be removed. I wrote that if anyone was interested in the opinion of a complete outsider with no interest in either the subject matter or in editing the article, the article did not appear to be neutral.[78] A few week later, I looked more closely at what was going on in the TM article. There were some very serious problems with highly problematic and apparently coordinated editing, including extensive edit-wars to exclude reliable sources[79] and to misrepresent others[80] The editors involved most vigorously in this behavior at the time were self-identified as faculty members of Maharishi University of Management who had stated in their profile pages that their purpose as editors was to edit the TM-related articles. Multiple pages at WP:COIN had already dealt with this issue, resulting in direct instructions from at least two administrators to not to edit those pages. Within days, confronted with the reality of what was going on and the futility of dealing with a continued concerted and coordinated effort to resist any correction of these problams, I started up a new thread a COIN.[81]

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

• Extensive discussion at COIN archive, including information on COI as well diffs showing POV pushing by the conflicted editors: (i) coordinated tag-team edit warring to delete reliably-sourced material (ii) edit warring to misrepresent and misconstrue relevant and reliably-sourced material (iii) edit warring to include material not reliably-sourced [82]

• A number of other editors who push the TM Org POV have identified themselves as current or former MUM faculty or closely associated with other organizations in the TM Movement. This has already been noted at SPI.

• In addition to the specific accounts and editors that were subject of the SPI, anonymous editors from other IP addresses assigned to TM Movement organizations push the POV of the TM Movement.[83], [84] [85].

TM Org employee sockpuppet/meatpuppets

There is no need to repeat the findings of the SPI, or to the matters posted there and at the RFA but I would emphasize that before TimidGuy ultimately admitted to being the 76.76 sockpuppet he appears to have knowingly lied about it at SPI.[86].

Sockpuppetry by pro-TM editors does not appear to be something new.[87]

More to comeFladrif (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to KBob regarding Doc James

KBob's accusations against Doc James completely misrepresent the facts. Doc James got involved in the TM-related articles following an extensive discussion at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard,[88] the Reliable Sources Noticeboard[89] and Project Medicine [90] The unanimous position of all of the uninvolved editors and administrators, and all of the involved editors who were not part of the Fairfield meatdrawer was that the research and medical research sections of the TM-related articles consisted almost entirely of improper reliance on Primary Sources that did not qualify as Reliable Sources under WP:MEDRS. The "massive deletions" that KBob complains of were all made pursuant to and consistent with WP:MEDRS and the unanimous consensus of a wide cross-section of uninvolved editors at multiple noticeboards. Doc James's continued involvement in the TM related articles is largely confined to implementing and enforcing that policy and consensus, in the face of continued, concerted and defiant attempts by muliple TM-Org affiliated editors on a daily basis to insert primary sources favorable to their position and to misstate and misrepresent the findings of reliable sources which they believe to be unfavorable.[91][92] Fladrif (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to KBob re me

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

I am not a sock puppet

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

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

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

What an insult to poor Kala Bethere

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

Edit: This must have taken sometime (and resources)[[93]] However, the level of detail that has gone into this,the resources required, together with the notion that one person is really 3 or 4 might be argued to be like the statements made in this "leaked" document form the TM movement [[94]] But I am sure this is just my paranoia developing. Nevertheless, it does seem to once again support the evidence that this article and it's editors need close scrutiny. Tuckerj1976 (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I would like to share Kala Bethere suggestion that this might be to simply distract from this evidence here: [[95]] Tuckerj1976 (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

With regard to the research on the Transcendental Meditation program, scientific legitimacy has been earned through the substantial body of peer-reviewed publications, over the last 40 years, leading to tens of millions of dollars in competitive research grant funding. In saying, “Most of those studies have been conducted by the faculty of MUM,”[96] Beback seeks to invalidate this peer-reviewed research, overriding the judgment of hundreds of journal editors and reviewers, as well as numerous grant referees. Further evidence that the Transcendental Meditation movement has earned mainstream credibility is the increasing use of the TM technique as an educational tool at numerous schools throughout the world, as well as at Maharishi University of Management, accredited since 1980.

The issues about consciousness and its relationship to matter are the defining frontier of scientific research today. Because it’s too early for the scientific community to have arrived at an established, mainstream consensus, it is imperative that we adhere to the foundational principles of scientific method, the free and courteous exchange of ideas, as well as the highest standards of encyclopedia scholarship. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy concludes its article on Consciousness: “A comprehensive understanding of consciousness will likely require theories of many types. One might usefully and without contradiction accept a diversity of models that each in their own way aim respectively to explain the physical, neural, cognitive, functional, representational and higher-order aspects of consciousness. There is unlikely to be any single theoretical perspective that suffices for explaining all the features of consciousness that we wish to understand. Thus a synthetic and pluralistic approach may provide the best road to future progress.” [97]

As we continue to sort out these issues, and how to present them in Wikipedia, we can use as our guide Jimmy Wales’ understanding of the three broad categories of theories: (1) “the majority view of a broad consensus of scientists,” (2) “a minority view of some scientists, scientists who are respected by the mainstream that differs with them on this particular matter,” and (3) theories “held only by a few people without any traditional training or credentials ….” [98]

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

What has led Beback astray, I believe, is his apparent lack of knowledge and understanding of the scientific method, one of the consequences of which is his failure to distinguish interest in a subject matter—even passionate interest—from conflict of interest. This has resulted in (a) his reluctance to defer to the mainstream institutions and procedures for conferring scientific legitimacy, believing he has insights into conflicts of interest that the peer-review process has overlooked, and (b) his intolerance of editors with whom he disagrees, assuming they are motivated by a COI. Needless to say, casting mud at other editors [99] does nothing for the advancement of the Wikipedia project.

Of course Beback is very familiar with the Wikipedia guidelines on pseudoscience and fringe theories, but he uses his facility to further his partisan agenda. The standards for scholarly objectivity are not served by dismissively labeling peer-reviewed research as “pseudoscience” and “fringe,” or the TM organization as a whole as a “cult.” [100] Moreover, in the editing on the John Hagelin page, by effectively helping to block any context for Peter Woit, who characterized Hagelin’s views on consciousness and physics as “nonsense” and Hagelin himself as a “crackpot,” Beback was more indirect. [101] But these kinds of epithets have no place in the scientific enterprise, and finding sources for slanders is no substitute for good judgment.

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

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

I'm not a sock puppet

I became interested in the TM article a few years ago and created the Maharishi School article at that time. I edit from my home, but have occasionally used a library computer. I think if you look at my contributions [102] you'll find them quite innocuous. User:Roseapple

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.