Traditionally, requests for checkuser in the context of arbitration are filed at the workshop page Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement/Workshop#Motions_and_requests_by_the_parties. See this example. Durova⁴¹² 01:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

At the time this comment was written one of Keithbob's sections was titled as a sock puppet accusation against two other editors, and linked to a page in user space.[1] The Fairfield IP addresses, etc. were CU'd extensively before the case began, yet it didn't appear that TM skeptics had been checked for possible socking. It was unclear what Keithbob intended to seek so the precedent was a courtesy link. As of 2007 that was the standard way to request CU after a case was underway; if that's changed since then I don't recall an announcement. Durova⁴¹² 06:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Risker, per your advice on procedures and options open to me, I have filed an SPI here.[2] and will publish the results as part of the ArbCom case, whenever they become available. In the meantime I have retained a single sentence (and link) in my section on the ArbCom evidence page so that involved parties may be aware of the SPI and can check the SPI page if they so desire.Thank you.-- — Kbob • Talk • 07:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

It would be a help to the community if the arbitrators announced a change in procedure. During 2007 I was advised specifically to file CU requests within the context of arbitration within the case itself, and JMFangio-Chrisjnelson demonstrated why that practice made sense: the impersonation account Jimfandango was created minutes after Chrisjnelson was blocked for personal attacks. It almost appeared DUCK-worthy, but Chrisjnelson hadn't done anything like an impersonation sock before. So the only way to structure a CU request was on Chrisjnelson. What came out of that CU changed the entire course of the arbitration: JMFangio was the reincarnation of a community banned editor, the impersonation sock had been created by a shadowy IP troll, and Chrisjnelson's bursts of incivility were basically explainable in terms of the baiting by those two other editors. The case was already in voting when that CU was run, so new proposals arose. Instead of banning Chrisjnelson he got a restriction which has since expired. He has nearly 60,000 edits now and is in good standing. It helped substantially that the checkuser was run by an arbitrator who understood the surrounding case dynamics and knew what was relevant. Durova⁴¹² 22:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not sure what the rules ought to be. In 2007 I was informed that it was a hard rule and the case demonstrated why that rule made sense. It would be good to have a clear announcement if practice changes. Durova⁴¹² 22:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can't find the source right now but it was from the last couple years. It was a figure given by Ed Malloy in an article about the community. TimidGuy (talk) 11:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Just found it in the 2006 Washington Post article.[3][reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Un-dent)Doc James ref your comments here [[4]] Given everything else that Kbob has said that cannot be the point that he is making (the size of what he perceives as POV Pushing teams). For if that is what the table is saying, then he is suggesting the largest POV pushing team on the TM article consisted of 5 editors in 2010 and they were:

TimidGuy Littleolive Keithbob Bigweeboy LukeWarm ChemProf [[5]]

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

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

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

No problem at all Keithbob. So I am correct then? You are saying with this table that you believe the largest "POV, tag-teaming" team on the TM articles is yourself, TimidGuy, Littleolive, Bigweeboy, LukeWarm and ChemProf? Given your other statements a surprising addition. Thank you. Tuckerj1976 (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks KeithBob. These tables explain a lot. I didn't realize how much of an integral team the Fairfield IP's were. You, TimidGuy, Littleoliveoil, BigWeeBoy, Lukewarm and Chemprof have indeed been quite busy. This is just the kind of evidence we needed to show why, when neutral editors are scared away from the TM entries, a tag team of editors are able to restore their POV that they're continually pushing.--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Olive used the strong term harassment at RFAR and then stated that she would be unavailable for several days. Her evidence now uses that term again in two section headers. Are these sections complete as they currently stand? Although it's possible to dislike another editor's request to discuss reasons for information about a song or to dislike someone's mentioning a previous COI disclosure, those diffs look like normal editorial disagreements. Perhaps it would be a good idea to substitute a milder term, unless perhaps there's something missing or a mistake in the diff links? Durova⁴¹² 04:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

A year ago Wikipedia's harassment policy changed its terminology and encouraged the word hounding for behaviors that are irritating but that cause nothing worse than hurt feelings. Harassment and stalking have real world legal implictions; it's better to maintain clear distinctions. Durova⁴¹² 16:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Trying to wrap my head around David Spector's reasoning: why would it make any sense at all to sanction people without substantiating evidence? Durova⁴¹² 19:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I don't appreciate the incivility of labeling those who desperately try to restore neutrality to TM-related articles (which had basically become "walled gardens") "anti-TM" editors. I think it would help if the Fairfield and TM Org editors tried to gain some sense of neutral perspective themselves. The process of restoring neutrality to articles could better be appreciated if it is seen as a pendulum. The non-neutral articles, held in non-neutral position for years (!) will feel like they are swinging in the opposite direction to those trying to push a certain canonical and/or organizational POV. In reality, neutral editors like myself are simply attempting to bring some sorely biased, poorly sourced articles "back to center". While I appreciate that this is difficult for the Fairfield and TM Org editors, it's no reason to resort to name calling, personal attacks, rudeness, uncivil behavior and aggressive actions like making false accusations KeithBob, Bigweeboy, and Littleolive.

Taunting and baiting new, often inexperienced editors when they arrive is not helpful either, it comes across as not only hurtful, but an attempt to get these new editors to leave.

That's certainly how I experienced my arrival on WP.--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not to sure how useful that would be. The problem to me is not that they are part of the TM organization but the manner in which they edit to push a certain agenda and will do anything to hide any evidence to counter to their movements public image (an effort that seems to be highly coordinated. I do not really see a major issue with members of the movement editing the article, as long as they do reasonably and without the clear agenda to have been found on this article (I have only really studied the TM one) for the past four years. I do not believe that everyone that practices TM long-term are like these editors. Indeed I would suspect that many "TMers are reasonable people highly embarrassed by what has taken place here (see this editor for example who is not just grass roots but practices "advanced forms" of TM [[6]]). All of the independent research on the movement suggest that most if not all TMers have no idea what the organization seems to be like when they first enter it (which would explain why the movement insiders editing here are so controlling of it's image on these pages) People practicing TM are not the issue, it is the manipulation of a certain group of editors (and we can only assume they are different people, the recent Checkuser findings would suggest otherwise and their are clear similarities in the writing styles of Timidguy, Chem professor and Olive Oil at least similar, just as there are similarities between BWB and Keithbob. It is not "TMers" that are the issue it is certain users to be found here. Dave Spector has clear associations with TM research yet he is aware of this and his editing does not seem to be in anyway problematic, even if I do not agree with many of his thoughts on the state of the research. Tuckerj1976 (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's apparent that at least three or four of the TM editors are on the MUM faculty, and it's possible that another is a teacher at MSAE.[7][8] Their specific identities probably aren't relevant. But what's relevant is that those editors have edited articles about their institutions (MUM/MSAE), the president of their institutions (Bevan Morris), two of their colleagues (John Hagelin and David Orme-Johnson), and have added and discussed research conducted by those colleagues, all without making appropriate disclosures. The editors seem to act under the belief that if they keep repeating "I am a neutral editor" then the COI guideline does not apply to them.   Will Beback  talk  20:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emailing the Committee would be the way to address search engine results in situations where a person has never disclosed their real identity voluntarily on WMF sites. Durova⁴¹² 20:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Your overall argument I am afraid is highly flawed. I have said it is not important, I think, whether people who "do" TM edit the pages (ie they should not be banned for this reason) However, members (or perhaps more correctly "insiders") of the organization are a very different thing. The TM movement (as I have now repeated many times) is an organization that sells products, makes health claims, sells its services to hospitals, schools and corporations and has clear political and economic goals. Would we be happy if the marketing arm (or any other branch thereof) of a pharmaceutical company; a political party; a corporate supplier of services to schools[ or a seller of a product that claimed to increase your lifespan, make you walk through walls, or prevent terrorism (all products and services sold by the TM movement) was allowed to edit it's own WIKI page (and dominate it by number of editors, collusion and false consensus) and would we expect that editing to be NPOV? The answer of course clearly not. Thus, a disclosure of this involvement in the movement is not only important but morally expected. Tucker ^talk 12:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When I asked him on his talk page, Kbob told me that "I have no conflicts of interest on any of the articles that I edit".[9] I'm not sure how he defines a conflict of interest, but he has endorsed the principle that an employee has a conflict of interest regarding his employer so I assume that he was affirming that he does not work for any of the MVED-licensed businesses. I haven't heard any of the TM editors either confirm or deny that they know John Hagelin, Ashley Deans, David Orme-Johnson, or Bevan Morris, four MUM faculty who nominally live in Fairfield. Seven of the nine TM editors from Fairfield have edited the Hagelin article,[10] two have edited the Deans article,[11] four the Orme-Johnson article,[12] and one the Morris bio.[13] Kbob has edited them all. Perhaps editors should re-read WP:COI#Close relationships.   Will Beback  talk  21:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hickorybark has now confirmed that he knows Hagelin.[14]Fladrif (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And also wrote that he had gotten permission from David Orme-Johnson to upload a chart from the Middle East Maharishi Effect study.[15]Fladrif (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

(outdent) Some editors never admit to their conflicts of interest. Others try to redefine conflict of interest to claim they don't have one. Wikipedia even saw one individual who watered down the COI guideline while making pro forma disclosures; finally he got indeffed after socking to disrupt a featured article candidate. One way of reading the evidence in this case is that a couple of people are attempting a creative interpretation upon the harassment policy in order to assert that inquiring about conflict of interest is a type of harassment. I don't know whether that's an accurate reading, but if it is then the most practical response is to stop asking and let the evidence speak for itself. Durova⁴¹² 22:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another way of reading this case is to note that assumptions and mischaracterization asserted as truth are rampant, that efforts to prove COI have led some editors to redefine the policy to suit this situation, that badgering editors in multiple places to get information is practiced and condoned, that dismissing another editor's off Wikipedia harassment issue is accepted in those efforts to prove COI, that it seems appropriate for some editors to post information that is oversighted, that constant incivility is practiced by some and ignored by others, that some editors are still editing into articles with edits that indicate strongly held biases, and in total that a group of editors have been selected for hanging and by golly we're going to hang 'em no matter what. None of this is acceptable in light of the established present policies and guidelines, and it will be up to those representing the community at its highest levels to sort out the mess and to define how allowable such behaviours are, and if Wikipedia is willing to protect them in an ongoing way.(olive (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Olive, if you have any evidence that connects offsite harassment to Wikipedia then please email that to the Arbitration Committee if you have not done so already. It doesn't appear that anyone intends to dismiss or belittle that; I certainly don't. The specifics of that evidence probably can't be posted onsite, yet in principle of course I'd support a siteban if a definitive connection were established. There are clear distinctions to be made and maintained regarding the term harassment, however, and none of the onsite diffs come close to that threshold. Regarding conflict of interest, checkuser evidence and self disclosures have unavoidable relevance to this arbitration case. Site guidelines, policies, and precedents are clear in that regard. Durova⁴¹² 21:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Durova's comments.

As for Olive's claim that "assumptions and mischaracterization asserted as truth are rampant", I'd once again ask to please point out any mischaracterizations or false assumptions. She continue to make these assertions but never backs them up with evidence. That in itself is a form of tendentious or disruptive editing.   Will Beback  talk  22:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Will. This isn't editing at all, let alone tendentious or dispruptive editing. This is a discussion page where for days now opinions/attacks/comments have been freely expressed.

Thanks Durova for your comment. I have already given the Arbitrators information on the harassment issues recent and past, and on my connections if any, as they pertain to comments in this case. Whatever the CU results, one cannot prove something that doesn't exist. One can only create and or deal with circumstantial evidence. (olive (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Please substantiate or explain what false assumptions and mischaracterizations you're talking about. You've promised to do so in the past, but never have.   Will Beback  talk  00:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will, let me explain something to you as honestly and as nicely as I can. I am not comfortable with the way certain discussions went with you, nor do I trust that you will not conduct a discussion that way again. I will not voluntarily put myself in that kind of situation here, now. I will explain my concerns as well and as fairly as I possibly can in the forum we have here, on the evidence page. I have given information to the arbitrators, the only ones now who need it, and they can decide what comes next for me as an editor.(olive (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

There is a word for making accusations of subversion without proper regard for evidence. The word is "McCarthyism" [[16]]. Despite recent efforts by Ann Coulter and other wingnuts to rewrite history, Sen. Joe McCarthy's infamous name will continue to be used to describe the nefarious tactic of claiming one has evidence that proves a person's wrongdoing, while refusing to show it. Seems to me that's what Will is objecting to -- and rightfully so.--Askolnick (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will and Olive, a couple of suggestions.

• Will: there are people who just won't answer certain questions. Regardless of whether the circumstances make it appropriate to ask, three attempts is usually enough to determine whether an answer will be forthcoming. That's the point where the best thing to do is to gather the evidence that prompted the inquiry and present it to another venue (such as checkuser and arbitration). It's better to stop asking those individuals to answer when you go to those other venues. Just document that you already inquired; continued back-and-forth doesn't help achieve resolution. Continuing to ask after it's clear that a person will not answer might even get perceived as badgering.
• Olive: you mentioned a little bit about the offsite harassment at pages I read while following the evidence diffs. Am very glad to learn that your evidence regarding that is in the arbitrators' hands. The specific circumstances are none of my business and I don't intend to pry. To speak in general and pragmatic terms, there's a human factor which often enters these discussions. Serious offsite harassment does not always receive the priority attention it deserves. People have been known to mistake serious real life harassment for minor onsite irritation and hyperbole. That confusion occurs even when a description of the most serious type has legal documentation and is absolutely uncluttered with any other issue. This isn't to say that Will Beback has made this mistake, only that it happens. There are also Wikipedians who are apt to suppose that reports of serious offsite harassment are falsified or exaggerated for tactical onsite advantage. I think that's the wrong assumption, but due to the prevalence of that assumption within site culture it is wise for anyone who is reporting offsite harassment to be as clear as possible about minimizing opportunities for that type of confusion.

Durova⁴¹² 02:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, You're right. It's just frustrating to be attacked repeatedly for making errors or misstatements without having any ability to answer the charges. I consider making the same charges over and over without proving them to be a form of incivility and personal attack. But hopefully it will stop soon.   Will Beback  talk  03:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I can assure you and Will that I don't believe he is the person who has caused the problems off Wikipedia if that was in any way implied.(olive (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Classic Example of TM spokespersons Lying About their Conflict of Interest

It seems highly relevant to this debate to cite the case involving one of TM's leading researchers, Dr. Hari Sharma, who -- despite an admonishment from Ohio State University not to conceal his financial ties to TM -- kept lying to editors and reporters that he had no such conflicts of interest. After a particularly embarrassing case I reported, Ohio State University asked Sharma to take an early retirement. As reported in my article, A Study in Alternative Truth, [17] Sharma repeatedly tried to deceived editors, reporters, and the scientific community about his financial ties to the TM movement:

Like many TM promoters, Hari Sharma, MD, practices what (in the interest of avoiding another frivolous SLAPP suit) I'll call "alternative truth." Here's a good example of what I mean:

On May 22, 1995, just weeks before taking early retirement from Ohio State University, where he was professor of pathology, Sharma chaired a session on Maharishi Ayur-Veda at the First International Congress on Alternative & Complementary Medicine, in Arlington, Va. During his presentation, Sharma described the many health benefits of TM, and Maharishi Ayur-Veda products and services. At the end of the session, Ridgley Ochs, a science reporter for Newsday, went up to the podium to speak with Sharma. As any good journalist would, she asked him if he had received funding from the company that sells the products described in his report.

"No," said Sharma.

"Then who funded your research?" Ochs asked. "I receive funding from the Maharishi Ayur-Veda Foundation," he replied. Outraged by this obfuscation, I jumped in: "Yes, and Maharishi Ayur-Veda Foundation owns MAPI [Maharishi Ayur-Veda Products International], Inc, which is the company that sells the products described in your report."

"I do not know about that," Sharma said. "You certainly do know about that," I said. "You have a million dollar grant from the Maharishi Ayur-Veda Foundation, which owns the marketing company MAPI."

How do I know he "knows about that"? Because I have a copy of the results of Ohio State University's investigation of conflict of interest charges that were brought against Sharma in 1991. In the report, a university's Committee of Inquiry admonished Sharma for not disclosing a major grant from the foundation that owns the company that markets the products he studies.

Sharma looked surprised. He took a step forward to read my press badge, which read: "Andrew Skolnick, The Skeptical Inquirer" -- the publication for which I was covering the conference. Turning to his followers, he said, "Oh, this is that journalist who thinks there is something wrong in taking money for research."

"No, I do not think it is wrong for a researcher to take money," I said. "I think it is wrong for a researcher to take money and then to lie to journalists that they don't."

Followers of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi never see themselves as having a conflict of interest because their interest is the only True interest. Those who oppose the Maharishi's will are the ones who have conflicting interests. The followers of their late guru have a truly interesting way of looking at the world upside down. --Askolnick (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I relucantly agree. Reluctantly because I value my own practice of TM and the TM-Sidhi Program higher than anything else in my life. To say they have improved my life is an understatement. And I have seen other people's behavior, peacefulness, and many other personal characteristics improve. But TM meditators at the highest levels in the organizations really do have a way of justifying unethical behavior to support Maharishi's goal of bringing enlightenment to the world. 'Laughing Crow' told me on the phone that "everyone on the Web uses aliases" as justification for representing himself to the NSR organizations as a Stanford researcher who was about to conduct a large-scale comparison between TM and NSR, including a control group. As if! It is a classic case of 'the end justifying the means', which is unethical.

While I see no validity to the comparison with the monster McCarthy that was made above, I do see a pattern of cherrypicking among by the admirers of TM when it comes to research results, in an attempt to justify ridiculous hypotheses such as the supposed Maharishi Effect and whispered (or thought) sounds curing cancer or other major diseases. There is no excuse for making claims beyond what can actually be shown by careful science, reviewed by colleagues and opponents alike.

I myself have conducted psychological research on transcending (N=44) which shows a high 'effect size' and low 'p' value for the hypothesis that learning transcending and then practicing it for one week lowers state and trait anxiety, as measured by the STAI (a standard psychological inventory). (We have not yet published this study, but have published several others.) Indeed, only one subject showed a large increase in anxiety; I found out that his father was dying.

I have no doubt that TM and the TM-Sidhi program decrease stress by reducing mental activity while stimulating the mind to stay alert. However, the more 'far out' claims such as the ME and MVVT are only substantiated by researchers practicing the techniques and/or working at TM locations like MUM.

Maharishi himself stated many times that TM was all a person needs to gain fulfillment in life and the elimination of all stress (I heard him in person); why the need to focus on high-priced variants, including the use of gems (which Maharishi called "toys for children")? I wish TM supporters would come back to earth and return to Maharishi's first principle, which was that everyone should practice TM because it brings fulfillment to life. I wish the TM organizations and the Rajas would address the needs of a suffering world instead of courting the wealthy with grandiose programs that make no sense. David Spector 03:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Askolnick and assistance in restoration of neutrality. As part of the removal of primary sources to TM-related entries, Hari Sharma was one considered (knowing of his affiliation with the TM Org) a common primary source in the entries upon my arrival. Therefore his research, not being independent, but both biased, non-neutral and primary, should be systematically removed. I have yet to go back and see if vandals have restored any of his "research", but this reminds me, this is a place I forgot to look for evidence of further "primary source vandalization".--Kala Bethere (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What to me is more important reason for rejecting Hari Sharma's TM-promoting research is that he deceived editors and the public about his financial ties to the TM group that markets the Maharishi remedies promoted in his studies. And he did so repeatedly, despite being warned by his university not to hide his financial connections. If a researcher will lie about who paid for his research, there is no reason to believe his research findings are any more truthful.--Askolnick (talk) 06:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I forwarded Durova's evidence regarding Lisco to the founder of that company. Here is what is in Durova's evidence:

"Fladrif has obtained Iowa government reports on filings of LISCO utility revenue taxes. The figure at the company's website appears to be a cumulative total of all the customers the company has ever had. Based upon the assessment rate, LISCO grossed $268,000 in 2008. That translates to an active customer base of only a few hundred people."

Here is the reply from Lance Yedersberger:

"That is totally not true, LISCO grossed about 4.8 million in 2008, we have several thousand customers."

Hope that helps. TimidGuy (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, the $268K figure is regulated telephone service revenues only, not ISP or CATV revenues.Fladrif (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way would that be this Lance Yederberger? [[18]] Who's contributions were In-Kind (one assumes as internet service provision? [[19]] Tucker ^talk 22:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish Durova would correct her evidence regarding the number of Lisco customers and her claim that it serves few customers other than MUM. TimidGuy (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, apologies for not having seen this sooner. If there's verifiable public information to that effect then certainly I'll update that part of the evidence. Although for purposes of this arbitration that may not be necessary: the total of unlogged LISCO IP edits to Wikipedia cover a wide range of topics, with a minority of edits to TM topics. So I've posted a finding of fact which states that it wouldn't be appropriate to treat the LISCO-MUM relationship as equivalent to the Scientology precedent. Durova⁴¹² 19:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But your statement is highly misleading, since it's unrelated to their Internet service. Fladrif's CLEC information is only about their telephone service and gives no information about their ISP service. Anyone reading what you wrote would assume that when you say they have a customer base of only a few hundred people that that includes their Internet service. And since it doesn't, why is it even being mentioned, why is the number of their telephone customers relevant here? Please at least clarify that this figure represents the number of their telephone customers. TimidGuy (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC) I do appreciate, though, the specific finding of fact that you note. TimidGuy (talk) 12:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Durova, for your statement on the Lisco/TM and Scientology precedent. --BwB (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the best information that we've been able to locate from public sources. Due to the popularity of bundled service plans among residential customers it's reasonable to extrapolate LISCO's Internet service as related to its telephone service. LISCO's residential Internet coverage may actually be less than its phone service as a result of MUM: according to several editors the compensation for MUM employees is below the norm for the field, so MUM faculty and staff (and of course also the students) would have reason to economize by subscribing only for home telephone service and rely on campus access for their Internet. At any rate, two things can be asserted with relative confidence:

• A firm whose recent tax records are consistent with residential phone service to fewer than 1000 people is not a market leader even in its own rural county.
• Overall unlogged edits from LISCO to Wikipedia cover a wide enough realm of subjects and articles that, for Wikipedian purposes, LISCO should not be treated as synonymous with MUM or the TM movement.

Durova⁴¹² 23:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't LISCO run and/or founded by TM practitioners? TimidGuy or any of the Iowa-based WP editors, can you tell us: is LISCO run or was it run or founded by TM and/or TM-Sidhi practitioners? Do you know the founders and/or executives personally?--Kala Bethere (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to verify, Lance Yerdersberger is not only a TM-Sidhi practitioner, he has a son, Aron, who attends Maharishi University of Management. He also hires TM advocates in his organization.

If there are professors or MUM.edu employees, they probably know the Yedersbergers.--Kala Bethere (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It really isn't relevant for Wikipedian purposes whether LISCO is or isn't owned by a TM practitioner. What matters here is that, other than the nexus of checkuser-associated accounts, LISCO edits cover a normal range of encyclopedic subjects. Durova⁴¹² 20:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't feel that possible collusion of a known MUM.edu supporter and a person whose financial and business cashflow relies heavily on the TM Org and TM/TM-Sidhi practitioners (Yedersberger) with the TM Org-based editors is at least a potential concern?

Some of the editors may know the CEO personally, as well as people who work there!--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I should add: for all we know some of the Fairfield editors do work there.--Kala Bethere (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enough casting of aspersions, Kala Bethere. Facts only, please. Risker (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fact: LISCO is owned by a TM-Sidha, with financial ties to MUM.edu. FACT: He routinely hires other meditators. Fact: unless they agree to disclose it, we cannot know whether or not the Fairfield editors have a work and or friendly relationship with the owner, who controls the network they post via. Fact: if they conceal it, pertinent information about this case could also be concealed, misconstrued or lost. Therefore: if possible, involved parties should be asked, in confidence and not publicly, what specific conflicts of interest they may have to prevent "blind-siding" of the ArbCom. That's my primary concern. I'm new to this whole ArbCom process, so I don't know how relevant such meat puppetry is.--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. The fellow who owns my local bakery is Catholic, and he's not just a practicing Catholic, he's on the parish council,chairs the fundraising committee, and teaches Sunday School. Most of his staff are Catholic; well, half of them are related to him, so we don't just have a Catholic cabal, we have nepotism too. Am I risking my ability to edit articles related to the Catholic church every day when I buy bread there? Alluding to meatpuppetry because people may share common beliefs or practices — or use services provided by those who do —is over the line. Risker (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic Church has about 1 billion adherents worldwide, of which your parish is a very small component. The TM movement has had a total of no more than 6 million people trained in its basic technique, and far fewer trained in its advanced techniques. I've seen a number of around 20,000. Fairfield is more comparable to the Vatican City than to a parish, in that it is capital of the movement and HQ for many of its most notable leaders. In this case, the issues of meatpuppetry come up not because these users share the same beliefs, but because they apparently know each other and edit in a coordinated fashion. To extend the analogy, if nine members of a parish, including deacons and ushers, were dominating the article on the parish and suppressed negative information about scandals concerning the parish priest, then questions of meatpuppetry and collusion might very well come up.   Will Beback  talk  21:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding past editing, the fact that so many editors of TM-related articles use the same small ISP in the same small town is an indication of their closeness. Going forward, the main concern with LISCO is perhaps with enforcement. The Fairfield TM editors have all edited while logged-in, except for the the period when TimidGuy was choosing not to identify himself. If the ArbCom decides on any remedies that applying to them, there might be suspicion about any new accounts using that ISP or editing from Fairfield. But LISCO isn't the only available ISP in the area, so focus on it may be misplaced. Ultimately, behavior is more important than IPs.   Will Beback  talk  08:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Risker, in this case it's more like your employer owning the network you do your email and websurfing on, not only will their administrators be able to observe all you do, but their admin privileges will allow them access to your account, web browsers used, etc. - a large amount of information about you personally. In a case like this it would be like one of the IT employees, who has a dislike for you, talking over "what Risker was looking at on the web" to someone else while chatting in the break room. Or using his privileges to watch you and share info with other Risker enemies. Conversely, if you are the IT admins buddy, he could cover your back and hide your old tracks when you were surfing for some illicit item on the company network connection, after an "alarm" was breeched, alerting your boss.

To parse it in your Catholic church example, it would be more like fellow Catholics casually covering each others backs and using the churches private network at the admin level to assure your shared safety and the preservation of their mission in the world by doing so. It wouldn't take highly planned subversion to do so, merely a shared interest, living in the same location and hanging out at the same prayer hall or lunch space. Since fellow church members share the same vision of salvation and the churches role therein, there would be little ethical or cognitive dissonance to casually and instinctively collaborate. You, after all, share the same vision to a certain silent extent.

I feel the TM Org wikileak documents, which include such subversive collaboration on the web, point very tangibly to these types of actions and represent a precedent for the type of collusion we are seeing here on the WP, in the TM-related entries. I feel it's important to realize that the question of collusion is not really a question at all. The wikileak documents (which may have been removed by MUM legal counsel) already tell us such collusion has been in place for years.

If we ignore future enforcement of such realities, by reincarnation or by other physical persons joining in to push POV, we do so at WP's peril and at the risk of losing it's core values.--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the main parties to this case have presented their evidence and so would like to encourage that anyone who has any further relevant evidence submit their presentation by Sunday, March 7 at 2359 UTC, so that the Arbitration Committee can move on to complete the assessment of such evidence.

In particular, any further evidence related to editorial behaviour and interaction should be presented promptly. I think there is probably more than enough information about technical matters such as ISPs. Thanks for your cooperation. Risker (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will be away for a few days and won't be back until late on Sunday night. While I have presented my main evidence, I have more material that I haven't added which may become relevant. Could the Committee please extend that deadline by a day or two?   Will Beback  talk  22:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that is a reasonable request; one shouldn't have to plan one's life around an Arbcom case. Let's say Wednesday at 0600 UTC (which is Tuesday night North American time). I trust that should be sufficient? Risker (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.   Will Beback  talk  23:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Will posts his evidence close to the deadline on late Tuesday, will I have a chance to reply? Also, Will he be expected to limit his evidence to 1,000 words, as has been requested of everyone else? TimidGuy (talk) 12:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these are good questions. Maybe someone can post these questions on Risker's User Page to make sure they receive attention.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'll do it. --BwB (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(od) I'm co-drafting this with Risker and currently working through the diffs (based on the page version of 15:20, 5 March 2010). I have no problem with it running on a day or two later than Wednesday but don't see much need for this to continue much longer past then unless there are genuine new issues. On a related note, please don't move stuff around (or to sub-pages) as it's becomes much more difficult to keep track of what has or hasn't been reviewed when the goalposts are constantly moving.  Roger Davies ^talk 19:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Apologies. I did move my evidence page today because I can rebut the evidence against me, but didn't have the time to deal with all of it. I will rebut more anyway, and it can be looked at if its needed or appropriate. (I've added one more diff but won't add more since it seems it won't be looked at.) (olive (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I am, of course, going to review any evidence added after 15:20 5 March 2010 but it will help considerably if it's easy to find :)  Roger Davies ^talk 07:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've added the last of my evidence, or will have shortly. I've italicized the new material to make it easier to find.   Will Beback  talk  08:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added new evidence here [20], with a link from my main Evidence Statement. Hickorybark (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also added evidence yesterday which may have not been noticed here which includes an explanation to Will's accusation that I revert against Noticeboards.

Will's comment is such a misrepresentation of the situation. There is one instance where I revert added content against an early Noticeboard discussion, pending more discussion, as I explain, because once two editors on his side of the dispute weighed in, and on the very same day as the notice is posted Will Beback re adds the content. I revert asking for a legitimate amount of time. On one level it doesn't matter much to me if the content is in or out although I'm pretty sure its OR, and I really hate to agree to an edit against a policy. At the same time I have often felt that process and policy must be strictly adhered to on these pages or the same slackness in applying policy and guideline will come back to bite you and will be even more difficult to handle the next time around. I'm not sure its appropriate to post this comment as a rebut to Will's comment but, sheesh, I'm tired of being mischaracterized.(olive (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Olive, this isn't the best place to argue the point but I'm not mischaracterizing your actions. You deleted the material, for the second time in 24 hours, despite the noticeboard input. Then you went on to accuse me or other editors of violating a "a generally accepted procedure" requiring an undefined amount of time before acting on noticeboard input and of harassing you for discussing the very issue of ignored noticeboard input.[21]   Will Beback  talk  16:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I can see from your comment here is that you believe what you are saying about what happened. At the same time you leave out context: The fact that you re add the content under discussion within the same day of the Notice board post, which you posted. That you re add after this very short time period and after two comments come in that suit your position. That my revert was specifically made as the edit summary says, until discussion on the NB could be given a decent amount of time for editors to weigh in, rather than being a reversion to remove content indefinitely and to shift any kind of neutrality, and that you use this one instance to characterize an editor as one who edits against Noticeboards. If you leave out context and the extenuating circumstances you give a mischaracterized version of what happened. However, I respect that you seem to believe that you did the right things as did I. And yes, this discussion is probably out of place here.(olive (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

You are mistaken. I did not re-add the sourced material that you deleted twice in 28 hours. The material was restored by an otherwise uninvolved editor who'd commented at the noticeboard.[22]   Will Beback  talk  17:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone is interested, here's what actually happened: On December 12, after a talk page discussion where I announced I had found this study and was encouraged to add it to the article, and in which there was no dissenting opinion, I added the study to the article [23]. In the next edit to the article, olive reverted my edit, claiming it was OR. [24]. A lively discussion ensued, which I don't have time to search for now in the talk page archives, but as I remember it, it became clear that others did not agree with olive but that she would not yield in her insistence that including this study was OR, and Will and olive agreed that the issue should go to a noticeboard for outside input.

Will filed a report at the NOR noticeboard, where comments did not favor olive's position that using this source constituted NOR. thread Olive made some remarks at the noticeboard in which it was evident that she was talking about another issue altogether; she admitted her mistake and struck out her remarks in entirety, which I, apparently mistakenly, took to mean that she was withdrawing her argument that this edit was OR, so I restored the material [25]. Sixteen minutes later, olive reverted my edit [26], with the edit summary "Good grief, jumping the gun!" Then a completely uninvolved editor who had participated at the noticeboard came and re-restored the edit [27] with the edit summary "See discussion" with a link to the noticeboard. Just for the record, there were no subsequent comments at the noticeboard agreeing with olive's unique position on this issue. But for the purpose of this discussion here, the important point is that Will did not do either revert, and I don't see how his saying that olive twice reverted material in spite of noticeboard consensus could reasonably be taken as a "mischaracterization." She did, in fact, remove the same material three times in two days, the first time in spite of consensus among editors at the article, and the second and third in spite of input at the noticeboard. Someone's actions are being mischaracterized here, but not olive's. Woonpton (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The facts:

There were 2RR not 3. There was no deliberate revert in definace of a notice board as suggested, but I reverted because the time on the NOR/NoticeBoard before the content was re added back into the article was only hours, very little time for editor input.

This (below) is what happended and why. This single sequence of events does not make me an editor who edits against Notice board advice, a mischaracterization. Context is an integral and significant factor in determining why something is being done.

• I reverted once here citing an obvious- to- me case of OR since the study added was not connected to the Merseyside study or the Mahrishi Effect in any way except if the two unrelated studies were synthesized[28]

• And again here asking for time for editors to respond[29]

• Will edits to the added content here, and implied support for the added content[30]

• My talk page comment is here requesting time for input[31]
• Will Beback comments here with a further commewnt from me[32][33]

• Woonpton’s comment suggesting confusion on the addition of content since he misunderstood my comment on the NOR/N discussion[34] (olive (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

You're right and I apologize for that inaccuracy. You didn't make the revert, although you did support it.(olive (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

First, my edit simply moved the citation to the end and removed whitespace. That's support? Second, why would I not support the edit? It was agreed to by the uninvolved editors. Do you continue to disapprove of it, despite the outside input?   Will Beback  talk  19:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will. Do not confuse what my opinions are with what I edit. Do not confuse my opinions with some TM org information you have gathered from a source. Do not confuse outside input with having to accept those opinion or with editing into articles. I do not edit against NoticeBoards. As a matter of fact in the John Hagelin article I edited with the advice of the Notice board despite the fact that I did not agree with the Notice board. Wikipedia does not and cannot control what people think. What people think and how they translate that into their editing practice and the environment they create to do it in, is Wikipedia's concern. If I see a policy violation I am bound to deal with it. And what I think about this situation? Its past I have better things to think about. I wasn't suggesting anything by mentioning you agreed both in the article and on the talk page with the re added edit. I, in a very neutral way laid out the sequence of events since Woonpton had made mistakes in his comments.(olive (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Olive, the noticeboard editors said that the Merseyside material was fine and you deleted it, so your repeated assertion that you didn't act in contradiction to that opinion is not factual. Regarding the "Sexy Sadie" matter, you repeatedly deleted the material despite two uninvolved editors explaining how important it is. And this isn't just about you, but about all nine of the Fairfield TM editors. The folks at the WP:FRINGE/N board all agreed that Yogic Flying and the Maharishi Effect are fringe, or even pseudoscience. I don't recall seeing any acceptance of that view by the Fairfield TM editors. Much of Hickorybark's evidence seems to complain about adding material to the John Hagelin that was endorsed by the WP:BLPN. TM editors have opposed the outside views on the value of medical studies on MVAH remedies conducted by MUM faculty.   Will Beback  talk  20:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Olive, for someone who has been objecting to people making assumptions, you make some assumptions yourself, for example referring to me with the pronouns "he" and "his." I suppose since statisticians are mostly male, and since Wikipedia editors are mostly male, the assumption that a retired statistician editing Wikipedia is male would be valid more often than not, but in this case, it's not, and as I said, it's especially interesting that someone so upset about assumptions would make this assumption without bothering to question it.

As for "mistakes" in my account, I stand behind my account of what happened and the diffs I provided, which showed that your assertions that (1) Will had restored the material, and (2) that you had never edited against noticeboard consensus, were simply not accurate. Your subsequent diffs do not contradict my account at all, and some of them provide rather strong corroboration of it, such as your reference 33 that shows you replying to Will, when he asked why you deleted the material again, and so quickly, "And how about because I consider it a violation of policy?" in other words, insisting on your interpretation of policy even after it had been rejected both on the article talk page and on the noticeboard.Woonpton (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I have been preoccupied with a medical problem (heart-related) for the last month and have been in and out of hospital and clinics for various tests and procedures and assessments of post-procedure complications and difficulties, so wasn't able to submit evidence during the evidence phase of this case. However, it occurs to me that observant arbitrators should be able to see, in the discussion above, evidence of the kind of tendentious argument that has made discussion and editing of TM articles so very difficult. Woonpton (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woonpton. I stand by what I said above.

My use of his or he was used in a general way. I in no way meant to imply that you were either male or female. If an editor doesn't specifically say they are female, I tend to use a generalized "he". Also, on Wikipedia, "they" is used in the singular, but some editors object to that too. I apologize for any offense caused, and hope your health concerns are not serious and work themselves out soon.(olive (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks, but that wasn't intended as a bid for sympathy, only as an explanation to arbitrators for why I wasn't able to submit evidence during the evidence phase but still may wish to provide diffs on non-evidence pages where I think they might be helpful to the arbitrators. (Although I notice that people are continuing to add new evidence even now, so maybe the evidence deadline isn't as strict as it sounded?)Woonpton (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have added this section to my separate Evidence Response subpage. Should I now stop adding responses to evidence? David Spector 15:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. Risker (arbitrator) has left a note above about the closing time for evidence:

"Let's say Wednesday at 0600 UTC (which is Tuesday night North American time). I trust that should be sufficient? "

I got behind schedule when half of my evidence was deleted by Clerk and it took my hours to reduce my Evidence to 1000 words. As a result I added two subpages early this morning but now I am done. No more additions. Thank you-- — Kbob • Talk • 14:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the evidence phase remain open until KBob reaches 500 edits. He's only got 113 to go, and has somehow inexplicably fallen to only 40.6% of the edits on the page. If we wait for him to get his post count up to 500, and everyone else refrains, he can almost get to 50% again. Fladrif (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not helpful. He's finished. The evidence phase is over, we did allow some people extra time because they'd gone over the top, that's done. Dougweller (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm totally completely done. Thanks for your patience everyone.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. Just to let everyone know, I'm planning on protecting the page in the next hour so please make sure you have a final tinker round with your evidence. I'm happy with the word counts now, so please don't go over them. Thanks for your cooperation. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When did ArbCom cases start to impose strict limits like this? I haven't encountered hard deadlines or page protection before.   Will Beback  talk  22:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Normally we wouldn't protect the page, but we have the following quote (actually, by the looks of things it was to you) from an arbitrator;

"I suppose that is a reasonable request; one shouldn't have to plan one's life around an Arbcom case. Let's say Wednesday at 0600 UTC (which is Tuesday night North American time). I trust that should be sufficient? Risker (talk) 10:55 pm, 4 March 2010, last Thursday (8 days ago) (UTC+0)"

Given that she imposed a deadline, and the problems we've had with the word counts, I'm planning on protecting the page. It's not normally done like this, but for the two reasons above, that's what I'm going to do in this case. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was a response to me when I asked that a deadline be extended briefly due to travel plans. I haven't seen hard deadlines in past cases, though late evidence was probably not reviewed. It's helpful to know when Arbs have stopped reviewing new evidence, and it's helpful to have cases move more expeditiously than sometimes happened in the past. But page protection seems unprecedented and unnecessary. It's not as if editors are edit warring or attacking each other with inappropriate language.   Will Beback  talk  22:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness to WIKI: given the amount of edits on this page it must be using half of WIKIs bandwidth allocation for this year. Plus, there is only so much of "MUMMM! (no pun intended) Have you seen what he said about me? Tell him!!" Comments one can take before it becomes slightly boring. But then, I have read the evidence page and as it is has been conclusively proven Will Beback that you are the son/daughter of Satan (and I think at one stage "Satin") I probably shouldn't be talking to you. But then, it has also been conclusively proven that I don't exist. Gosh! This is all so confusing. Tucker ^talk 00:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, and I suppose we can also make minor additions to our subpages as well.-- — Kbob • Talk • 15:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind - if anyone had any major concerns I told myself I wouldn't protect and I see Will has so I won't protect. That said, please only make minor changes from now on - don't do anything major. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed mine late simply because I had no idea how to count the words, and the request to trim them did not say anything about how to do so, nor did it define how many characters constitute a "word". The help list was able to direct me to a website which allowed me to count the number of words and trim appropriately. I hope this is OK.--Kala Bethere (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think protecting the page makes perfect sense: it freezes the evidence so it doesn't change under the feet of the Arbs while they are deliberating. I wouldn't object to protecting all the TMM pages, too, if it means we will see a solution to its problems in the future. David Spector 00:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that WillBeback, an involved party, has access to special and privileged information/evidence that is selectively being shared with ArbCom, selectively withheld the accused and others, disclosed to WillBeback by the CU and alluded to, in support of serious allegations. This is not a level playing field. Though there are several examples of this having occurred already on this SPI/RFARB, I cite this most recent one below and request that all information regarding the SPI be fully disclosed to all involved parties right away.

• WillBeback says in his evidence: I have been informed by a Checkuser that some of the computers used by Fairfield TM editors have identical configurations. Two of the most prolific editors, Littleolive oil and TimidGuy, along with Roseapple have never edited at the same time. Three other active editors, Keithbob, Luke Warmwater101, and ChemistryProf, do so very rarely.[35][36]

I request that all information regarding the SPI be fully disclosed to all involved parties specifically the information that supports the above allegations that "computers used by Fairfield TM editors have identical configurations". Several Fairfield editors have clearly stated they do not use anyone elses computer or allow their computer to be used by others. If there is evidence to the contrary than the accused deserve to see it. -- — Kbob • Talk • 16:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you including in your request all other information that editors sent privately to ArbCom? Several of the TM-Org editors have done so, and did so with the understanding that they can send information confidentially to ArbCom without other editors seeing it. Your position is inconsistent with that understanding. I have no problem whatsoever with an administrator, even an involved one, having access to information, relevant to the ArbCom, that mere mortals like you and I don't have access to. Fladrif (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think one editor said they have sent their personal information to ArbCom and anyone can send info to ArbCom privately if they wish to. Also: 1)It's personal ID which is private 2)That info has not been selectively shared with involved parties as is the case above, where a Check User has given WillBeback data upon which he is making serious allegations without divulging his accusers names or the incriminating data.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope that they don't release my personal information that I sent them? I would not like anyone else to know that I am Deepak Chopra. Tucker ^talk 20:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, bugger!!! Could you strike that last comment from the page please? ThanksTucker ^talk 20:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've shared all of the information that I've been told about the involved editors. The Checkusers with whom I corresponded were very discrete and really didn't say much beyond the fact that users were sharing the same network (they didn't even say where or which), and that some editors had the same computer configuration. One of the Checkusers mentioned something about timing, and I followed up. That, too, is publicly available and I've added it to my evidence, though I did so reluctantly because if there had been explicit sock puppetry that would have revealed one of the methods of finding it. I had already found numerous cases of what we now know are the Fairfield TM editors editing while logged-out, which publicly revealed their IP addresses. For example, although Kbob has asserted here that he has never edited from an MUM IP, there is publicly available evidence which contradicts him. When he edited Wikiquote in May 2009 he forgot to log in, showing that he was using 69.18.50.2.[37]   Will Beback  talk  21:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just point out that it might be argued you are all presently being "played" in the manner, some might argue" the Fairfield Tag team edits its articles? Note that they seem to have (it might be argued) broken into separate teams each one concentrating on a different editor they feel is "anti" TM. KBob concentrates on me and an other, TG and Olive concentrate on Will Beback (although they all seem to see this editor as a "risk" to some degree. Deadstar has not only concentrated on Fladrif in the evidence section but has generated an entire workshop around him/her.

Most of the "evidence" seems to be designed to deliberately irrite said editors into making a reaction which they then use as evidence against them (note this sequence for example (which of course must be seen within the greater context of provocation by Kbob against Tucker [[38]] : [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]]. Yes, it is of course taken out of context and any intelligent editor can see this, but what it does do effectively is to divert valuable energy away from the the actual debate that should be taking place here (While at the same time making this entire issue seem to be less about "truth" and more about a clash of personalities (even when this does not exist). Just worth noting Tucker ^talk 00:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who are these "neutral editors"? I don't believe there are any. We all have distinct POVs. I don't think there is convincing evidence that anyone is being played more than anyone else. Both 'sides' have engaged in not-so-pleasant tactics. In summary, I stand by what I wrote in my evidence section. I do wonder a little about the names "Will Be Back" (which may not mean 'William') and "Kala Be There"; they seem similar somehow. And no, I don't believe that anyone here is Deepak Chopra. :o) David Spector 01:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the point about names. As for neutral editors, Littleolive oil has declared numerous times that she is a neutral editor.[44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51] She also says that TG is a neutral editor.[52] Kbob has also said that he's a neutral editor.[53] Do you think they were they wrong when when they made those assertions?   Will Beback  talk  01:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David - Are you trying to imply that Will and Kala are sockpuppets of each other? That is the only reasonable reading of your comment above. If you have any evidence whatsoever that that is the case, post it. If not, strike your gratuitious, baseless and, frankly, foolish speculation. Fladrif (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]