Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal/Workshop

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 Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motion on stipulation of TimidGuy's COI

1) The general nature of TimidGuy's alleged COI shall be stipulated by the parties so as to make clear the nature of the problem without disclosing personally identifying information.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't think this needs to be a motion, but agree with the general idea. PhilKnight (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be quite possible to document inappropriate editing without disclosing personally identifying information. Risker (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe this is even relevant until and unless inappropriate editing is documented. Jclemens (talk) 07:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about it, the less relevant this is - it is all dependent on the edits. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

To the extent that the ArbCom wishes to hold this case semi-publicly, information on the nature and severity of the conflict of interest needs to be stated publicly so that members of the community can make sense of the issues. It's my understanding that TimidGuy has not disputed that aspect of the case.   Will Beback  talk  00:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet responded to any facet of your 1,700 words of evidence. It's my understanding that I have until December 28 to present evidence and to respond to evidence against me. Is that correct? TimidGuy (talk) 11:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. However this concerns how we can safely discuss the nature of your (alleged) role without violating your privacy. If you wish to deny that role then you can (in which case saying you have that role wouldn't violate your privacy). This public motion is a mirror to a private proposal sent via email, which you should have received. For obvious reasons, this needs to be discussed off-Wiki.   Will Beback  talk  11:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(BTW, the evidence I sent to the ArbCom via email is the same evidence I sent in September, with a small addition, so TimidGuy has had three months to review it.)   Will Beback  talk  11:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there is a dispute about what the exact reason for Jimmy Wales' ban of TimidGuy. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal/Evidence#Kww's evidence. I'd request that we quote his exact reason, as expressed in his email of 11:51 PM, Sep 7, 2011. It does not contain personally identifying information.   Will Beback  talk  05:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Motion to remove Will Beback as a party

2) The ArbCom has not indicated why I should be a party to this appeal. When the ArbCom hears appeals of community bans or AE bans, it does not add all editors who've presented evidence against the banned editor. TimidGuy has not made any claim that I have acted improperly. Therefore I request that I be removed as a party.

Comment by Arbitrators:

You were answered privately, are you certain you want us to post the response publicly? Risker (talk) 04:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Fladrif - We do take seriously the allegation that TimidGuy has continued to edit inappropriately since the time of the last case; this information should be publicly available, since it would be based on diffs within the various articles. Both the Committee and the community have made it clear that publicly available information to support an editor sanction should be presented publicly; hence the public case. What we don't want to see is a re-trying of the previous case, where (in part) similar allegations were made and were addressed. The nutshell to one of our more important behavioural policies, No personal attacks, says "comment on the content, not on the contributor", and that applies in this situation. If there are problems with contributions since June 2010, please bring them forward - publicly. Risker (talk) 14:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Risker. Do you want us to post our response? SirFozzie (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Fladrif, the committee has been in email communication with each of the three parties to the case regarding the allegations and corresponding evidence which are not being discussed on-Wiki. I'm sorry if this public/private hybrid looks weird to outsiders, but we're trying to deal with private evidence of possible misconduct privately, while public evidence may be dealt with publicly. There's no "star chamber" here, but the question of whether and how Will Beback may have violated harassment guidelines, including WP:OUTING in his quest to uncover what he perceived to be a policy violation, using policy interpretations which are clearly at odds with the wording and intent of the guidelines, cannot be adequately discussed entirely in public while preserving the privacy of the editor whose personal information he is alleged to have mishandled. Jclemens (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed as a public copy of a private request.   Will Beback  talk  04:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've repeated my request by email. Since I don't know quite what is being talked about, please respond there.   Will Beback  talk  04:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've only now been informed of the allegations against me, but I have not been told who made these allegations nor have I seen any evidence to support them. I am still prohibited by the ArbCom from posting anything here, pending its decision on how to handle the private/public aspects of the case.   Will Beback  talk  06:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my appeal I said this regarding the email that you sent to Jimmy Wales and the committee: "The email included alleged personal information and a number of demonstrable falsehoods and misrepresentations." I think that it was an improper action to include demonstrable falsehoods and misrepresentations in your email. I will cover this in my evidence. TimidGuy (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: You wrote: "Will Beback may have violated harassment guidelines, including WP:OUTING in his quest to uncover what he perceived to be a policy violation, using policy interpretations which are clearly at odds with the wording and intent of the guidelines..." That is an incorrect statement. I did not seek to uncover a policy violation. I stumbled upon information and then came to the conclusion that it may have represented a policy violation. I have explained that before. There has been no evidence presented thus far, in public or private, that I posted any personally identifying information about TimidGuy, so please stop making that accusation until the evidence has been presented.   Will Beback  talk  23:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@TimidGuy: We all make mistakes. It is entirely possible that I made errors in the evidence I submitted in September. However if I did they were unintentional and I apologize for the errors. You did not make any corrections at the time, and I have still been informed of any significantly incorrect assertions. However I am not aware that making honest mistakes in evidence submissions to the ArbCom is a violation of policy. If it were, then denying the existence of a COI when one actually exists would certainly be a violation as well.   Will Beback  talk  23:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

If ArbCom is going to have a Star Chamber proceeding against Will Beback, where there is no public statement of the accusations, no public statement of the defense, no public evidence, and no community input on the decision, then he and all evidence regarding him should be removed from this proceeding, as it is utterly impossible for the community to participate meaningfully. Hold your little trial by e-mail amongst yourselves, and post the result when you're done - or not. Under these circumstances, incoluding him as a party to a public proceedingis just a waste of bandwidth inviting unnecessary drama and posturing, as we've already seen on the evidence page. Fladrif (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker - My comment above is directed to the motion to remove Will Beback as a party to this public ArbCom, not to continuation of a public ArbCom with respect to whether Jimmy Wales' ban of TimidGuy should be reversed or modified. It appears that there is no point in a public ArbCom with respect to whatever sealed and secret charges are being considered with respect to whatever it is Will is accused of doing. I agree that the case should continue publicly with respect to TimidGuy, who, I will note, should bear the burden of proof that Jimmy Wales' decision should be reversed, but who has so far posted no public evidence to support his request. Fladrif (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@SirFozzie - Post what response to what? Editors not privy to the e-mails being exchanged have any idea what you're talking about. What I want isn't relevant. ArbCom has to decide whether it is going to have a public proceeding or not. If yes, then make the evidence public and lift whatever gag order you've put on Will. If not, there is no point in having Will, who it appear is being tried in private, a party to a public hearing on whether Jimmy Wales' ban of TimidGuy should be reversed. Fladrif (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Will is publically saying that he shouldn't be a party to this case, then I encourage the arbs to respond publically as to why he is. I would say that Will is giving implicit permission to do so. Cla68 (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the same way that JN466's behavior was examined when he brought charges against Cirt, Will Beback's behavior is being examined here. If he has behaved properly and in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then being named as a party shouldn't be a concern.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Note: Answering questions is optional, even if they are asked by an arbitrator.

• For the record, I have asked John Vandenberg to withdraw some or all of these questions, as I believe it inappropriate to publicly ask editors to reveal personal information such as whether or not they edit at work. John has declined. Risker (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for all parties [John Vandenberg]

It would be helpful if you would be able to answer as many of these questions as possible. Please respond under each individual question.

1 is TimidGuy

2 is Jimbo Wales

3 is Will Beback

1. Do you have a conflict of interest with TM articles?

2. When did you first contribute to English Wikipedia content related to TM?

3. Do you have a conflict of interest with new religious movement articles?

4. When did you first contribute to English Wikipedia content related to new religious movements?

5. Have you edited Wikipedia a) at your place of employment or b) on company time, and c) with the approval of your employer? If so, please describe what editing was approved.

6. Describe one set of your contributions where you had a conflict of interest.

7. Describe one set of your contributions where you had a non-neutral POV.

Questions for Will Beback and Jimmy Wales [John Vandenberg]

2 is Jimbo Wales

3 is Will Beback

1. What year range do you believe that TimidGuy had a conflict of interest in TM?

2. What year range do you believe that TimidGuy was being paid to advocate for TM?

3. What year range do you believe that TimidGuy was being paid to advocate for TM on Wikipedia?

4. Have you contacted TimidGuy's place of employment?

5. If so, did you attempt to contact TimidGuy?

6. If so, did you attempt to learn any details about TimidGuy?

7. If so, did you attempt to mention Wikipedia editing by TimidGuy or another presumed employee?

Questions for Jimmy Wales [John Vandenberg]

1. Before banning TimidGuy, how much time did you spend looking at the private evidence submitted by Will Beback on 2 September?

2. What aspect of that private evidence caused you to ban TimidGuy?

3. Why did you leave TimidGuy banned without any further explanation?

Comment:

I think its a good idea to ask questions which focus on the specific issues the Arbitrators find troubling so I hope the arbs will save this idea for the future. In this case its probably way too late in the proceedings, and many of the answers to these questions are already in the evidence. An editor has been banned for months and is still awaiting some kind of decision. This is a long time especially if someone was innocent to begin with. I realize also though, that the arbs have a lot on their plates, and a careful fair decision needs time.(olive (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

A lot of these answers are not in evidence, and the ones which are in evidence can be easily reproduced here, in the parties own words. As this is reviewing a decision already made, we need be thorough. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC

I appreciate your position. None of this in an immediate sense has to do with me. My interest is in the future where appropriately worded questions might save time and effort.Thanks I actually wasn't expecting a response.(olive (talk) 03:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

FYI, I've responded to the majority of these in an email to John Vandenberg.   Will Beback  talk  04:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed principles

Conflict of interest

1) Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, a guideline, strongly discourages editing regarding an organization by those associated with the organization, especially in a public relations capacity.

Comment by Arbitrators:

That principle is from five years ago. Surely prior committees have had something to say on COI since then? After all, the guideline has changed markedly since it was passed. Jclemens (talk) 08:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is overly stringent. To give an example, I occasionally do voluntary work at Chester Zoo, and have made a couple of minor edits to the article. As this stands, my actions would be considered 'wrong', when in all honesty, I don't consider they were problematic. I think a copyedit along the lines of 'strongly discourages making substantive edits regarding an organization by those associated with the organization, especially in a public relations capacity" would be an improvement. PhilKnight (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This overstates the current version of the guideline and does not include significant other aspects of it, but I can foresee a principle related to this issue. Risker (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noted,  Roger Davies ^talk 06:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Writing promotional material, which is the job of a person in a Public Relations role, is so vastly different from writing neutrally that one would have to be extremely skilled to be able to switch roles effectively, so a safer route is to discourage it globally. That said, the most objective way of measuring POV editing is by analysing the content. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support. Editors seem to read the COI guidelines as suggesting that they merely edit with care rather than strongly discouraging them from editing at all. While non-controversial edits like fixing vandalism are rarely an issue, substantive or contentious edits, especially concerning POV issues, should not be made by COI editors. Instead, they should make use of the talk page to present their views on the article text.   Will Beback  talk  00:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight: I think it's important to recognize that there are different types of COI. Being an enthusiastic volunteer is one kind of COI. Being a longterm public relations officer is a very different kind.   Will Beback  talk  21:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Taken from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education. NW (Talk) 19:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Totally uninvolved here, but disappointed to see this isn't getting resounding support. ThemFromSpace 22:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honesty is expected

2) While there is no prohibition against editing anonymously or pseudonymously, users who have a heavy conflict of interest in a topic area they are active in are expected to disclose this publicly or to the Arbitration Committee. If asked directly, they are expected to answer honestly and not intentionally understate their true conflict of interest.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I do not see where a conflict of interest must be disclosed, even per request. We had something along these lines come up earlier this year, in a matter never discussed on-wiki, and couldn't find it in policy. Has anything changed, and/or did we miss something? Jclemens (talk) 07:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Will, unless you can find me an "are expected" somewhere in existing policy, this will not fly as written. "Strongly encouraged" and "expected" may seem very close, but they are not identical. If we were to upgrade "strongly encouraged" to "expected" by ArbCom fiat, we would be making policy, which is outside our remit. Principles are to reflect current policy and guidelines, not what committee members or parties wish they said. That would be a matter for an RfC. Jclemens (talk) 08:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Will #2, you're digging yourself in deeper, I'm afraid. While dishonesty is indeed frowned upon, remaining silent, especially on a question where there is no expectation of an answer, is not dishonest. Please start providing diffs of specific instances where TimidGuy has edited contrary to policy, rather than stringing together inapplicable or misapplied policies or guidelines. Jclemens (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't see where it says this. Looking at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Declaring an interest, the language used in the guideline is very different. PhilKnight (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to NW for the link to WP:HONESTY. PhilKnight (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too strong. There is no obligation on the part of ANY editor to answer personal questions about themselves, and they cannot be required to "out" themselves. Risker (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very concerned about where this might lead. Currently, there is absolutely no requirement anywhere in policy that editors provide factual personal information to rebut, for instance, interrogatories by their ideological opponents and that's how it should be. Instead, the focus is on the edits not the editor: not only does this keep things depersonalised but it also avoids speculation about motive, which strike me neither as productive use of anyone's time nor as an appropriate exercise in a collaborative venture.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support. Giving dishonest answers to direct questions about COI is obviously deceptive behavior and exacerbates COI problems. Announcing a COI does not require divulging any other personal information. The editor need merely say "I have a (minor/significant) COI on this topic." BLPs are a special case and exemptions may be necessary, though having BLP subjects editing their bios under pseudonyms is probably a bad idea.   Will Beback  talk  23:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens - the proposed principle says that editors "are expected" to follow what could be considered best practices, not that they "must" do so. The COI guideline says that editors are "strongly discouraged" from editing in areas of conflict, that they "are strongly encouraged—but not actually required—to declare their interests", and that those "who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia". I think this principle is entirely consistent with the existing guideline.   Will Beback  talk  08:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens - While WP:COI is a guideline, WP:CIVIL is a policy, and it clearly states that lying is an uncivil behavior. Denying the existence of a COI when one exists is dishonest. Taken together, the contentious editing of topics where there is a COI, the failure to disclose that COI voluntarily, and the denial of COI when questioned add up to a violation of basic expectations of good faith editing.   Will Beback  talk  08:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens - I sent my evidence to the ArbCom back in September and twice again this week. Do you need me to send it a fourth time? As for the policies on COI and honesty, if editors don't wish to reveal their COI then the honorable alternative is to avoid editing in the topic. WP:AVOIDCOI.   Will Beback  talk  15:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker and @Roger Davies - Editors with conflicts of inerest are expected (AKA "strongly discuouraged") to avoid editing in their area of conflict. They are also expected to disclose those conflict if they choose to edit. The question here is whether, despite those clear statements in the guideline, it is acceptable for a PR professional and public writer on the topic can make contentious POV edits while hiding behind a pseudonym without any limitations.   Will Beback  talk  21:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. NW (Talk) 19:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a general principle, i.e. outside the context of the present case, I'm a bit worried about the tension with general privacy concerns and the leniency that we want to show to BLP subjects. Also, we have problems both with lots of undisclosed COI editing and with frequent hysterical overreactions to disclosed COI editing. I think that requires more nuanced language to avoid merely shifting the balance and giving ammunition to the latter for no commensurate practical benefit regarding the former. Hans Adler 23:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet point #5 of Wikipedia:Honesty. To be honest, I'm surprised that this is even controversial. It seems like it is covered under the most fundamental of policies. NW (Talk) 18:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming to be someone who you are not is one thing, not admitting that you are who you are is something quite different, and not proactively disclosing it to Arbcom is yet another thing. These three points should not be confused. Hans Adler 20:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lying by omission is a well-recognized concept. If someone doesn't want to disclose a COI in a topic, they shouldn't edit in ways where the COI comes into play. Permitting anything else makes us look like idiots. Remember the time an Amazon.com bug made their web site show 1000's of authors were giving 5-star reviews to their own books? Or the times congressional staffmembers were identified whitewashing their bosses' biographies? Editing tendentiously with an undisclosed COI is, if nothing else, bad-faith editing of the highest order. If such editing is considered permissible then WP:AGF should be discarded, since it only makes sense if good faith is expected to actually be there. I'm dismayed by imagining this case turning into a "Citizens United" of Wikipedia, establishing a right of self-serving organizations to dump unlimited funds into undisclosed campaigns of manipulating Wikipedia content towards their own interests. Wikipedia's credibility (such that it has) will be at an end after that. I see WP:POLICY has gotten more bureaucratic since last time I looked at it, but it still advises more common sense than I see being advocated here. Stop defending such crap with wikilawyering. I like this comment by Beyond My Ken about SPA's and paid editors. 64.62.206.2 (talk) 11:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citing oneself

3) Self-published sources on Wikipedia are generally only acceptable if they are produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. It is generally considered inappropriate to cite non-peer reviewed content which one has originally written on an external website, especially for a contentious topic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This seems to cover WP:SPS but not WP:SELFPUB, the following section. I can see how this might be relevant in establishing a pattern of editing against policy, but whether or not this is included as a final principle may depend on whether such editing has been effectively established by the presented evidence. Jclemens (talk) 07:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably worth including. Regarding Jclemens comment above, if needed another principle could be added. PhilKnight (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there evidence for this? I see some accusations on the evidence page, but the difs lead to talkpage discussions. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support. However there may be a better way of addressing the principles involved with citing and promotion in this case.   Will Beback  talk  00:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. NW (Talk) 19:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Authority of Jimbo Wales

4) Jimbo Wales has historically had a great deal of power on Wikipedia, as described by Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales. This included the power to ban editors, desysop administrators, promulgate policy without community agreement and appoint Arbitrators. Over time, Wales' power has gradually been devolved to portions of the Community. Notably, Wales' agreed in 2009 to "give up the ability to block other users. However, the banning policy currently states that "Jimbo Wales retains the authority to ban users", which is accurate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Something along these lines is appropriate, I expect, although it may take a quite different form by the time we're done recounting relevant history. Jclemens (talk) 07:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably worth including as background. PhilKnight (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, needed to set background. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support. Simple statement of written policies.   Will Beback  talk  00:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. NW (Talk) 19:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Authority of the Arbitration Committee

5) The Arbitration Committee was created by Jimbo Wales in 2004. Although its authority originally came as a delegation of power from Jimbo Wales, since June 2011, its authority has come from the Community's ratification of the Arbitration Policy. The Committee may hear appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users. Its decisions may be appealed only to the Wikimedia Foundation or Jimbo Wales, unless the case involves Wales' actions. The Wikimedia Foundation has historically declined to become involved in internal site matters, leaving the Arbitration Committee as functionally the body of last resort in matters where Jimbo Wales is involved.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Like the above, something will probably be put forth on this topic, although it may take a very different form than what is presented here. Jclemens (talk) 08:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Jclemens; something along these lines is probably worth including. PhilKnight (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in the Arbitration policy about appeal to the WMF.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support. Simple statement of written policies.   Will Beback  talk  00:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. NW (Talk) 19:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, the draft terms of use states "The community has primary responsibility to address violations of Project policy and other similar issues. At the Wikimedia Foundation, we rarely intervene in community decisions about policy and its enforcement." This implies that the WMF may intervene and overrule anything the community does if necessary, which I think has been the historical understanding. NW (Talk) 13:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This principle indicates ArbCom authority now derives solely from the community, but I contend this is not true. While Jimbo continues to appoint Arbitrators, while "elections" are presented as advisory only with Jimbo able to refuse to appoint candidates supported by the community, while Jimbo retains access to and remains able to participate in all off-wiki ArbCom communications, able to influence (and potentially direct) as he sees fit, and theoretically able to dismiss ArbCom members or even disband the Committee, the notion that ArbCom authority is solely community based is flawed. It is, for example, far from clear that the community could disband ArbCom should that be the community's will yet such authority is fundamental to delegation. The community has absolutely no mechanism to force a misbehaving arbitrator from office, yet this too is integral to a revocable grant of authority; only the peer pressure of her or his colleagues or Jimbo's power can allegedly force a removal, demonstrating clearly that Jimbo's powers are an on-going restraint on ArbCom. I think it would be great if ArbCom did derive its power solely from the community but that will not be the case without a recall mechanism, the modification of elections to be binding, and the removal of Jimbo from any position to influence ArbCom off-wiki beyond the options available to every editor. With Jimbo on the ArbCom mailing list no claim of complete independence from Jimbo is credible. EdChem (talk) 11:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Nothing yet. NW (Talk) 19:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Template 1) Comment by Arbitrators: Comment by parties: Comment by others: Template 2) {text of proposed finding of fact} Comment by Arbitrators: Comment by parties: Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Ban replaced with a topic ban

1) The ban placed on User:TimidGuy is vacated. TimidGuy is indefinitely banned from all pages related to the Transcendental Meditation movement, broadly construed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Obviously I'll wait until after all the evidence has been presented before deciding, however this is probably an option worth considering. PhilKnight (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my view the evidence doesn't demonstrate concerns sufficiently serious for an idefinite ban. In fact, I don't think a 12 month ban is appropriate. Maybe 3 months? PhilKnight (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We need more evidence of post-TM ArbCom issues, but it's certainly something that should be on the table. SirFozzie (talk) 06:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A short topic-ban is worth considering if there is sufficient evidence that TimidGuy has been responsible for disruption. I'm not yet seeing that evidence though. What I am seeing is TimidGuy raising concerns on talkpages, and looking to adjust articles so they are not unnecessarily negative or inaccurate. Did TimidGuy go too far in redressing the balance, so that he tipped over into an abuse of NPOV? If so, then a short topic ban would be more appropriate than a site-ban. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support. The behavioral issues concerning TimidGuy are solely with his editing of TM movement articles.   Will Beback  talk  00:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed as a possible option. NW (Talk) 19:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Fladrif (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed principles

Transparency

1) Transparency is important, unless private data is involved.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Too general to be effective guidance on how conflicting principles--NPOV and privacy--can be managed to create a top-notch encyclopedia, free from both inappropriate influence and witch hunts. Feel free to try again, but in this case, I'm afraid terseness works against this principle. Jclemens (talk) 07:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Does this mean transparency in editing articles, or in handling ArbCom cases? Perhaps the meaning of "transparency" could be expanded upon to clarify the proposed principle.   Will Beback  talk  00:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed Alexandria (chew out) 20:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On wiki notification

2) Except in certain circumstances (such as the blocking of socks revealed via the checkuser tool), editors should be notified of a block and/or ban on wiki.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Interesting. I don't recall seeing this facet of the case protested by any of the parties, actually. Worth considering, although it's certainly not a slam dunk to say that private evidence should result in public naming-and-shaming. Jclemens (talk) 08:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, if an editor is banned privately, they should be given the option of it being posted on-wiki. PhilKnight (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Alexandria: Perhaps the way to achieve the transparency you seek is to suggest that off-wiki bans should always be accompanied by on-wiki blocks.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks should be explained on user's talkpages: WP:EXPLAINBLOCK. Bans don't have the same requirement, though if someone has been banned off-Wiki it would be helpful in terms of enforcing the ban, that the community are made aware. Perhaps someone will start a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Banning policy to include such a requirement. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I'm not sure of any reason why TimidGuy shouldn't have been notified on wiki. Alexandria (chew out) 20:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: It's frustrating to me as an admin when someone supposedly has been banned via off wiki decision and there's nothing to note of it. It makes the enforcement that much harder because well, how do we even know there's a ban in place? Granted Timid did take the high road and honor the ban when clarified to him it was indeed a ban. Alexandria (chew out) 16:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger: Pretty much. Alexandria (chew out) 16:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight: I think the point Alexandria is trying to get across is that a notification that a user is restricted in some sort should have some notice provided. This doesn't have to include details, just the extent of ban or block. I agree that private stuff should be handled privately, with the option given to post on wiki, but it turns Wikipedia into a secret society if we ban people privately, with no onwiki notice of any sort. -- DQ (t) (e) 03:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External conduct

3) While users' conduct outside of Wikipedia is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions, the Committee may choose to consider off-wiki activities which are egregiously disruptive to the project in determining findings and sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, taken from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#External conduct. Alexandria (chew out) 15:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paid Editing

4) There are no official policies stating that paid editing is not allowed, however it is generally frowned upon.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, something like this is needed, but some tweaking would be prudent. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing falls under COI. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

There are policies, written and unwritten, against using Wikipedia for advocacy. With the possible exception of some scholars who have received stipends for their editing, virtually everyone who engages in paid editing does so for the purpose of advocating some cause. Their activity brings disrepute upon the project and, in some cases, upon their cause or client as well.   Will Beback  talk  21:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, may work better as a FoF though. Alexandria (chew out) 15:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Cas: I figured it would, but I wanted to lay out the bare bones version so people would think about it. Alexandria (chew out) 17:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe include principles like POV and COI and stating those policies more specifically? "However, paid editing presents an active conflict of interest and may introduce bias into the project in a non-neutral manner."? -- DQ (t) (e) 03:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template

X) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

TimidGuy's Block Log

1) TimidGuy's block log is clean.

1.2) There is no record of the ban placed by Jimmy Wales in TimidGuy's block log.

Comment by Arbitrators:

@Guerillero, I think the point here is that this was a ban without accompanying block. Many bans occur after a user has repeatedly failed to honor community consensus regarding behavioral expectations, and escalating blocks are a more typical progression than what has happened in this case. Jclemens (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, but was also topic-banned from TM edits for two months, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement#Log_of_topic_bans_and_blocks (original discussion here Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Obvious. Alexandria (chew out) 20:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this need to be stated? --Guerillero | My Talk 01:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Cas's statement above, 1.2 proposed but I'm open to suggestions on how to improve it. Also for the sake of transparency, Jclemens answered Guerillero's question adequately enough that I felt a response was not needed from me. Alexandria (chew out) 16:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Method of banning

2) TimidGuy was not blocked or banned on-wiki but instead banned over email by Jimbo Wales

Comment by Arbitrators:

Probably worth stating. PhilKnight (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Alexandria (chew out) 20:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TimidGuy's ban

3) TimidGuy, despite not being blocked on wiki, honored the ban until approaching arbcom for appeal.

3.1) TimidGuy, despite not being blocked on wiki, largely honored the ban with the exception of two to six edits immediately following the ban until approaching arbcom for appeal. The edits in question may have happened without being aware of the ban.

3.2) TimidGuy, despite not being blocked on wiki, largely honored the ban with the exception of two edits (one of which was a minor edit) following the ban until approaching arbcom for appeal. The edits in question were made due to confusion on TimidGuy's part on whether or not the ban was in effect. Once it was clarified that the ban was in effect he stopped editing until requesting the case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

@Fladrif: That comes close to the old "Have you stopped beating your wife" train of thoughts. In absence of finding any socks, one should not speculate. SirFozzie (talk) 06:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is informative that TimidGuy has honoured the ban even though disputing it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Note that after Jimmy's initial ban there was a fairly strong response from Arbcom to Jimmy that led me to believe I wasn't banned. I subsequently made two edits, which were immediately reported to Jimmy by NW. And then upon further discussion between Jimmy and Arbcom, it was clear that I was indeed banned, after which I stopped editing. TimidGuy (talk) 11:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Alexandria (chew out) 20:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely true. The ban was sent out via email by Jimbo on 8 December; TG made six edits after that. But it's close enough. NW (Talk) 20:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably 2-6 edits. It really depends on when he got/read the email. 3.1 proposed. Alexandria (chew out) 20:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3.2 proposed. Alexandria (chew out) 16:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am highly skeptical that this is true. TimidGuy has used sockpuppets in the past to edit the TM articles. He admitted that he acted as a meatpuppet when he wrote the original TM article, submitting material under his name written by an unidentified third person. Since his ban, other editors, long dormant or inactive, suddenly became active aggressive editors on the TM articles, advancing arguments and making statements and pushing the same POV he has been pushing for years. Coincidence? I doubt it. Fladrif (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@SirFozzie - You're confused. HYSBYW? is a loaded question. This is not a loaded question. There is no evidence whatsoever presented that TimidGuy has honored the ban and no basis for so concluding. His past repeated misconduct as a meatpuppet and sockpuppet, as well as the red flag of users appearing out of the woodwork to take up his banner, ape his role and parrot his rhetoric while subject to this ban or his earlier topic-ban strongly suggest that he has not honored the ban, but used sockuppets or meatpuppets as proxies to evade it. That is not speculation. It is a fact. Fladrif (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So guilty until proven innocent? That's not going to work. Alexandria (chew out) 14:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DUCK Fladrif (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One, WP:DUCK isn't policy. Two, do you have evidence of socking since the site ban? Requiring evidence to prove that socks weren't used is impossible, thus the burden falls on you to provide sockpuppetry evidence. Alexandria (chew out) 18:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have this precisely backwards. It is you who is proposing a finding of fact with no evidence whatsoever to support it. I have merely pointed out (i) you have presented no evidence and (ii) based on TimidGuy's past sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry and (ii) the appearance out of nowhere of editors who suddenly began parroting his positions and arguments on the TM pages in the wake of his ban, there is good reason to be highly skeptical of your proposed finding. Fladrif (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask you more clearly this time: Please provide clear evidence (as in diff links) of sockpuppetry after TG's site ban to support your argument that it occured. If I am reading this right, there was never any proof of sockpuppetry in the past. Alexandria (chew out) 19:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No on-wiki notification

4) There was no notification on wiki of the ban by any editor included in the email.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Alexandria (chew out) 20:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template

X) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

TimidGuy and Will Beback: interaction restriction

1) TimidGuy and Will Beback shall neither communicate with each other nor comment upon each other's actions or edits either directly or indirectly on any page in the English Wikipedia. Both parties may, within reason, comment within the same pages providing their comments do not relate directly or indirectly to the other party. Neither party may respond directly to perceived violations of this interaction restriction nor seek arbitration enforcement but shall instead report the perceived violation to the Arbitration Committee by email.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't see any need for this. The communications between myself and TimidGuy have been correct.   Will Beback  talk  21:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandria: Sorry for the confusion. Aside from the COI concerns, which predates my involvement in the topic, the interactions between TimidGuy and myself have been collegial and productive. I will be making a proposal concerning the COI issue later. There does not seem to be any basis for this remedy, as no one has identified general problems between TimidGuy and myself.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, taken from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466#Cirt and Jayen: interaction restriction. This may help alleviate some of the issues Alexandria (chew out) 15:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "correct" (sorry, the wording is honestly confusing to me)? Alexandria (chew out) 17:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, just throwing it out there for consideration anyway. Alexandria (chew out) 19:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback desysopped

2) Will Beback is desysopped. He may reapply through the regular channels or by appeal to the committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There is no accusation that any admin tools have been misused by me in this or any other case. Such a move would appear punitive rather than corrective.   Will Beback  talk  21:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: Reviews of editors' activities and behavior are routine on Wikipedia. They are the basis of SPI and even RFAR, not to mention many threads on AN/ANI, etc. For example, the ongoing Fae RFC/U is premised on the undisclosed connection between two user accounts. The editing and bureaucratic activities of Rlevse, based on purely on-Wiki reviews, demonstrate serious errors which in some cases needed to be fixed and in others needed to be reviewed to avoid future repetitions. As for real world repercussions of COI editing, they do exist and we've all seen evidence of that in the past. That's why the guideline specifically warns about the possibility of real world problems which can develop from COI editing. One of the reason why this case has mostly played out off-line was to avoid, as much as possible, any possible real world consequences for the editor.   Will Beback  talk  20:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed with the standard wording. The fact that he outed TimidGuy to two editors that are not functionaries, arbcom members, or Jimbo should not be excused by TimidGuy's behavior (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong for a similar situation). Alexandria (chew out) 15:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He did not 'out' anyone. No evidence of 'outing' has been offered. This is a critical point.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Ryulong case would not appear to be precedent for this remedy. I read that case as imposing the desysop for misuse of admin tools. The discovery of a party's real-life identity was a matter for the admonition issued in that case. There is no allegation, and no evidence, that Will misused admin tools in this matter in any way. Fladrif (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the Arbitration Committee examines the on-line and off line evidence and determines that there has been behavior " inconsistent with the level of trust required for its associated advanced permissions, and no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming" then they have the authority to remove administrative permissions and I trust the drafting arbitrators will adjust the above proposed remedy as needed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Keithbob. This whole researching off wiki for undisclosed or unnoticed info on people Will Beback doesn't like and then communicating it privately to Jimbo or to other people, appalls me. I remind the committee, probably unnecessarily of the current hoorah about PumpkinSky/Rlevse. This is sitting comfortably at one's computer and trying to play puppeteer with people's lives. There is risk of emotional harm, and perhaps worse, to people. If ArbCom doesn't want to ban Will, it should at the very least make it clear this is not on, and that he is doing it without any more permissions than anyone can get by editing a bit and making nice to an admin. Can you imagine, if something terrible happens, how all this would look to the outside world? I think we sometimes lose focus and forget that what we do in our shared playground can have real world consequences.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template

X) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by Block

1) Should any user subject to a restriction or ban imposed in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one week, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the ban or topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to Arbitration Enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, taken from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466#Enforcement by block, though reduced to one week for initial (may need tweeking as well). Alexandria (chew out) 15:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Wikipedia bans

1) A Wikipedia ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on one or more Wikipedia pages, pursuant to the provisions of the Wikipedia banning policy. The authority to impose bans rests with a number of individuals and groups, including the Wikipedia community as a whole, the Arbitration Committee, administrators acting under the delegated authority of the Committee, and Jimmy Wales.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Background. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 19:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Imposition of a ban

2) In order to impose a ban on a user, the party seeking to impose the ban must do the following:

1. Notify the affected user that a ban is being imposed;
2. Notify the affected user as to the terms of the ban;
3. Notify the community that the affected user is banned; and
4. Notify the community as to the terms of the ban.

These actions may, but need not, be combined with an action taken to enforce the ban, such as the imposition of a block. For example, blocking a user with a block summary indicating that a site ban is thereby being imposed satisfies the listed requirements, as the block summary constitutes sufficient notice to both the community and the affected user.

Comment by Arbitrators:

More background. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 19:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Hans Adler: I would appreciate any examples you could provide of circumstances where these requirements would not be applicable. Personally, I can't think of any scenario where the community's collective right to know that one of its members has been banned could legitimately be compromised. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of a couple, but WP:BEANS. I agree that this should be common practice, but I can also see circumstances where an unannounced ban might be permissible, e.g., where it might help mitigate harm to innocent third parties. I think a bit more nuanced statement, where exceptions to this practice should be reviewed en banc by arbcom and pass by motion before an unannounced ban is enacted, would be more appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 18:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These look fine to me,  Roger Davies ^talk 03:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Just to clarify, it appear that this was not intended as a "secret ban". Rather, there was an ongoing discussion of the ban and a possible appeal, and the on-Wiki notification appears to have been delayed pending resolution. I think all parties agree that it could have been handled better.   Will Beback  talk  21:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

If I try very hard, I can imagine situations in which Arbcom would regret setting up 3 and 4 as absolute requirements, and I guess that even 1 and maybe 2 might be problematic in very special circumstances. (Examples available on request per email.) I think it would be more appropriate to state 1–4 as general practice that should be followed unless there is a very good reason not to. Hans Adler 12:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that in certain cases it's ok to say the community is worthless and doesn't need to know what goes on behind closed doors? As I said before, how are admins supposed to enforce bans if we don't know they're in place? Alexandria (chew out) 15:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. I am saying that WP:LTA is full of people out for mischief, and some of them can get very creative. They often need to be blocked/banned as quietly as possible (per WP:DENY) because a public announcement that they have been banned is often precisely what they want. Now if you have denied them this attention (and as far as I know this only happens in clear cases of long-term abuse), then the last thing we want is a huge meta-discussion on whether that was OK, which would give them even more attention. This is as far as I am willing to explain this in public, per WP:BEANS. I don't have a specific person in mind, but I don't want to give examples of how I would exploit these principles if I were so minded, lest someone else execute it. Hans Adler 10:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Kirill: There is nothing in this proposed principle to suggest that it would only apply to established editors. Sometimes you will want to ban someone for severe vandalism after the third edit or so, or after one quick, extended vandalism spree. I don't think this principle is always appropriate for such cases. If you really want examples from me, let me know and I will send something per email. Apparently Jclemens agrees with me and can also provide such examples privately, so you may not need me for that. Hans Adler 23:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: Any such examples will be theoretical. I am not an admin and not really active on the vandal front, and I don't keep any records on things such as vandalism and trolling targeted to ANI. I am just trying to help you formulate the principle that you actually mean, rather than one that is much broader than what you intend and could be gamed. I would imagine that Risker, for example, might be able to remember a concrete example when a vandal was correctly treated in a way that contradicts the letter though not the spirit of this principle. Hans Adler 09:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimacy of secret bans

3) In order for a user to be subject to a ban from Wikipedia, the existence of the ban must be made known to the Wikipedia community. A ban whose existence is secret may not be imposed on any user, and any action purporting to impose such a ban is null and void.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The crux of the matter. No civilized society allows the very existence of a sentence to be kept secret, even in cases where the evidence in the case or the proceeding which imposes the sentence might be. When we remove an editor from Wikipedia, we do not do it by having them disappear in the night. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 19:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply not convinced this is a big deal for the case. There was no directive that the ban NOT be published, and I am fine with Jimmy's (emailed) statement that it wasn't announced pending the (grossly delayed, but what isn't around here?) appeal. One question, though: when we indef-block people with a "contact arbcom" template, do you consider that sufficient notice to the community? Jclemens (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would be a valid principle to reiterate regardless of what we determine as to the facts of this particular ban; we should, in my opinion, take a clear and categorical stand that such an action would not be acceptable.

As far as the template is concerned, I think it is sufficient to satisfy the requirement in question here; regardless of whether the reasons for the ban are made public, the block template—and, indeed, the existence of a block in and of itself—suffices to inform the community that the editor in question has been subjected to a ban. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me, and per Kirill.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense that the community are informed of a ban, and it makes sense that such a requirement is included in Wikipedia:Banning policy. ArbCom should not be used for making policy - proposals for including such a requirement should be made at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the term "secret ban" is emotive and potentially misleading. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I think it is wrong to re-iterate this as a principle in the case, as it would seem to imply that there was a secret ban here. There was not. I have always been very strongly against secret proceedings of any kind except in particular circumstances. Banning is not one of them. There is a difference between "secret" and "a discussion held with a user in private as a courtesy with the full understanding that a public proceeding could be inflammatory and unnecessary" - if there's a principle to state in this case, perhaps that's it. To repeat and make this clear: there was no "secret ban" in this case, and I am opposed to "secret bans"--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Similarly to the previous principle, I am not entirely sure that this could not be gamed by very new vandalism accounts under very specific conditions. You obviously have established users in mind with this principle, and unless you are going to make sure that application to all sorts of corner cases is unproblematic, it would be prudent to make that explicit. Hans Adler 23:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good principle. No double-secret probations, please. TotientDragooned (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Pretty hard for the community to enforce if it doesn't know about it at least. @Jclemens: I think that is sufficent notice for private evidence that can not be made public. -- DQ (t) (e) 03:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template

X) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

X) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

X) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Jimmy Wales may ban users

1) Jimmy Wales has the right to ban users on Wikipedia.

Comment by arbitrators:

Comment by Parties

Comment by others

Though he has occasionally stated that he was giving up this right, he has exercised it since then on rare occasions, and there is no reason for ArbCom or anyone else to presuppose that he may not reclaim or exercise that right at any time. Fladrif (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom may review a user ban by Jimmy Wales

2. ArbCom has the right to review a user ban imposed by Jimmy Wales.

Comment by arbitrators:

Comment by Parties

Comment by others

This is the fundamental presumption on which this ArbCom is based, or so I take it. Fladrif (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom will not second-guess decisions of Jimmy Wales to ban a user

3. When reviewing a user-ban by Jimmy Wales, Arbcom will not second guess or substitute its judgment for his. ArbCom will only reverse a user ban by Jimmy Wales where the banned user presents clear and convincing evidence that the ban was an abuse of his dicretion, arbitrary and capricious, or that since the imposition of the ban, significant time has passed and circumstances have substantially changed which warrant lifting or modification of the ban. The banned user bears the burden of proof to support reversing the user ban.

Comment by arbitrators:

In a word? No. It's somewhat amusing to see outside parties' interpretation of the relationship between ArbCom and Jimbo, which falls somewhere in that vast spectrum between us being his mindless sycophants and us being the community's champions in the fight to depose the monarch. Jclemens (talk) 03:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentally incorrect. SirFozzie (talk) 06:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't correct. For example, ArbCom could take over the ban, so that future appeals are handled by the Ban Appeals SubCommittee (BASC), or substitute the site ban for a topic ban. In doing so, there would be not necessarily be any implication that Jimbo misused his authority. Also, the last sentence is completely wrong, the burden of proof if anything is the other way around - in the absence of any reason for someone to be blocked, ArbCom would probably lift the block. PhilKnight (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties

I find this one to be highly undesirable.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others

Reversing a user ban by Jimmy should be handled in precisely the same way as if ArbCom itself had issued the user ban. It should not be a reconsideration to second-guess or substitute the judgment of ArbCom for his, but should only be done where he has clearly been arbitrary, capricious, or abused his discretion in issuing the ban, or where, because of the passage of time and the presentation of compelling reasons that circumstances have substantially and materially changed such that the ban is no longer necessary or appropriate. The user seeking to have the ban lifted should bear a heavy burden of proof to present clear and convincing evidence to support the necessary findings before a ban is lifted or modified. Fladrif (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to TimidGuy's opening statement: "On September 20 he [Jimbo] characterized the ban as a “temporary injunction” while he investigated the case.....I’ve not heard from him since. Since Jimmy is obviously very busy and hasn’t followed up with his investigation, I request that Arbcom take this case and examine the matter." So at present there is no ban, only a temporary injunction pending investigation. An investigation that is now underway. Furthermore, the investigation by ArbCom has the support of Jimbo as indicated by this exchange with TimidGuy on his user page.[1] I don't see any evidence of second guessing or substitution of judgement. Rather the evidence presented so far indicates a coordinated completion of the initial investigation, with Jimbo's full support.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens & Fozzie - Glad to amuse you, but that is not my purpose. Nor is it to attempt to divine what the relationship is between Jimbo and ArbCom. It is an attempt to pin down what it is ArbCom actually thinks it is doing and what "standard of review" it is employing in this case. If this proposed principle is incorrect, then what "standard of review" are you using here to review Jimbo's ban of TimidGuy? If not an abuse of discretion standard, then are you looking at whether the ban was reasonable? Are you looking at whether there was competent, material and substantial evidence to support his decision? Or are you deciding this based on a de novo review, as if ArbCom was deciding in the first instance whether TimidGuy should be banned and simply substituting its judgment for Jimmy's? If those terms are new to you, I suggest you ask NYBrad to explain them to you. Unless ArbCom knows what "standard of review" it is using here, it's decision is likely to be arbitrary rather than reasoned. And, unless the parties and the community know in advance what "standard of review" is being used in this case, it is impossible for them to know what evidence is actually relevant to the decision. Fladrif (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3a. Alt #1 When reviewing a user-ban by Jimmy Wales, Arbcom will only reverse a user ban by Jimmy Wales where the banned user presents clear and convincing evidence that the ban was not supported by relevant evidence and was contrary to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The burden is on the banned user to convince ArbCom that the ban should be reversed.

Comment by arbitrators:

Comment by parties

Comment by others

Not my proposal, but which is it?Fladrif (talk) 15:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3b. Alt #2 When reviewing a user-ban by Jimmy Wales, Arbcom will substitute its judgment for his. ArbCom will hold its own proceeding and independently determine whether or not the user should be banned. The burden is upon editors supporting the ban to convince ArbCom that the editor who was subject to the ban should be banned.

Comment by arbitrators:

Of the three, this is the closest to reality, though phrased sub-optimally. We don't reserve the right to change Jimbo's mind, just like dissenting minorities on the committee retain the right to their own opinions. Still, having said that, an ArbCom appeal is a fresh look at the evidence and principles involved by a different set of people. The default state would probably be to endorse without a consensus to overturn, but we don't accept appeals and open cases on them unless there's going to be a serious question on the table that merits the time and effort involved. Jclemens (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is in essence correct. I'd suggest removing the phrase 'Arbcom will substitute its judgment for his' but otherwise, I can go along with this. PhilKnight (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties

This is as it should be. I agree that it isn't optimally worded. I think it should be entirely possible to ArbCom to reverse me on something without it being a huge deal. In this particular case, I'd like ArbCom to review all the relevant evidence and come to your own judgment. If you disagree with me, that's totally fine, unban him.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others

Not my proposal, but which is it?Fladrif (talk) 15:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens & PhilKnight. If this is the formulation that you think is more or less correct, then are the parties and the community to understand that the burden is on those who think TimidGuy should be banned, or at least topic banned, to justify it, and he need not present any evidence whatsoever to support what is, after all his request to have Jimmy Wales' ban lifted?Fladrif (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by arbitrators:

3c Alt #3 ArbCom doesn't follow any consistent principles, protocols or standard of review when reviewing a user-ban by Jimmy Wales.

Comment by parties

Comment by others

Not my proposal, but which is it?Fladrif (talk) 15:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Repeated COIN Proceedings

1) TimidGuy's editing behavior on articles relating to Transcendental Meditation has been the subject of numerous discussions at WP:COIN, dating back to 2007.[2]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Premature. This is not (yet?) in evidence,  Roger Davies ^talk 06:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Roger; findings are premature if the information hasn't been entered into evidence. As I have noted in my comments on the evidence talk page, I would expect to see diffs demonstrating issues that have occurred since the closing of the TM case in June 2010, because issues before that date had been addressed during that case. Risker (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*DONE 12/16.[3]Fladrif (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The finding below by Keithbob is that TimidGuy's editing has not been the subject of a single discussion at WP:COIN since January 2010, and I just checked, and that seems to be true. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Evidence about this has been submitted to the ArbCom. Parties have been forbidden from commenting on the evidence until further notice from the ArbCom. May I ask if the submitted evidence has been read by the ArbCom members who've commented here?   Will Beback  talk  21:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

After researching the COIN archives, my 'finding of fact' is that TimidGuy has not been involved in any COIN's since the beginning of TM Arbcom in February 2010 (almost 2 years).-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@KBob & SilkTork. Why would any rational person go back yet again to COIN, which has no enforcement mechanism for editors who, like TimidGuy and Olive, choose to ignore the directives there, rather than (i) complete the TMArbCom, and (ii) thereafter, take up their continued violations of core policies and the ArbCom decision at AE instead? Of course no-one went back to COIN once the TMArCom started over TimidGuy. It would have been pointless and unnecessary, and ultimately the wrong forum. They went to AE which actually has an enforcement mechanism and he was repeatedly sanctioned there. Fladrif (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admission of a Conflict of Interest

2) TimidGuy has repeatedly acknowledged that he has a conflict of interest with respect to articles related to TM. [4]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Premature. This is not (yet?) in evidence,  Roger Davies ^talk 06:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*DONE 12/16.[5]Fladrif (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Wording could be tweaked. Be useful to see if he volunteered the information or acknowledged it, as that may be relevant. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Yes, this is in evidence.   Will Beback  talk  21:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

According to the diff provided above, TimidGuy stated in his response to Will Beback: "I have long acknowledged having a conflict of interest". I also note that Will Beback has endorsed this proposal while at the same time saying in his opening statement for this case: "it is inequitable for TimidGuy to deny having a COI on-Wiki" and "TimidGuy denies publicly having a COI". Seems like he [Will Beback] wants to have it both ways.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork, per your request above, my research turned up these:

• 11/28/06 "from my perspective, having been on campus most of the time 1974-present".....[6]
• 12/8/06 **What is your relationship with the TM organization? "I'm on faculty" **Are you being paid to edit this article? "No" **Were you asked by a member of the TM organization to edit this article? "No"[7]
• 1/10/07 "I have a Ph.D. in the humanities and a passionate interest in science and technology. And a love for the game of tennis." [8]
• 4/10/07 "I earn $400 per month, plus room (a dorm room for 20 years), board, and health insurance. If anything, being on faculty is a financial liability. I have to work a second job part-time to support myself."[9]
• 1/25/08 "I'm now, as an associate professor, earning $400 per month. Like many faculty I have a part-time, unrelated job in order to remain on faculty."[10]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COIN Findings and Directives

3) TimidGuy was determined at COIN in 2007 to have a "clear and immediate conflict of interest" with respect to Transcendental Meditation-related articles, and advised that he should not edit those articles, but confine his activities to the talk pages of those articles.[11]

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is not (yet?) in evidence,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*DONE 12/16[12]]Fladrif (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Please see the evidence already submitted.   Will Beback  talk  21:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Firstly this event is ancient history and has already been reviewed during the 2010 TM ArbCom. Furthermore the statement "TimidGuy was determined at COIN in 2007 to have a "clear and immediate conflict of interest" with respect to Transcendental Meditation-related articles" seems to be false. I looked at the COIN in 2007 that is cited above and what I found were accusations from editor (Dseer) who was in a content dispute with TimidGuy and a couple of comments from un-involved editors that said Dsers claims had no merit. For example editor EdJohnston said: "The one article I looked through in detail was balanced in terms of criticism of the approach. You could unfortunately go blind reading all the way through the Talk pages, so unless the COI nominator has a smoking gun to offer, I'm tempted to suggest we archive this issue." EdJohnston 23:44, 22 March 2007[13].-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@KBob - selective blindness again? Or don't you even bother to read sources before posting? How did you miss these?Fladrif (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Another response: TimidGuy has a clear and immediate conflict of interest and for this reason would be well advised to restrict participation to talk pages for all transcendental mediatation-related articles. The particular reference in question appears to be published legitimately and appropriate as a reference source. I suggest an article content request for comment to settle the particular debate. I hope that resolves the problems, but in case it doesn't the likely alternatives are this: a user conduct request for comment and an eventual arbitration case, which would likely end in article paroles on TM topics. Another experimental option is community enforceable mediation. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 02:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Durova posted: "TimidGuy has a clear and immediate conflict of interest and for this reason would be well advised to restrict participation to talk pages for all transcendental meditation-related articles."

Given that this is the Conflict of interest noticeboard, a response like "Not sure why you're making this point" is not straightforward and intelligent. This section is about editors, you for example, and in fact you in particular, with, yes, clear and immediate conflict of interest issues which it would behoove you to take seriously. It is not about Mason's (or anyone else's) book.

Wikipedia does not need another ream of paragraphs out of you, it needs you editing neutrally or not at all. No more long diatribes, no more changing the subject, no more disingenuity and smokescreens, capisce?

This section alone is already over 56 kilobytes. Enough, already. — Athænara ✉ 05:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

@ Fladrif. Please stop the derogatory comments and assumptions of bad faith. I examined and reported on the thread called Transcendental Meditation which appears on the page you linked to. Now I notice that there is a second thread as well. I'll take a look at it, thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You post something that is patently and demonstrably false, and it is a "derogatory comment assumptions of bad faith" on my part to point out that you posted something false? The only possible options are that (i) you didn't bother to read the cited references or (ii) are deliberately misrepresenting them? This is a pattern with your editing both as to playing fast and lose with sources and then casting false aspersion on those who call you on it that was apparently not cured by the findings and principles at ArbCom. Fladrif (talk) 01:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing a further illustration of your "incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith" for which you were previously sanctioned. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments at this COIN include:[14]

• Move to Talk page?. This issue has been open for a long time, and it's made some progress, but it needs a lot more focus. How would people feel about moving this discussion to Talk:Maharishi Mahesh Yogi? I would 'box up' the above comments to save space but keep the COI issue open until some progress is made on the Talk page. If talks break down, the COI could be resumed. Please respond if you have an opinion. EdJohnston 15:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• I'll repeat what I said earlier, that I am very happy to have User:TimidGuy as a contributor to the TM article as well as other related articles. As it said on the now-removed expert tag on the TM article: "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject." TimidGuy is definitely an expert and has made incredibly good contributions to the article - without any apparent bias. I see no signs that his close association with TM in any way compromises his ability to edit the article. I think he is an excellent editor and an asset to Wikipedia. TimidGuy is one of the most civil and cooperative editors I have encountered on Wikipedia - with an excellent eye for following NPOV, as well as following all other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I find the accusations made above to be most distasteful and untrue. Dreadlocke ☥ 02:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • At another COIN for TimidGuy, 6 weeks later, the prior COIN (cited in this proposal) was summarized as [bold added by me]: "Almost everyone who ever works on those articles has some previous awareness of or connection to TM, possibly as a former meditator or as an enthusiast for some related school of self-improvement. We did not come up with any well-defined misbehavior last time we looked at those articles. You'll find some people critical of TM who also edit there. If you have something very specific you want to raise, I suggest you offer it at Talk:Transcendental Meditation for discussion." EdJohnston 05:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[15]

Posted by-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is typical of KBob. Quoting comments out of context, suggesting that they somehow override the actual findings at COIN, which were that TimidGuy had a serious and immediate conflict of interest and that he should stop editing the TM articles. The quote from EdJohnson, which KBob selectively and misleadingly cited in his first comment in this subsection, in full context is particularly instructive:

Although the Talk pages mentioned here are voluminous, I looked at a few of the comments by User:TimidGuy and they seemed quite fair. In a sense, one is tempted to keep tongue firmly in cheek when reading any lengthy articles about Transcendental Meditation, and unless someone can show an extremely blatant conflict of interest, it's hard to get too worked up about this stuff. (It's not as though we were discussing alleged medical remedies that might not work). Most of the WP readers who take a look at one of these articles will realize they are in the domain of colorful speculation (yogic flying, etc.), and are presumably ready to discount any very specific claims that may be made. The one article I looked through in detail was balanced in terms of criticism of the approach. You could unfortunately go blind reading all the way through the Talk pages, so unless the COI nominator has a smoking gun to offer, I'm tempted to suggest we archive this issue. EdJohnston 23:44, 22 March 2007 [Emphasis added] (UTC)

It seems that Ed's attitude was that it wasn't important to be too diligent about COI with the TM articles because the claims being made are on their face not going to be credible to the typical reader, and they don't involve anything particularly important where there is an added level of diligence required - such a medical claims. He was grossly mistaken both as to the existence of a serious COI as well as what was being claimed in these articles by TimidGuy and other pro-TM POV-pushing editors. In fact, the most contentious POV pushing by TimidGuy and his associates in the TM articles have been to try to present it and related TM-Org products and services as medical products and services, to push sources that don't meet MEDRS to support TM's medical claims, and to eliminate, misinterpret and dismiss the importance of highest-quality sources that do meet MEDRS that don't support those claims. Fladrif (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year everyone! :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refusal to follow COIN Findings and Directives

4) TimidGuy has openly defied the directive from COIN that he not edit TM-related articles, claiming that there has never been a finding that he had a conflict of interest and that he had never been instructed not to edit the TM-related articles.[16]

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is not (yet?) in evidence,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*DONE 12/16 [17]]Fladrif (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence of a directive from COIN that TimidGuy not edit TM-related articles. The discussions on COIN are largely inconclusive, though there are comments which indicate that TimidGuy is not editing against policy, and at least one comment that those initiating the discussions may be abusing NPOV themselves. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Fladrif - I followed the links you provided above which lead to User:TimidGuy/COIN, and I followed the links there to the COIN archives and read through the discussions and made the observations which I noted above. Would you link me directly to the archive in which there is a "directive from COIN that he not edit TM-related articles". SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

It is frustrating that ArbCom members are able to comment on the evidence but the parties are not.   Will Beback  talk  21:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

@SilkTork - Did you actually read the statement of the closing clerk at COIN? What is inconclusive about this?

Durova posted: "TimidGuy has a clear and immediate conflict of interest and for this reason would be well advised to restrict participation to talk pages for all transcendental meditation-related articles." Given that this is the Conflict of interest noticeboard, a response like "Not sure why you're making this point" is not straightforward and intelligent. This section is about editors, you for example, and in fact you in particular, with, yes, clear and immediate conflict of interest issues which it would behoove you to take seriously. It is not about Mason's (or anyone else's) book. Wikipedia does not need another ream of paragraphs out of you, it needs you editing neutrally or not at all. No more long diatribes, no more changing the subject, no more disingenuity and smokescreens, capisce? This section alone is already over 56 kilobytes. Enough, already. — Athænara ✉ 05:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Fladrif (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork #2 What word do you prefer to "directive"? Advice? Suggestion? Counsel? Whatever word you choose, do you have any question that it was pointedly and defiantly ignored by TimidGuy? Fladrif (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fladriff, there is nothing in that paragraph above prohibiting TimidGuy from editing TM articles. Are you just misremembering what you saw? Cla68 (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not "misremembering". I am reading the words in black and white on the page at COIN, which are the conclusions of the closing administrator. Which word would you choose if you don't like "prohibiting"? Whatever word you would prefer, do you have and dispute that it was pointedly and defiantly ignored by TimidGuy? Fladrif (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That paragraph you quote above does not contain the word "prohibited" or any other word which bans TimidGuy from the TM articles. It simply reads as a warning to him/her to follow WP's rules. Cla68 (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And so, to pick your spin on the directive/instruction/admonition/suggestion/hint/warning/whatever from COIN, do you dispute that TG then pointedly refused to follow WP's rules? Oh wait; You shouldn't be expected to actually have an opinion on that. You have another agenda entirely unrelated to the merits of TG being banned.[18][19] The merits of his ban is irrelevant to your own agenda. I got no problem with that. So, do you have any basis for disputing that TG was subsequently sanctioned, repeatedly, for not following WP's rules, culminating with being banned by Jimbo? I thought not. Which means, even by your formulation of what happened, he clearly, pointledly, and defiantly ignored the warning. You really have a problem with an editor being sanctioned for repeatedly ignoring a warning by the closing clerk of COIN? Fladrif (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fladriff, do you speak to other editors this way on the talk pages of the TM articles or in other WP forums in which TM editing is discussed? Cla68 (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your pointed refusal to answer to mean you have no dispute that TG did in fact pointedly ignore the directive/instruction/admonition/suggestion/warning/whatever from COIN (and from the TMArbCom...and from AE) that he follow WP's Rules, and that you have no problem with him being sanctioned, including being banned by Jimbo, for repeatedly refusing to do so. Fladrif (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my opinion is the one that matters here. One further question, has TimidGuy ever addressed you in the same manner that you are talking to me right now, or in the same tone as some of your other comments on this page? Cla68 (talk) 02:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not nearly as keen on answering questions as you are on posing them? You're not nearly as shy about offering your opinion on other questions here. Why the sudden reticence here? I for one think that your opinion on the core question of whether TimidGuy's request to have Jimbo's ban lifted has merit is quite directly relevant. If you have no opinion on that core question, that is likewise relevant. Frankly I think that your refusal to answer is relevant. And telling. Fladrif (talk) 03:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry to advance positions

5) TimidGuy used an IP sockpuppet account to edit TM-related articles, deleting reliably sourced material critical of TM, inserting unsourced material favorable to TM, and otherwise engaging in disruptive editing. He dissembled about this to hide his sockpuppetry at the COIN Noticeboard, and then lied about it at the SPI investigation that led to the TM Arbcom before finally admitting it.[20][21]

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is not (yet?) in evidence,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*DONE 12/16[22]Fladrif (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still not in evidence. Please don't link to an archive in an evidence page, link to a specific diff where he says "I lied", or at the very least to a subsection where such is stated. Jclemens (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Please see follow the link provided - that's evidence.   Will Beback  talk  21:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens - Here's the dissembling at COIN by TG about being the 76.76 sockpuppet.[23] Here's TimidGuy's the lie at SPI about being the 76.76 sockupppet. [24]. Here's the admission that it was a lie, and that he was the 76.76 sockpuppet after all. [25] It's all in evidence.Fladrif (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Collaboration with TM Officials and Legal Threats

6) Timidguy consults with TM-Org officials regarding content of TM-related articles, including its General Counsel, and based thereon has made legal threats against other editors.[26][27][28][29][30][31]

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is not (yet?) in evidence,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*DONE 12/16 [32]Fladrif (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Fladrif. This is from 2006, has there been any similar behaviour since June 2010? Risker (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The post TM ArbCom circumstances that led to TG's formal warning at AE[33], as noted on my evidence, shows that TG is, by his own admission, collaborating with MUM officials with respect to content on Wikipedia articles, manipulating source material, in very clear violation of WP:COI and the TM Arbcom. I am unaware of any further legal threats similar to those he posted in the past. Fladrif (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had forgotten, TimidGuy made more explicit legal threats against other editors even after the TM Arbcom. Added diff to evidence.[34]Fladrif (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fladrif, again...it seems that the diffs in that AE case are all from prior to the 2010 Arbcom case, and the result was to remind TG of the discretionary sanctions; no sanctions were imposed. I'm unclear why you think we should be retrying a case we already heard using the same evidence already submitted. Risker (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Reread it. Carefully this time. The actions in question were post-Arbcom. The only reason that a formal warning only was issued was because that was all that was requested by the complaining Admin at the time. Subsequent misconduct by TG resulted in a two-month ban from the TM Articles and a 1RR Restriction. The point is, TG has a COI; the TM ArbCom had no effect whatsoever on his editing behavior, resulting in two AE proceedings against him, each with sanctions imposed. Jimmy Wales' ban is the result of it being discovered that the true nature of TG's COI is not merely being a lowly member of the MUM faculty, but (or so I take from the discussions above), that he is some kind of professional PR flackweasel paid to promote TM on Wikipedia. Which explains why he is unable, pre-COIN, post-COIN, pre-ArbCom or post-ArbCom, to conform his editing behavior to the requirements of Wikipedia. Fladrif (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Yes, this is in the evidence.   Will Beback  talk  21:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker: 1) This is not a fresh case. It is just an appeal of a ban placed by Jimmy Wales. The relevant questions are whether Wales had the authority to place a ban, whether the ban was consistent with Wikipedia's written and unwritten policies, and whether there was reasonable cause for a ban.

2) Any admin could have placed a topic ban under the discretionary sanctions authorized by that case. TG was already warned, so no further bureaucratic steps were necessary.

3) The 2010 RFAR/TMM case involved 13 parties. Obviously, the committee's attention was not focused on TimidGuy alone as it is with this appeal. It is logical for TG's entire Wikipedia career to be reviewed since the allegation is that he has been a paid advocate since he started and since that was not known last year. Furthermore, it is apparent that the committee viewed some evidence in the best possible light. Now that we know that TimidGuy has been acting in bad faith, the committee should review the prior evidence in this new light. Also, the 2012 ArbCom which will review this appeal is substantially different from the 2010 committee. Many members of the 2012 committee will not have reviewed TG's editing history before, so it's appropriate to have a fresh review.   Will Beback  talk  20:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Keithbob, this is an appeal of TimidGuy's ban. I don't see any reason why the behavior of anyone else, including myself and Jimbo Wales. is relevant. If evidence is added about me then I'd request that Keithbob also be added as a party.   Will Beback  talk  01:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

If it is the Committee's intention to review and consider the entire editing history of the named parties, then it would be good for ArbCom to make this clear, so that those presenting evidence can expand their evidence presentations accordingly. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving my comment to the proper section. I'll wait to hear what the Committee has to say.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative Enforcement following TM ArbCom

7) Following the TM Arbcom, TimidGuy was banned in AE for two months from editing TM-related articles, and placed on 1RR restriction for "obstructing consensus through persistent stonewalling and unconstructive debating." His editing behavior was found to be "a persistent effort...to block consensus by an endless row of objections of wikilawyering and nitpicking nature, aimed at deemphasizing the findings of studies critical of TM. Many of these objections, mostly about the correctness of summaries of the research literature proposed by other editors, appear to be patently without merit. Taken in isolation, such objections would probably count as normal good-faith content disagreements, but in the larger picture and given their constant, long-time effect of blocking effective consensus-building, they take on the character of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT disruption, especially as he and the other editors who support his viewpoint are refusing to listen to independent outside input, which was successfully elicited by the RFC." [35]

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is not (yet?) in evidence,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DONE 12/16 [36]Fladrif (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@TimidGuy: If you want the topic ban clarified/vacated, you really ought to have queried it at the time.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Frankly, I wish Arbcom would take a look at this ban levied by Future Perfect and Cirt. They didn't give any diffs or point to any specific talk page discussion. It's over a year later and I still have no idea what specifically they were objecting to or which comments Future Perfect felt were "patently without merit." TimidGuy (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are we expanding the scope of the case to review past AE cases?   Will Beback  talk  10:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• Roger: with the greatest respect intended, your comment here, "If you want the topic ban clarified/vacated, you really ought to have queried it at the time." indicates in my mind how the world of AE may be out of sight of most arbitrators, they don;t know how difficult to impossible it is to be heard and judged fairly even to such a fundamental right as having a chance to speak , how difficult it is to know even where to be heard, and how "controlled" are the judgements. This is past and perhaps times have changed. I hope so. (olive (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Continued misconduct post-ArbCom and after AE topic ban

8) After the TM ArbCom, and after being formally warned and then sanctioned by a 2-month topic ban, TimidGuy continued with improper editing in violation of COI and the TM ArbCom.

Comment by arbitrators

Comment by parties

Comment by others

Per evidence.Fladrif (talk) 04:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most focus below has been on the medical and scientific claims. Another continued area of POV-pushing relates to putting a PR spin on the outcome of litigation that various TM org entities have been involved in or trying to remove it entirely if adverse. As shown in evidence, since his AE topic ban, TG has continued to edit war and engage in POV pushing with respect to two important cases. His position on sources is entirely result driven: if a court document supports a position he wants to push, he is all in favor of using it, arguing vigorously that he should be cited and summarized. If it doesn't, he claims it is a primary source that must be excluded. The blatant inconsistency to push a pro-TM POV is a clear violation of COI NPOV and the TM ArbCom.

• In the case of the SLAPP suit by two TM-Org entities against the AMA, he argues that an unpublished docket form needs to be cited in order to show that the case was dismissed pursuant to some kind of settlement. He can cite no source that there was a settlement - a claim by Deepak Chopra's attorney that there was a monetary settlement that got published in Newsweek some years later was withdrawn by Newsweek, stating that the report was false and there was no monetary settlement. In fact, in a case widely noted in scholarly media law sources, the Judge in that case had ruled against the TM-org plaintiffs on their motion for an injunction, noting that they had no liklihood of success on the merits of their disparagement claim. Shortly thereafter, the Plaintiffs simply walked away, and the case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. That, however, doesn't fit TG's desired narrative. [37]

• Simultaneously, Timid Guy was arguing in another article that the reported decision of the Federal District Court in a lawsuit by a former TM practitioner for fraud should not be mentioned at all because it was a primary source and wasn't mentioned in secondary sources. (Actually, the latter isn't correct either because the decision was mentioned in a article in a magazine published by a religious organization, which he had vigorously argued at RSN some time earlier should not be regarded as a reliable source because it was published by a religious organization.[38]) The case held that the practice of TM and TM-Sidhi was a religion. This was the second case, and third Federal Court to have so held. The decision was affirmed on other grounds, and it was unnecessary for the Court of Appeals to address this holding. TimidGuy first tried editing it but then deleted it entirely on May 27,2011, as well as any reference to it in any other articles. Again, this doesn't fit TG's narrative that TM, TM Sidhi and related products and services aren't a religion, and that the 1979 Federal case Malnak v Yogi barring the teaching of TM in public schools was some "New Jersey" case that only affects a handful of school districts in that state that is an abberation. (He had earlier falsely posted that no other court had ever followed this decision). [39][40][41][42][43]Fladrif (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed principles

COI investigations

1) WP:COI, a guideline, does not authorize or encourage Wikipedia administrators or editors to conduct off-wiki investigations into determining whether other editors may possess a COI. On the contrary, the guideline states that, "Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Interesting. If we decide to go down this route, there's evidence from past interactions that needs to be considered. Not sure whether we're going to open that can of worms. (or if the can of worms is already open). SirFozzie (talk) 06:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite likely this or some variant will be in the proposed decision. Jclemens (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably worth stating. PhilKnight (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may not authorise, but it does seem to encourage it. COI states that CheckUser "can be used to evidence COI or other editorial abuse". The encouragement to check if an editor is connected to a company or university via CheckUser is taking us away from examining the quality of the edits, into checking the real person behind the edits. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Cla68 (talk) 04:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Harrassment" is being used here very broadly, and in many COI cases it is used inappropriately as a defense. There is a fine line between positive investigation of one's editing history and harrassment. Merely looking up what is obvious on the internet is not harassment; though of course stalking, threatening, and outing are intolerable. Editors who bring to light damaging COI edits discovered via offwiki evidence (while avoiding true harrassment) are doing a grade A service and should be thanked, not sanctioned. ThemFromSpace 22:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI is a behavioral guideline that outlines how to deal with editors whom one perceives as having a conflict of interest. As a behavioral guideline it empowers editors to identify problematic editing patterns, and present them to the community in a relevant on-Wiki forum. There is a very specific section called "How to handle conflicts of interest" that outlines these steps. I think this proposed principle calls attention to the fact that that guideline and section, do not endorse or recommend any type of off-wiki activity, nor do they suggest performing Internet research to investigate the matter or to speculate about an editors real life identity. In fact, the guideline cautions against some of these things. The guideline also emphasizes special caution when one is involved in a persistent content dispute with the editor in question, lest the accuser's actions be perceived as a ploy to gain the upper hand in content disputes. For these reasons the principle seems quite relevant to this case and worth stating. The matter of how the proposed principle may or may not apply to the named parties, will be determined by the Committee's evaluation of the evidence presented.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the COI guidelines do not endorse or recommend offwiki research, they don't explicitly ban them. Removing the ability to investigate the relationships our editors have with their subjects would hamper our commitment to neutrality. This proposal erroneously assumes that all offwiki research is de facto harrassment. ThemFromSpace 03:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COI investigations by administrators

2) A Wikipedia administrator who conducts an off-wiki investigation into the personal life of another Wikipedia editor may give the appearance of doing so on behalf of Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Anything any Wikipedia administrator does may give the false impression that they are acting on behalf of Wikipedia. What makes this special? Jclemens (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Cla68 (talk) 04:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens, evidently, some WP admins need this reminder. Cla68 (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Authority of administrators

3) Current Wikipedia policy authorizes Wikipedia administrators to conduct investigations into the personal details of other Wikipedia editors only in limited, specific situations, such as sock puppet investigations. These situations are provided with additional oversight by audit boards under ArbCom's authority.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Interesting, but the private evidence in this case goes quite a bit beyond what is uncovered by CU, nslookup, etc. and that might form the basis of a more nuanced approach to this, which is that functionaries and other admins are not generally expected to go digging beyond that without a good reason. Jclemens (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Cla68 (talk) 04:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This, and the related proposals confuse what use may be made of Wikipedia resources like checkuser, and what users do outside of Wikipedia using non-Wikipedia resources. There is no evidence, and not even any suggestion, that any Wikipedia resources were used in this matter. These proposed findings, and several similar ones by other editors above, directed at sanctioning users for actions entirely outside Wikipedia are grossly misguided and ultimately unenforceable.Fladrif (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COI and Battleground

4) Alleging COI against editors with whom one is involved in a content dispute can be interpreted as a violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND. WP:BATTLEGROUND is a policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Well, yes, but anything can be so-interpreted. This would have to be worded a bit more narrowly, although one that dealt with repeated, egregious, or bad-faith conduct might be appropriate if the evidence supports such a finding. Jclemens (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roger has a Burden of proof principle that I think covers this. Hollow allegations are inappropriate regardless of any dispute, and convincing evidence is appropriate regardless of any dispute. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

If this principle is correct, then almost every editor who posts to COIN would be in violation.   Will Beback  talk  09:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68 now says that "Pointing out COI or hypocrisy aren't personal attacks if supported by evidence".[44]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Cla68 (talk) 04:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens, it supports a potential, proposed finding that one of the parties to this case has violated BATTLEGROUND. Cla68 (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the wording could be refined to read something like: Repeated and egregious allegations of COI against an editor(s) with whom one is involved in a content dispute is a violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND policy.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Will: Actually, what Cla68 now says is, "Pointing out COI or hypocrisy aren't personal attacks if supported by evidence, but they are still usually ad hominem logical fallacies, because they don't directly address the content of the issue at hand. They address the credibility of the speaker, but not the veracity of the speaker's argument, because only an analysis of the actual content of the speaker's message can identify its truthfulness." [45] You left out rather a lot there. --JN466 13:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Will Beback has exceeded his authority

1) By conducting off-wiki investigations into the personal lives of other Wikipedia editors, then using the information to propose blocks or bans, Will Beback has exceeded his authority as a Wikipedia administrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

There was a complaint to the committee about similar activity in September of 2011, in this area with similar parties. I haven't had a chance to review that situation as it pertains to this case, but it bears watching. SirFozzie (talk) 06:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Cla68, do you have evidence that I conducted an investigation? This and most of your other principles assert that I did so, yet you haven't provided any evidence to show that such an investigation ever occurred. Making up things in an ArbCom case is very counterproductive.   Will Beback  talk  05:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Cla68 (talk) 04:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is sauce for the goose - if you have done similar things, Cla68, what should happen to you? Hipocrite (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback was in a content dispute with TimidGuy

2) At the time that Will Beback was conducting an off-wiki investigation into TimidGuy's personal life, Will Beback was involved in a content dispute on-wiki with the same editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. As this diff shows, Will Beback has edit-warred with TimidGuy. Cla68 (talk) 04:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback and COI accusations

3) Will Beback has often accused other editors who edit the Transcendental Meditation topic of having a COI. Will Beback was involved in content disputes with those editors when he made these accusations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I should note that there is an error of assumption in this point. The COI complaints about TimidGuy preceded my involvement, and were the reason for my involvement in the topic. The content disputes came later.   Will Beback  talk  23:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68 now says that "Pointing out COI or hypocrisy aren't personal attacks if supported by evidence".[46]   Will Beback  talk  01:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Cla68 (talk) 04:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support--This case is an examination of the named parties respective behaviors since the conclusion of TM Arbcom on June 4, 2010. Since that time Will Beback has been involved in numerous content disputes and made numerous COI accusations on talk pages and noticeboards, in an attempt to poison the well and gain the upper hand in those disputes. He has continued this behavior through the present, despite numerous warnings. See evidence here -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback has shared personal details

4) Will Beback has shared details on TimidGuy's personal life, without TimidGuy's consent, with two Wikipedia editors who were not members of ArbCom and who were not Jimbo Wales.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Cla68 routinely participates in discussions of personal issues of Wikipedia editors, including Jimmy Wales, in public forums on Wikipedia Review. This proposal seems rather hypocritical.   Will Beback  talk  09:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only details that I privately emailed to other Wikipedia users are those which are publicly available, published by either TimidGuy himself or his employers.   Will Beback  talk  21:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Keithbob: TimidGuy has repeatedly stated that he is an associate professor at MUM, that he lives in the dorms there, and that he is paid $400 per month,[47] in addition to other personal details. "Paid advocate" is neither a job title nor any other kind of personally identifying information.   Will Beback  talk  00:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Cla68 (talk) 04:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. WP:BOOMERANG type argument from Will aside, I know of one non-arb that was included in the ban email (excluding Will, as he was the one who submitted the evidence). Alexandria (chew out) 12:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is off-wiki conduct that did not result in any on-wiki actions fact-findable? I thought harassing people on wikipedia review over private email was smiled apon! Hipocrite (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm... it resulted in a ban, however not for WB, but TG. How is that "off-wiki conduct that did not result in any on-wiki actions"? Alexandria (chew out) 11:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support--WP:OUTING says: "Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. (italics from original text) Since Will Beback has alleged on-Wiki that Timid Guy is "MUM faculty"[48] "paid advocate" [49] [50][51] "public relations officer" [52][53] "PR professional", "public writer" [54] it seems safe to assume, at least for the sake of this proposal, that the emails "to other Wikipededia editors" also contained "personal information". Maybe the language in the proposal could be amended to read "personal information about Timid Guy" rather than "details about TimidGuy's personal life".-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jmh649 has edit-warred

5) Jmh649 has edit-warred in the TM topic area [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. All the reverts appear to be of good-faith edits to the article and were within the last six months. A more helpful approach would have been for Jmh649 to start a discussion on the talk page before revert-warring. Cla68 (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, a more helpful approach would have been for everyone involved to use the talkpage more and revert less. But it's really impossible for me to see an ArbCom-finding-worthy level of edit-warring here. MastCell ^Talk 20:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Reverted to revision 446539294 by Jmh649: I liked that version." Reverting someone because you simply think your version is better is fairly unhelpful, especially in a topic area that has been the subject of arbitration, to say the least. Cla68 (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Doc James isn't a party, and no-one has proposed that he be made a party. All of this subsection, and the related evidence page postings should be stricken by the clerk. Fladrif (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell: Please be aware of Transcendental Meditation movement Proposed decision Peremptory reversion or removal of sourced material. All editors named in that arbitration are bound by this decision. There were no exceptions made for any editor.(olive (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Will Beback has edit-warred

6) Will Beback has edit-warred in the TM topic area and has openly declared that he will continue to do so [75].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

These submissions show that Cla68 is grasping at straws in an effort to find things to throw at me. He apparently considers any revert, or even a proposal to revert, to be an edit war. Regarding the first two links, they are reversions of additions made by one-off editors to the short list of TM practitioners in the main TM article. The issue of who to mention as TM practitioners has a long history, which predates my involvement. The existing short list was the result of long discussion, research, and consensus. Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 30#Squire Fridell practices Transcendental Meditation. I was simply enforcing that consensus list until a new discussion agreed on additions (or subtractions). FYI, as part of the effort to deal with the practitioners issue, a complete standalone list was created by consensus: List of Transcendental Meditation practitioners. My edits were no edit warring by any definition.   Will Beback  talk  00:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Both of those reverts appear to be of good-faith edits to the article and were within the last six months. A more helpful approach would have been to discuss why he disagrees with the edits before revert-warring. Also, to see someone openly declare that they will edit-war shows a BATTLEGROUND mentality and unwillingness to engage in helpful collaboration, cooperation, and compromise, all fundamental principles of Wikipedia. Cla68 (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a few more diffs showing revert-warring throughout the TM topic area, all from within 2011. I will also add these diffs to my evidence section, as they are more evidence of BATTLEGROUND behavior. Cla68 (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the diffs since they are included in my evidence section [76]. Cla68 (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback has violated WP:BATTLEGROUND

7) Will Beback has violated the WP:BATTLEGROUND policy in his conduct in the topic areas of new religious movements, cults, and political parties.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I have never used Wikipedia as a "battleground". I edit a wide variety of topics many of which are occupied by those with strong and fixed POVs, as is the case with TM. While it can be a struggle to bring these topics back towards NPOV, it is not a battle.   Will Beback  talk  21:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, based on evidence presented by Keithbob, yours truly, Littleolive oil, and TimidGuy. Cla68 (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: At an Rfc at the LaRouche topic, WBB posted 40 times and badgered almost every editor who made a comment. [77] At the RS noticeboard WBB made 7 posts in less than 24hrs and vigorously defended the use of a "spam email" source despite overwhelming consensus from all (4) other editors that the source was unreliable. [78] Will Beback was told twice by an uninvolved editor "Please do not continue the disruptive arguing"[79][80]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Throughout a previous ArbCom case (Manipulation of BLPs) Cla68 displayed a relentless WP:BATTLEGROUND spirit: he seems to have a longstanding grudge against Will Beback. Constantly changing his justification, Cla68's goal seems to be to get restrictions placed on Will Beback in any way that works. That is clear from his editing history on wikipedia; it is reflected in the type of evidence Cla68 has produced so far, much of which has nothing to do with this case (Lyndon LaRouche), as well as the sequence of questions below. He has also left a running commentary about this case on Wikipedia Review.

• Keithbob appears to have a conflict of interest regarding the TM movement for reasons that he could probably best explain himself. Sometimes his editing appears biased, eg [81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88] Mathsci (talk) 05:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Mathsci, you are aware that an ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy? Cla68 (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If you don't like the message, an attempted character assassination of the messenger is not helpful to this proceeding. Especially one who has 3 1/2 years of editing and 18K edits and has never received any sanctions, blocks, bans or restrictions. Nor ever been the subject of an AE or a COIN investigation. Especially not citing a diff that shows the editor moving unsourced text, which had been tagged the month before, to the talk page in full accordance with the TM Arbcom instruction: "If a citation is not forthcoming within a reasonable time, any editor may remove tagged content". If anyone has questions about the editing of parties who are not named parties in this case, they are free to broach the subject at an appropriate venue, which this is not. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hold on. Stop. Mathsci has information about communications to the arbs. Mathsci is laying out infomation he thinks applies to another editor. True or not its a blatant attempt to out another editor in the middle of an arbitration. I can't see that this is acceptable on any level for any reason. (olive (talk) 02:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • I have redacted the information. It is not germane to this case, and this will be communicated to Mathsci. Jclemens (talk) 03:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have removed all of that post and will not comment further in this ArbCom case. Mathsci (talk) 08:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Will Beback has been completely partisan at the Prem Rawat articles. He has allowed anti-Rawat editors fee rein and with the support of ARB:COM hounded, blocked and banned anyone he disagrees with. I will provided evidence in the near future.Momento (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Reviewing editors not content

The unresolved status of paid editing, existence of anonymous editing, outing and harassment policies, and difficulties in verifying real life circumstances mean that investigating, sanctioning and/or exonerating editors on the basis of who they are or what they do in real life is highly vexed and controversial. Furthermore, there is no consensus for the degree to which editors may edit subjects they may have personal involvement in (apart from extreme cases). Hence review must by necessity focus on editing patterns of editors in whom problems are claimed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

We need something like this in this case - even highlight problems of harassment (at one extreme) and paid advocacy (at other) having the potential to undermine wikipedia (either via community morale or encyclopedic value) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While we may need something like this, I would like to see something with better precision as to the specific elements of the disputes. Such a finding of fact should be grounded in a recap of the community's previous RfCs on these. Jclemens (talk) 01:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Wording could be trimmed though. And a RfC to address concerns regarding our approach to paid editing and COI would be helpful. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

This is generally true. But there are circumstances in which off-Wiki issues need to be taken into account, some of which increase the scrutiny of editing. For example, if we learned that an editor was in a real-life lawsuit against a BLP subject then their editing of that BLP would require more careful than usual review. We might even say they should not be editing the topic at all.   Will Beback  talk  21:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Correct summary of the community's position (or lack thereof) on these issues. ThemFromSpace 22:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timidguy editing

Timidguy has made some claims which are supported by primary sources,[89] [90] when medical article sourcing guidelines and verifiability policy indicate secondary sources are required:

Update, since the ban, Timidguy has added material from a primary source/single study quoted in a newspaper, [91] and made an addition here (citing some studies as being "well-designed," "rigorous," or "high quality") that is fraught [92], introduces NPOV term "classic" [93],

Comment by Arbitrators:

• Incomplete, have browsed bits and pieces thus far am looking at Fladrif's evidence now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment above identified as fraught because of review articles elsewhere identifying proponderance of poorly designed studies - thus we have no ratio here or balance, which makes this run risk of undue weighting. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Looking at:

• http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/bookdescription.cws_home/672881/description#description
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16373182

I share Littleolive oil's confusion as to why you regard them as primary sources. PhilKnight (talk) 03:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although the sources are a book and a review article (i.e. secondary sources), the language chosen strongly suggests the text discussed a single study in each case. I can't see the text of the book but looking at the fulltext of the article in Geriatric Nursing has the following segment Outside the scope of this inquiry is the suggestion of increased longevity among elders who regularly practice meditative techniques with three studies cited, the first one of which appears to be the one related to this, hence the primary is piped through the secondary source. Of the three, one is TM, one mindfulness and one natural medicine. I'll now take a look at that source. The wording provided by Timidguy is somewhat stronger on the association than the original secondary text. More soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A review of a single study is a secondary, not primary, source. I see such in the literature all the time. Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, strictly it is a secondary source, but Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Avoid_over-emphasizing_single_studies.2C_particularly_in_vitro_or_animal_studies. indicates care needed when using single studies. The concern over cherrypicking is a valid one, as the book concedes how little is known about alpha waves (for instance). Still, I agree these are not bright line violations per se. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I'm confused: A.) Timid Guy is not making any claims, he is citing research on a topic. B.) The content is sourced to good secondary sources. Please recheck the sources. Am I missing something?(olive (talk) 03:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

• A Review of classical and modern studies: [94]

• Review: [95]

The longevity one is a significant enough statement that even if stated in neutral tone its suggested importance is pretty clear. Nonetheless the guideline it is not adhering to (Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Avoid_over-emphasizing_single_studies.2C_particularly_in_vitro_or_animal_studies.) is a guideline with caveats not hard rules. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timidguy previously sanctioned

Timidguy was topic-banned from TM edits for two months in August 2010, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement#Log_of_topic_bans_and_blocks

Comment by Arbitrators:

Original discussion here. Issue is, probably needs examining to determine whether sanction was appropriate (?) or just log it as happened. I am thinking (to be fair), the former. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my analysis of Doc James' evidence (below), the 2 month ban + 1RR was entirely appropriate. PhilKnight (talk) 08:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is some doubt about how appropriate that topic ban was. We either need to fully examine the ban, or not include it in this case. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Single-purpose accounts

Single-purpose accounts (SPAs) are defined as accounts whose editing is restricted to a specific topic or article. Single-purpose accounts are at a higher risk of having a conflict of interest or editing articles on the topic for promotional purposes only and are therefore often subject to scrutiny by experienced users and administrators.

Comments by Arbitrators

I am uncomfortable with any principle which encourages suspicion of motive. I would like to see a focus on the edits not the editor. Either that, or we go to registered editing. Allowing anonymous editing, and then creating a climate of suspicion around anonymous editing is unhealthy, and leads directly to cases like this. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by parties

Correct. SPAs should receive higher scrutiny, especially when their editing seems to only support one POV.   Will Beback  talk  22:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be making a full set of proposals. But yes, TimidGuy has been a single-purpose account since the 2010 RFAR/TMM since a very small proportion of his edits have been to any other topic. Frequently edited pages   Will Beback  talk  04:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Littleolive oil. The above link includes TimidGuy's 1500 edits for the past year and half since the 2010 RFAR/TMM case, which is the general time frame we're dealing with in this appeal. If we look at all of his edits since 2006 then at least 2,882 out of a total of 3,306 mainspace edits have been made to TM-related articles, or 75%.[96] If we look at his considerable talk page entries, the proportion is even higher. Out of a total of 2,868 talk page edits, about 2,495 have concerned TM-related topics, or 87%. However he has stopped editing other topics to any significant degree since July 2010 so he has become a single purpose editor.

From WP:SPA: A single-purpose account (SPA) is a user account or IP editor whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of articles, or whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose. Many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest, but a significant number appear to edit for the purposes of promotion, showcasing and/or advocacy.

It's fair to assert, given TimidGuy's consistently pro-TM POV and his own statements about being a member of the movement for over 20 years, that he is one of those SPAs who appear to edit for the purpose of advocacy. It isn't just a niche interest.   Will Beback  talk  09:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Keithbob: The time of day when someone edits does not determine whether they are a paid advocate or not. That fact seems totally irrelevant. Obviously, one can perform paid advocacy at any hour.

TimidGuy's edits on articles and talk pages have been almost exclusively to TM-related topics. A gifnificant number of his edits to noticeboards have also concerned disputes over TM topics. It is not uncommon for people involved in one dispute at a noticeboard to comment on other disputes there.

The ratio of my editing to TimidGuy's does not have any bearing on whether his primary purpose for his editing is making the TM-related articles more positive.

We are not looking at all of TimidGuy's edits since 2006. If we did, we'd see that he has been among the leading editors of TM topics. Since the 2010 RFAR, he has been very focused on the TM topic, and virtually all of his edits have advanced a positive POV of the topic.   Will Beback  talk  21:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others

You've reframed the comment, Will which is SPAs "are therefore often the subject of...," and is not "single purpose accounts should receive...." Perhaps you should make another proposal to suit your wording. Are you suggesting TimidGuy is a single purpose account?(olive (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

• Link to TimidGuys' mainspace edits.[97]

Will you don't have the right to redefine Wikipedia for your purposes then to try and hold other editors to your definitions. Most frequently edited is not the same as a SPA definition [98]. You’re ether a SPA or not one; you aren’t one because of a limited and cherry-picked timeframe of edits. By that definition, any editor could become a SPA if they focus on one area for a while.(olive (talk) 05:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

No Will. Its not fair or neutral to assume anything. So far, I see no diffs that show an editor. TG, pushing a POV. Much of what you assert is in fact assumption. Your premise is POV edits. No diffs. In fact its clear that TG's edits are logical and intelligent and knowledgable about the research. Its clear Doc James' evidence needs closer scrutiny which it is getting. On your premise you build a case based on "its fair to assert" No its not fair to assert anything when you have no proof. Advocacy will show up in the diffs. You can't build a fair case against another editor based on stringing together your assumptions.(olive (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I think resisting the urge to quote essays as if they were policies or guidelines would be helpful and prevent all of us from sounding overly avuncular or materteral in our approaches to building the 'pedia. Cla68 (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the time of day that TG edits - almost exclusively restricted to midday - business hours maybe?

Another question: Has TG been CheckUsered up against IPs of PR firms like Bell Pottinger? PaoloNapolitano 22:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread the chart which indicates TimidGuy edits for the most part in the early morning.(olive (talk) 23:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

My participation in Wikipedia is light and almost exclusively limited to an hour or so in the morning before 6:30 a.m. See WikiChecker for my last 2,000 edits.[99]TimidGuy (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. Is this what it's like to edit the TM topic? Are you guys constantly being accused of editing from work, COI, socking, and the like? If so, it's unbelievable that it has been allowed for you all to be treated this way for so long. Cla68 (talk) 12:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional points to note about TimidGuy’s “niche interest”:

• Since TM arbcom (6/6/10) Timid Guy has edited exclusively between 9 and 12 UTC (3am to 6am USA CT), 7 days per week. see link here (it works after a few tries)
• Since TM arbcom, 23% of Timid Guy’s edits have been on Community pages, with his most edited page being the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. [100]
• Since TM arbcom, Will Beback’s 1055 edits are almost double the number of edits made by Timid Guy (559 edits) on TM related articles.
• 40% of Timid Guy’s top twenty, most edited articles since 2006, are not related to TM. [101]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: this speculation into real life identities is sailing into highly dangerous waters. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

TimidGuy's ban maintained

The Arbitration Committee finds that User:TimidGuy has been using Wikipedia for promotional purposes. TimidGuy's ban is therefore maintained.

Comment by Arbitrators:

WP:SOAP does fall under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, however I do think it better to focus on policies such as WP:NPOV more closely tied to the content. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is appropriate that the Committee consider endorsing the ban. Evidence of persistently/disruptively abusing NPOV / SOAP would be needed. I'm not sure we have that evidence at the moment. An account which is linked to a person who may be connected to an article is not in itself grounds for a ban - it is simply grounds for suspicion. We still need the evidence of the edits. Indeed, we need the evidence of the edits so much, that linking the account is irrelevant as regards banning. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

@Casliber: The issue is behavior. Using Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote a pro-TM POV is clearly unacceptable. TimidGuy admits that he came to Wikipedia to work on the TM article.[102] His editing history shows that his work has been almost entirely pro-TM. It is possible to use Wikipedia for promotional or advocacy purposes without making egregious violations of NPOV.   Will Beback  talk  21:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• Support. If not continued, conversion to topic ban is the only appropriate alternative. Fladrif (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Soap is not a policy, actually.(olive (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Indeed it is. From WP:NOT which SOAP is a part of: "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy. [...]'. How can you say then, Olive, that it is not a policy? Either you haven't read the policy, or you are making a WP:POINT. PaoloNapolitano 17:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Soap is not a policy it is an aspect of a policy. You specifically cited WP:Soap, not the policy.(olive (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

You are making a WP:POINT. WP:SOAP is not A policy, it is a part of a policy, but it still is WIkipedia policy. Understand? PaoloNapolitano 18:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm not making a point-careful of what you assume about other editors.. I'm making a distinction that you are not. Let's agree to disagree and move on.(olive (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Proposed principles

Paid editing

1) There are no official policies stating that paid editing is not allowed, however, paid editing presents an active conflict of interest and may introduce bias into the project in a non-neutral manner. Wikipedia is an environment that discourages bias and non-neutral editing.

1.1) There are no official policies stating that paid editing is not allowed, however, Wikipedia is an environment that prohibits point of view editing and mandates to maintain a neutral point of view on each article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Wordy and imprecise. 1) Paid editing is not prohibited. 2) POV editing is. Was that what you were trying to say? Jclemens (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like Jclemens' more pithy wording. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Per a previous part, just redefined. -- DQ (t) (e) 21:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: Absolutely right, adding those. 1.1 Proposed. I think i'm still being a bit wordy though... -- DQ (t) (e) 04:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict disclosure

2) Details of a users personal life need not be disclosed, without consent, to other users not involved or not in a position of trust.

2.1) Editors are not required to disclose a conflict of interest, and repeatedly inquiring about a users interest could present as harassment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Again, wordy and imprecise. What I think you mean is 1) Editors are not required to disclose COI. 2) Repeatedly asking editors about COI or personal interest may constitute harassment. 3) Personal information about other editors, regardless of how obtained, shall not be disclosed for Wikipedia purposes to anyone other than someone vetted as a functionary, regardless of means used to communicate that data. Jclemens (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. -- DQ (t) (e) 21:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: #3 is what I was trying to get at. Moving part 3 down. 2.1 proposed. -- DQ (t) (e) 04:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Release of personal infomation

3) Administrators are trusted by the community. Part of this trust is not to release personal information, without permission, except when required to functionaries.

3.1) Users are expected to keep private and/or personal information, however it was obtained, undisclosed for Wikipedia purposes except to those vetted as functionaries.

Comment by Arbitrators:

As per my comments above, I believe the obligation is on all editors, not just administrators, to not disclose other editors' personal information, known or surmised, to anyone other than duly appointed functionaries. Jclemens (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, though I think I might be shooting myself in the foot with the wording...or forgetting some aspect that's going to kill this. -- DQ (t) (e) 21:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Merger from above. Thanks for the assistance Jclemens. 3.1 proposed. -- DQ (t) (e) 04:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed principles

Paid advocacy

1) Unacknowledged paid advocacy on Wikipedia is bad faith editing. Editors are expected to place the interests of Wikipedia ahead of any personal interests. When it is an editor's job to do otherwise, when they hide behind a pseudonym so that their paid advocacy will escape notice, and when they dishonestly characterize their COI then they are not complying with core requirement of good faith editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Wikipedia has always been a volunteer effort. Editors who come to Wikipedia with a promotional agenda are not working in good faith to improve the encyclopedia.   Will Beback  talk  20:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Advocacy is non complaint, paid or otherwise. Advocacy is shown in the editor's editing, not in assumption, suggestion, or speculation.(olive (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Prohibition on dishonest paid advocacy

2) There is a de facto prohibition on editing Wikipedia for the purposes of engaging in paid advocacy without disclosure. A number of editors who have participated in it have been banned from editing, including user:Thekohser, user:Smkovalinsky, and Wikipedia:Bell Pottinger COI Investigations. WP:COI says: "Accounts that appear, based on their editing history, to be single-purpose accounts that exist for the sole or primary purpose of promotion (e.g., of a person, company, product, service, website, or organization), in apparent violation of this guideline, should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Contrary to some assertions, there is a prohibition on using Wikipedia for promotion, and it may be enforced with blocks.   Will Beback  talk  20:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I don't see assertions here that any editor thinks Wikipedia should be used for promotion except perhaps those who suggest for example that TM research should be characterized per the editor's opinion rather than the sources.(olive (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Paid advocacy and sock puppetry

3) There is a long history on Wikipedia of paid advocates using sock puppetry and meat puppetry to further their POV editing. In addition to the examples given at "Prohibition on dishonest paid advocacy" above, puppet masters engaged in paid advocacy include user:Benjiboi and User:Desiphral.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed: Editors who seek to use Wikipedia for promotion have often violated WP:SOCK, including using the meat puppets.   Will Beback  talk  20:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Public commentators

4) Editors who earn money writing about a topic under their own name should be extremely cautious about writing on the same topic using a different name, or pseudonym, on Wikipedia. Except for minor editing, they should either avoid the topic altogether or acknowledge their conflict. This is especially true when the publications that they have written or written for are potential or actual sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed: Experts or those who frequently write a bout a topic are encouraged to contribute to Wikipedia. However when they do so under pseudonyms there are COI, bias, and citing issues which complicated editing. The best practice for prominent writers on a topic is to use their real names.   Will Beback  talk  20:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Editors must be neutral. Period. Look to the edits not the editor . I don't see anything in this case or in my Wikipedia history that would suggest any editor is safe in giving out personal information, nor do I see a clear point where some editors should have to give out personal information and others should not. Who decides that, for example.(olive (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Privacy

5) Editors who share significant amounts of information about themselves on-Wiki and share the same information publicly off-Wiki should not be surprised if others make obvious connections between WP and RL identities. That does not mean that their identities should be revealed on-Wiki, just that it is the responsibility of editors to maintain their privacy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed: For example, if someone posts photos of themselves on-Wiki and in public places on the web, then they are not shielding their privacy.   Will Beback  talk  20:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Keithbob: That's incorrect. Very few Wikipedians post photos of themselves on their user pages, just as few use their real names. But those who do so have lowered expectations of privacy. It's not "outing" to realize that the "user:J.T.Smith" who writes about widgets on Wikipedia might be the same person as the John T. Smith who writes about widgets elsewhere on the Internet.   Will Beback  talk  18:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Keithbob: Regarding this claim: "Sounds to me like a proposed justification for past and future violations of WP:OUTING." There have been no past violations of WP:Outing. I have not outed anyone.   Will Beback  talk  00:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

It isn't part of the editor job description to speculate or make connections except in private. Those speculations do not belong on Wikipedia. We aren't running a detective agency here. Further, I'd suggest it is ethical for editors to protect the identities of other editors even if they should happen to stumble upon who those editors are in real life. We are a community of editors. This is a collaborative project.(olive (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

"If someone posts photos of themselves on-Wiki and in public places on the web, then they are not shielding their privacy". Hmm, let's see..... the website of their place of employment, their school yearbook, their alumni web site, possible awards and recognition in their field, MySpace, Facebook. That would mean that 98% of all editors on Wikipedia "are not shielding their privacy" and "should not be surprised if others make obvious connections between their WP and RL indentities" because "it is the responsibility of editors to maintain their privacy". Sounds to me like a proposed justification for past and future violations of WP:OUTING.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal says it is the "editors responsibility to maintain their privacy" lest they be ID'd and a subsequent proposal (below), says that Timid Guy should be disciplined because he didn't reveal his "true COI" on Wikipedia. Hmmm. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 05:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality and conflicts of interest

6) From Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement: Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular view is prohibited. Editors who have or may be perceived as having a conflict of interest should review and comply with the applicable policies. These does not prohibit editors from working on articles about entities to which they have only an indirect relationship, but urges editors to be mindful of editing pitfalls that may result from such a relationship. For example, an editor who is a member of a particular organisation or holds a particular set of religious or other beliefs is not prohibited from editing articles about that organisation or those beliefs but should take care that his or her editing on that topic adheres to the neutrality policy and other key policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed: Note that this finding refers to people with an "indirect relationship". Those with a direct relationship, such as employment in a public relations capacity, should follow a higher standard.   Will Beback  talk  20:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Single purpose accounts

7) From Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement:Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is incompatible with the goals of this project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed: A long-standing prinicple.   Will Beback  talk  20:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Creating an impression should not be confused with assumptions and speculations about other editors. Creating an impression is somewhat subjective. there may be better wording for what this means.(olive (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Multiple editors with a single voice

8) From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology: It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several editors from the same IP or corporate server are sockpuppets, meat puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity. The Arbitration Committee may determine that editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of edits be treated as a single editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed: A necessary principle when dealing with editors using the same IP range.   Will Beback  talk  20:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

There is absolutely no current evidence that shows that Timid Guy has the same IP as other editors. The two year old IP data cited in Cardomon's evidence was examined at TM Arbcom and "After extensive review of checkuser data, contribution histories, editing patterns and (in some cases) the actual edits of certain users, we have found no evidence of sockpuppetry on the part of any of the parties involved in this case." [103] Moreover, there was this Finding of Fact: "The evidence presented has been carefully examined; investigating arbitrators have been unable to independently detect or confirm – other than in one isolated instance – sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry or collusion within the topic."[104] -- — Keithbob • Talk • 05:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use of accounts

9) From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology: Creating accounts ("sockpuppetry") or coordinating accounts ("meatpuppetry") to manipulate the consensus process; to create alliances to reinforce a particular point of view, to engage in factional or tactical voting; to create "ownership" of articles; to evade topic bans or blocks; or to otherwise game the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed: This is covers meat puppetry, bloc voting, and "tag-team" editing.   Will Beback  talk  20:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Altering sources to support Wikipedia content

10) Editors who write source material, control it, or have significant input in its creation must avoid using that influence in content disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed: Wikipedia depends on reliable sources. Editors who intentionally alter sources to support preferred edits are gaming the system in a corrupt manner.   Will Beback  talk  20:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Articles related to medicines and medical treatments

11) Articles related to medicines and medical treatments must adhere to the highest standards of sourcing and neutrality, and should not understate risks or overstate efficacy. Editors with professional relationships to commercial providers of medicines and treatments should be especially mindful of their conflicts of interest, and should avoid any appearance of promoting their use.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed: Wikipedia must be careful to avoid doing harm to living people. That includes articles on medical topics.   Will Beback  talk  20:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This may include of course physicians who often support and dispense certain drugs and medications as samples for drug companies.(olive (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Judging the neutrality of an editor's contributions

12) When the neutrality of an editor comes under heightened scrutiny, such as instances of single-purposed editors or allegations of paid advocacy, the entirety of the editor's contributions, in all project spaces, and their cumulative effect must be judged. It is quite possible for a string of edits to appear neutral and balanced when viewed individually, but when taken together may be seen to promote a particular POV.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed: Experienced POV pushers can avoid making edits that are singularly inappropriate while engaging in a patter of editing that still promotes a POV.   Will Beback  talk  20:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Cla68: See #TimidGuy is a single-purpose, POV-pushing editor, which proposes that TG has promoted a POV. If an editor edits principally in the topic related to their employment and they promote that employer in their edits then that's problematic. As for TG's place of employment, he declares it on his user page, though he did not make a complete disclosure as to the nature of his role there.   Will Beback  talk  06:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

WBB, none of your proposed findings appear to conclude that TimidGuy has violated WP:NPOV. If it can't be shown that he violated the policy, or edit warred (as you have, see my proposed findings), or was uncivil, or violated WP:BATTLEGROUND, then what basis do you have for alleging there is anything really wrong with his participation in Wikipedia? If an editor does their best to follow the rules, but you "accidentally" discover that they are employed by an organization related to their favorite topic, then this qualifies you, who apparently disagrees with their edits, to recommend their sanction with prejudice? Cla68 (talk) 05:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you bother to read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy_ban_appeal/Workshop#TimidGuy_is_a_single-purpose.2C_POV-pushing_editor? I can understand TimidGuy' KBob and Olive repeating over and over ad nauseum "but I'm a neutral editor" since they're committed to defend indefensible editing by themselves and their colleagues,and appear to believe that if you repeat something often enough in the hope that it will be true, it will magically happen, but no disinterested editor who actually looks at his editing carefully can come to any other conclusion than that TimidGuy has been systematically pushing the PR plan of his employer since he first authored the TM article[105] at Wikipedia at the request of another MUM employee, using a meatpuppet to post it. He systematically misrepresents sources to put a PR spin on them, opposes reliable sources, champions unreliable sources, and tendentiously argues at forum after forum long after consensus and clear policy have gone against his positions. ArbCom, a formal warning, and a topic-ban did not slow him down or dissuade him. It even continues on these very pages of the appeal of his ban.

As an aside, the article he wrote and had posted at Wikipedia in 2002 was heavily plagiarized from the "Transcendental Meditation Technique" entry written by MUM and TM Org high muckey-muck Fred Travis and published a year earlier at The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology and Behavioral Science, Volume 4 3rd Edition, p 1705 [106] As documented at the TMArbcom, plagiarism of other TM-affiliated writers is a pattern of several of the TM-affiliated editors. Hickorybark, for example, rewrote the Flipped SU(5) article, plagiarizing an article by MUM professor David Scharf posted at former MUM professor David Orme-Johnson's blog.Talk:Flipped_SU(5)#Plagarism_removed Fladrif (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outing

13) From WP:OUTING: "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not." The current policy does not govern private, off-Wiki discussions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed: the current outing policy only covers "posting" (i.i. publishing) material in public places.   Will Beback  talk  20:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Off Wiki communications

14) After the closing of this case, any off-Wiki communications, whether in private emails or public forums, which discuss the real life identities of Wikipedia editors or potentially bannable activities by those editors, is evidence of conspiracy to "out" or ban an editor and is itself a bannable offense.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed: The discussion seems to be to extend the policy to cover all private communications as well.   Will Beback  talk  20:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Private complaints to the ArbCom

15) Editors who make private complaints about perceived violations of project standards may be named as parties in future ArbCom cases without any further dispute resolution being necessary. Editors are warned not to contact the ArbCom with such concerns unless they are willing to have their own editing careers scrutinized publicly.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed: This warning should be made more prominent.   Will Beback  talk  20:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Findings of fact

TimidGuy has made little secret of his RL identity

1) TimidGuy has shared considerable information about himself on his user page and in other postings. I came across his identity by accident, but it would have taken little work to find it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed: Contrary to some assertions, there was no investigation to uncover TimidGuy's identity.   Will Beback  talk  20:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Keithbob: That's a very twisted way of looking at events. Fairfield, Iowa, especially Maharishi University of Management, especially the Golden Domes, is the center of the TM movement in the US. It's impossible to write about TM without eventually writing about those topics. As for doing research, that's part of being a Wikipedia editor. If a person is so intertwined with a topic that it's impossible to research the topic without running into him then that's just another side-effect of the person editing with a COI.   Will Beback  talk  15:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

According to Will Beback he began a journalistic investigation into the Golden Domes, located on the campus of Maharishi University of Management in Fairfield, Iowa. Will Beback says he "contacted a number of people who've been published on the topic, and several of them gave me significant help".[107] Will Beback goes on to say that "The article [Golden Domes] was reviewed by a number of former and current dome attendees prior to posting". [108] So it appears that Will Beback picked a building in the alleged hometown of an editor who he has accused of COI. Contacted that editor's neighbors for their opinions on an article that he was researching, even though as an Administrator, he knows that WP is based on reliable secondary sources not first hand information and opinions. Then, "by accident", "stumbled upon" information he says "would have taken little work to find".-- — Keithbob • Talk • 05:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of outing

1a) TimidGuy has not provided any evidence that Will Beback publicly posted any personally identifiable information about him which he had not already made public.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed: Personally identifying information was only discussed in private emails.   Will Beback  talk  20:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

False. Will Beback has repeatedly alleged, here on WP, that Timid Guy is a "public relations officer" and a "public writer"[109][110][111] But Timid Guy has never said these things about himself.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emails from ArbCom members

1b) ArbCom members were involved in the sending of emails to non-functionaries that included private information about an editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed: Back in September, ArbCom members freely engaged in sending and resending the information with no comments about any potential outing in the email threads.   Will Beback  talk  20:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

TimidGuy has an exceptional conflict of interest regarding the TM movement

2) TimidGuy has held positions at Maharishi University of Management and in the TM movement which put him in a significant conflict of interest when editing articles on related topics, greater than that which might be held by a mere adherent or regular employee. He has edited WP articles about topics and entities specifically listed as the targets of promotional efforts.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed: Previous discussions of TimidGuy's COI assumed that he was a mere professor at MUM. There are degrees of COI, and TimidGuy's COI is greater than known in previous discussions.   Will Beback  talk  20:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

TimidGuy has not denied the main allegation

3) In his emails to the ArbCom and RFAR parties, TimidGuy has not denied the main allegation against him concerning his COI role in the movement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This presupposes that TimidGuy was in fact required to substantively deny said allegation. I tend to think that the burden of proof in a case such as this must necessarily rest wholly with the accuser. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed: TimidGuy was banned for certain activities. In his private and public evidence he has not denied those activities.   Will Beback  talk  20:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Littleolive oil: That's incorrect. "Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers. Do not write about these things unless you are certain that a neutral editor would agree that your edits improve Wikipedia." .. "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." Does anyone here assert that TimidGuy, who self admits to having been on the faculty of MUM for decades, places the aims of Wikipedia above those of MUM and the TM movement? COI is not defined by edits, it is defined by intent and actions.   Will Beback  talk  21:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Kirill: Nobody is required to deny anything. The point here is that there has been no evidence, public or private, contradicting the underlying assertion. In other words, it isn't a question of fact but of policy. The question of the ArbCom, which it refused to answer at the beginning of this case, is whether undisclosed paid advocacy on a contentious topic is permissible. Jimbo Wales has said he does not think that it is permissible and placed a ban on that basis.   Will Beback  talk  04:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This has been said before in other forums. What is defined as a COI in real life does not necessarily constitute a COI on Wikipedia. COI on Wikipedia is identified by an editor's editing and edits.(olive (talk) 04:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

You cannot judge the motivations of other editors. Its absurd to assume that an editor cannot come to Wikipedia and edit in a neutral way. Its absurd to think that any of us is so perceptive that we know why another editor edits or if that editor puts outside interests above the aims of advancing Wikipedia. Its assumptive to assume that part of TG's job description at a university is to edit Wikipedia.. Its presumptive to assume a university gives a rat's behind about Wikipedia. Because of all of these points what we have to judge an editor on is the editor's edits.That's the bottom line, Will. You apologize for harassment which I would accept, but not for attempting to crucify another editor whose edits indicate that he has contributed to the improvement of the encyclopedia. Everything you are saying is assumptive Will and we should not ban anyone because we assume or speculate.(olive (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

TimidGuy is a single-purpose, POV-pushing editor

4) TimidGuy has been a single-purpose editor since June 2010, devoted almost solely to editing TM-related topics. Virtually all of his edits to these topics in the past year have been from a "pro" POV: adding positive material, removing negative content, or arguing over those edits. He has promoted the use of poor-quality sources, including a self-published website written by a close colleague and in another case a publication for which he is a contributor or editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed: TimidGuy's editing has always been focused primarily on TM, and since June 2010 it has been almost exclusively on that topic. Almost all of his edits on that have topic have advanced a certain POV. Per the ArbCom's request, I have analyzed those edits and posted 186 examples at User:Will Beback/TimidGuy appeal.   Will Beback  talk  20:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Will. You have linked to a subpage which editors were asked not to do. Unless TG has an opportunity to post rebuttals to the 186 diffs beyond his evidence as you have you, this isn't appropriate. Please consider removing the link. (olive (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

TimidGuy's failure to disclose

5) TimidGuy has failed to disclose his true COI, despite numerous complaints about his editing and numerous discussions of general COI issues. He has portrayed himself as a blameless victim and called concerns about his COI "persecution".[112]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed: TimidGuy has placed his needs above Wikipedia's, and blames other editors for opposing his promotional efforts.   Will Beback  talk  20:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

WP:COI is a behavioral guideline about editing behavior. It "strongly encourages" COI disclosure but does not require it. Timid Guy chose to disclose information early in his Wikipedia career and as a result he has spent the last 4 years being hounded and harassed including 6 COIN's, an SPI, and two Rfarbs.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TimidGuy has complained about COI

6) TimidGuy has complained about the participation of another editor, who uses his real name, due to COI issues.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed: TimidGuy has been hypocritical regarding his approach to the COI guideline.[113]   Will Beback  talk  20:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Keithbob: For whatever reason, TimidGuy has been very concerned about the lawsuit involving Skolnick, even obtaining an unpublished docket form which he sought to use as a source for a BLP. The point here is that even TimidGuy considers COI editing to be a problem worth mentioning. Do you think it's relevant if an editor is involved in a lawsuit? Would it be more or less of a problem if the editor did not disclose that involvement?   Will Beback  talk  04:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Do we need a Finding of Fact for this single, reasonable comment on a talk page? "The book chapter by Newcombe is a reliable source by any measure. It has been deleted by Skolnick in favor of his version. Reliably sourced material shouldn't be deleted without discussion and consensus, especially by someone who was a defendant in the lawsuit."-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only hypocrite I see is the one who says "(as I wrote to the ArbCom weeks ago), I voluntarily withdraw from dealing with COI issues concerning individual editors." and continues to accuse, malign and persecute the same editor with the same COI allegations that they have been pushing for three years.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meat puppetry on TM articles

6) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TM editors/Archive found that TimidGuy and many other accounts edit from the same small town. Most of those accounts have edited TM articles using the same POV.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Considering the location in question, this strikes me as akin to accusing the Pope of meatpuppetry because edits from the Vatican tend to reflect a pro-Catholic POV. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Fladrif: What does any of that have to do with this finding, which calls attention specifically to the fact that the accounts all edit from the same town, and not to anything else about their behavior? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed: This hasn't changed. It is prima facie evidence of meat puppetry/tag team editing.   Will Beback  talk  20:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Kirill: That's not a bad analogy. If we had a set of editors who all promoted a pro-Catholic POV, who engaged in bloc voting and mutual support (evidence this RFAR), and who apparently were in RL contact with each other, and who all edited from a small enclave, then that would pretty much meet the definition of meat puppetry. If this does not qualify as meat puppetry, then what does?   Will Beback  talk  04:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Keithbob: Static IPs have nothing to do with meat puppetry. Even location is not a necessary element. A few days before TimidGuy posted his appeal, you started to post a thread about him on COIN.[114] Last year, you posted information citing the MUM website which did not yet contain the cited information, edits which TimidGuy later explained and defended.[115] In addition, you and other editors participated in Doc James' RFA, despite the fact that you haven't participate in any other RFAs.[116] Those three incidents give the appearance that you are in off-Wiki communication with TimidGuy, and even that stealth canvassing was involved. Is there another explanation?   Will Beback  talk  05:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Some facts to consider: The two year old IP data cited above was examined at TM Arbcom and "After extensive review of checkuser data, contribution histories, editing patterns and (in some cases) the actual edits of certain users, we have found no evidence of sockpuppetry on the part of any of the parties involved in this case. [117] Moreover, there was this Finding of Fact: "The evidence presented has been carefully examined; investigating arbitrators have been unable to independently detect or confirm – other than in one isolated instance – sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry or collusion within the topic."[118] Since TM Arbcom Timid Guy has obtained a static IP and Keithbob has moved and no longer uses LISCO as his Internet provider. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 05:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Kirill If the Vatican set up a group of quick response teams of employees, with team leaders, tasked with posting at Wikipedia and online messageboards, talk pages and article comments to push the Vatican POV, as was done by the TM Org and documented at the TMArbcom, your analogy would start to get a bit closer to the reality of the situation. If several of the Vatican posters said in their profiles that they were Vatican employees, and their purpose at Wikipedia was to edit Vatican-related articles, it would be a bit closer to reality. If the most active of the Vatican posters admitted that he wrote the original Vatican article at the request of another Vatican official and used a meatpuppet to post it, it would be closer to the reality here. If another of the Vatican posters changed an article, citing a source published by the Vatican that didn't support his proposed change, and then another Vatican poster contacted the Vatican official in charge of publications and had the source changed to support the disputed edit, that would be closer to the reality here. If the Vatican editors repeatedly stated that they were in contact with the office of Vatican's legal counsel, that would be closer to the reality here. If the Vatican editors repeatedly plagiarized blogs of prominent Vatican officials, and stated that they were personally given permission by those officials to use copyrighted images and materials, that would be closer to the reality here. If, when one of the Vatican employees was banned or topic banned or sanctioned, other editors suddenly popped up in his place and suddenly started posting the same things as the banned editor, it would be closer to this situation. Shall I continue? Fladrif (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Kirill#2 The second sentence of the proposed finding does address behavior of the editors posting from Fairfield. If I were writing this finding however, it would be turned around to something like this:

• "The behaviorial evidence shows that TimidGuy, Littleolive oil, KeithBob, Bigweeboy, HickoryBark, ChemistryProf, Spicemix, and other editors posting from the vicinity of Fairfield Iowa and from TM-Org owned or affiliated IPs there and in other locations have operated as meatpuppets on a coordinated basis to push a pro-TM Org POV at Wikipedia in violation of NPOV and other core policies." Fladrif (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Altering a source

7) By his own admission, TimidGuy repeatedly contacted the webmaster of the MUM website in order to have content changed to support an edit.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed: This is very problematic behavior, and was dealt with at AE.   Will Beback  talk  20:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

TM is a provider of medical treatments

8) The TM movement markets its meditation technique and its herbal products, etc, as treatments for medical conditions, including cancer, diabetes, and heart disease.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed: The TM movement is not just a spiritual movement. It includes commercial enterprises and practitioners who sell expensive products and treatments.   Will Beback  talk  20:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

TimidGuy

1) TimidGuy and other editors with COIs are asked to follow the WP:COI guideline, which states, "An editor with a conflict of interest who wishes to suggest substantive changes to an article should use that article's talk page. When making a request, please consider disclosing your conflict of interest to avoid misunderstanding."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed: This is an alternative to the existing site ban or the topic ban proposed elsewhere.   Will Beback  talk  20:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TimidGuy has acknowledged having a COI, though he did not communicate the extent of it.   Will Beback  talk  21:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

In other words, limit all editors on highly contentious articles who are identified as COI editors, and as identified by whom? Will? Have patterns of edits by a neutral committee determined other editors have transgressed COI per Wikipedia policy? The trade off offered here is to un ban one editor and handcuff other editors, making it even more difficult to edit on TM articles than it already is. Who or what benefits from this? (olive (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

This is pointless. Either continue Jimbo's ban or convert it to a topic ban of not less than a year. The TM-Org editors, including TimidGuy and Littleolive oil have been repeatedly determined at COIN and AE to (i) have a conflict of interest with respect to the TM-related articles; (ii) to be editing in violation of the COI policy by their POV-pushing and violation of various other policies; and (iii) at COIN, at least, told to confine their activities to the talk pages of those articles. Not only do they openly defy those directives, we get the repeated WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT comments from the likes of Olive, who seems to forget that Will's first involvement in these articles was as a neutral, disinterested administrator at COIN. TimidGuy has a conflict of interest. You have a conflict of interest. Neutral editors and adminsitrators determined that at COIN years ago. You have both subsequently been determined to violate policy and the TM ArbCom at AE - yeah, I know, you claim AE is just a kangaroo court and you didn't get a fair shake there or at any of your unsuccessful appeals. Rubbish. Jimbo decided that TimidGuy's COI was sufficiently serious that he would be banned from Wikipedia. Continuing to repeat "but we're all neutral editors here in Fairfield and nobody found otherwise" is tendentious nonsense. It is demonstrably, undeniably and irrefutably untrue. Fladrif (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Despite all you say, you're a good writer, Flad, I'll give you that.(olive (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Will Beback

2) Will Beback regrets becoming overly concerned about an unenforceable guideline. He will voluntarily refrain from raising COI issues with any editor for the next 12 months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed: I admit that I have been frustrated by the inability to resolve the massive COI problems with the TM topic, which are not limited to TimidGuy. I realize now that it is pointless and even counterproductive to concern myself with these issues, since the community seems unable to resolve these problems which extend across Wikipedia. So I resolve to avoid trying to fix the problem as it concerns individual editors.   Will Beback  talk  20:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I apologize to anyone who feels they've been harassed. That has never been my intention. As for the future, there are significant efforts by various parties to improve and clarify Wikipedia's handling of paid advocacy. See User talk:Herostratus/Wikiproject Paid Editing Watch‎ and User:Silver seren/Wikiproject Cooperation‎. I hope and expect that this will not continue to be a problem.   Will Beback  talk  21:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Keithbob: The proposal you cite, from RFAR/PR2, is just the text from WP:COI. COI issues have been a problem on Wikipedia for a long time. As for user:Jossi, he was apparently a paid advocate who "gamed the sytem", including using sock puppets, in order to further the topic which he was promoting. As WP:COI warns, that behavior eventually brought disrepute on him, his cause, and Wikipedia. There are many reasons why editing a topic where one has a COI is bad, and skewing article content is only one of them. However, as I've said above (and as I wrote to the ArbCom weeks ago), I voluntarily withdraw from dealing with COI issues concerning individual editors.   Will Beback  talk  00:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

What happens after the 12month period?(olive (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

My concern is that regret focuses on concern with a guideline that wasn't enforceable rather than any sense that it was not appropriate for an admin to use COI to harass editors on and off Wikipedia, to use those issues in content disputes and to use the COI policy in a way that is at odds with how Wikipedia defines COI. As well, even as Will is expressing regret he is damning more editors based on his personal sense of what COI is. And as I asked above, what happens after 12 months.(olive (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Will Beback, you say "I apologize to anyone who feels they've been harassed". That would be me (among others). Your apology, in theory is good. But I fear it rings hollow in the light of your multiple warnings by many people (including myself) over a 2+ year period that you were violating COI policy. You had many opportunities to turn yourself around, but instead you denied any wrong doing and pushed even harder. Your passion for tossing COI accusations at editors who differ with you on content issues, goes back years and crosses many topics. For example, your Workshop Proposals of almost three years ago at Prem Rawat have an eerie resemblance to some of your proposals above. In this context, your apology, coming now, on the eve of possible sanctions, seems to me to be hollow at best and manipulative at worst and I personally find it unacceptable, until you start walking the talk.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Will Beback: I mistakenly placed my comment in the wrong section :-( Thank you for moving it here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed principles

Jurisdiction

1) The Arbitration Committee's duties and responsibilities include:

• hearing appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users;
• handling requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrative tools; and
• resolving private matters unsuitable for public discussion.

Comment by arbitrators:

Extracted from ArbPol:  Roger Davies ^talk 09:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-edited, now shorter too  Roger Davies ^talk 07:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been some question of the Committee's involvement in this case? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one of the sections (above) has some draft principles relating to it.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wording looks good. Cla68 (talk) 10:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Form of appeal

2) When hearing a ban appeal, the Committee may hear the case afresh and make a new determination. By default, the Committee hears cases in public. Where significant privacy or harassment issues are involved, the Committee may hold a hearing in private and parties are given a reasonable opportunity to respond to what is said about them before a decision is made. Aspects of the present case relating to privacy and harassment were heard in private.

Comment by arbitrators:

Per usual practice and incorporating comments to other proposals above,  Roger Davies ^talk 09:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps preface this with "When hearing a ban appeal" or something of that sort? At the moment, it's unclear what this refers to, except by implication. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 05:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does need that,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Review of a ban by Jimmy Wales

3) The Banning policy states: "Jimbo Wales retains the authority to ban editors".

Comment by arbitrators:

Drafted:  Roger Davies ^talk 09:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Cla68 ArbCom doesn't make (or unmake) policy so that's a matter for the community.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NuclearWarfare's Authority of Jimbo Wales principle does contain a useful link to Jimbo's statement that he gave up the use of the block. A block and a ban are so closely related that it seems appropriate to mention it, and perhaps to have a finding regarding the distinction between them. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, though it may be a bit tangential to the main issues here,  Roger Davies ^talk 13:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Does the ArbCom have the authority or desire to rescind this privilege? Should it be rescinded? Cla68 (talk) 10:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Burden of proof

4) When editors request or place sanctions in whatever forum on Wikipedia, the onus is on the editors requesting or placing those sanctions to provide the evidence to prove their claims. Per longstanding policy, "serious accusations require serious evidence".

Comment by arbitrators:

Drafted:  Roger Davies ^talk 09:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Cla68 People can always ask for greater wordage/diffage for presenting evidence if they need it.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Will: The evidence that was not approved for public display was not relevant to the case. We stipulate that you have evidence linking Timid Guy to a particular person, and, in fact, your use of that identity information is what this case centers around, despite your efforts to make it about something else. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Will 2, I think the fundamental problem here is that you still seem to misunderstand what this case is about. If the principles articulated and evidence sought don't align with what you thought the case was about, after the extensive off-wiki discussions, then I'm afraid you will likely be surprised by the outcome. Jclemens (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the phrase "make the case" to mean "give good reason", though the use here appears to be "provide firm proof". Sanctions may be applied when there is reasonable concern that harm may be done to Wikipedia, even though there isn't firm proof. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid ambiguity between "put the case", "make the case" etc, I've recast the sentence to sidestep it. I've also expanded it slightly.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The expansion is helpful. An area of concern in this case is that the evidence that led to the block was off-Wiki evidence and private evidence. Is this principle intended to state that the evidence should be found on Wikipedia? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, no.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

In this case, the addition of full evidence was prohibited by the clerk. Furthermore, the ArbCom artificially restricted the list of parties, excluding editors with a direct involvement in the dispute who were nonetheless allowed to add evidence.   Will Beback  talk  05:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: I'm not referring to the private evidence. I was not allowed to post the complete listing of POV-pushing edits by TimidGuy. Additionally, I was not allowed to post evidence of problematic behavior by Keithbob, Cla68, et al.   Will Beback  talk  05:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for the use of private identifying information, I never posted any personal info on Wikipedia about TimidGuy that he hadn't already posted himself. No evidence was presented, publicly or privately, to show any outing occurred.   Will Beback  talk  05:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: Is it unreasonable to assume the case is about the "TimidGuy ban appeal"?   Will Beback  talk  06:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

If so, then would placing limits on the amount of words or diffs that can be presented in certain forums, such as an RfAr evidence page, possibly inhibit editors from making their case? Cla68 (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens - What is the "evidence sought"? There is no direction on any of these pages as to what evidence the committee sought in this matter. I made a point of presenting proposals on standard of review/burden of proof, because it was completely unclear at least at the outset whether the committee saw its remit as reviewing what Jimbo had done, or whether it was going to revisit the ban de novo as if it had never been imposed. I for one assumed that what this case was about was that TimidGuy wanted his ban lifted, and given the eventual indication in discussion that the committee was going to treat this as if it were making the decision it the first instance whether or not he should be banned, presented evidence relevant to why a ban was appropriate, regardless of the nature of the confidential evidence as to the true nature of his admitted COI. Other people presented evidence they chose to submit to support whatever proposals and agenda they wished to pursue in the case. But, at no time did anyone of authority say that the committee sought evidence of any specific kind. If the committee, in its private correspondence, requested evidence as to specific issues, the other editors should be advised of what evidence it sought. Fladrif (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts of interest

5) Editing with a conflict of interest ("COI") is strongly discouraged but not prohibited. This is because a COI sometimes leads to disruption of the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as neutral point of view, what Wikipedia is not, and copyright compliance.

Comment by arbitrators:

Drafted:  Roger Davies ^talk 09:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The whole nature of COI is problematic, and it may be appropriate for us as a community to look into our guidelines and our expectations; I support Jimbo's desire for a robust and trusted encyclopedia where there is no question of impropriety, though I wonder if we are looking down the wrong end of the telescope. We shouldn't be second guessing an editor's motivation, we should be looking at the hard evidence of the edits. We encourage anonymous editing, and then try to seek out who is behind an account to make sure there is no perceived conflict of interest. There is an unpleasant atmosphere of suspicion and distrust around COI, and that is not helped by a guideline that says something is strongly discouraged but doesn't prohibit it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

In what way is the practice of COI editing actually discouraged? It's beginning to look like this COI guideline is an empty and unenforceable suggestion rather than a useful guideline.   Will Beback  talk  05:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Do you feel that "COI sometimes leads to..." is better than "COI may lead to..."? Cla68 (talk) 10:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Will Beback. My suggestion (which is outside of ArbCom's remit) is for the COI guidelines to grow teeth. A respectable, neutral encyclopedia doesn't let random people write themselves into it. ThemFromSpace 06:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Investigating conflicts of interest

6) When investigating possible cases of COI editing, editors must comply fully with the outing policy. Editors repeatedly seeking private information (either via on-wiki questioning or via off-wiki investigations) contribute to a hostile editing environment, which may rise to the level of harassment. Wikipedia's policy against harassment and outing takes precedence over the COI guideline.

Comment by arbitrators:

Drafted:  Roger Davies ^talk 09:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This does point out the inherent difficulty of a COI guideline which focuses on the intention of the editor rather than the evidence of the edits. The COI guideline, and the ethos surrounding it, does encourage investigation of editors which other rules inhibit. I am wondering how much responsibility lies with individual admins following the intent of COI, and how much lies with COI itself. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ThemfromSpace The principle reflects existing policy: the arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Does this cover participating in investigations on public forums, like Wikipedia Review?   Will Beback  talk  05:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Well worded. Cla68 (talk) 10:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this will have chilling effects. Exposing COI editing by utilising public information while not harrassing any editors is a beneficial task that helps the encyclopedia. This FOF goes too far and will discourage such beneficial investigation. ThemFromSpace 06:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to accusations of conflicts of interest

7) Editors accused of having a conflict of interest are not required to disclose private information by way of defence.

Comment by arbitrators:

From the COI guideline,  Roger Davies ^talk 09:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, they are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, which may encourage others to push them to "declare their interests", which is a vague enough term to trap people into revealing unnecessary private information, or even to trap admins into asking for inappropriate information. "Do you work for XYZ company", "What is your connection with Joe Blogs", "Are you the author of ..." are questions I have sometimes seen. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Good call to make this and the following principles clear. Cla68 (talk) 10:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Focus on the edits not the editor

8) Per policy, "as a matter of … effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people." Disparaging an editor, either by repeated questioning or by commenting or by casting aspersions, is a personal attack, regardless of the manner in which it is done.

Comment by arbitrators:

Policy extract,  Roger Davies ^talk 09:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are circumstances when we do focus on the editor; the ethos of COI actually encourages such a focus. If the concern is if an editor is paid or has a connection with the topic (regardless of the quality of their edits), then people are looking at the editor not the edits. So, we are informed to focus on the edits, except for the times when we are encouraged to focus on the editor. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

It's my understanding that this does not apply across Wikipedia. For example, arbitration pages focus exclusively on editors rather than content. AN, ANI, SPI, and other pages also focus on editors. As stated, this principle implies that any such discussions could be viewed as personal attacks.   Will Beback  talk  05:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Littleolive oil: I have not engaged in "repeated offensive behavior" towards TimidGuy or anyone else, and I certainly haven't tried to make anyone "feel threatened or intimidated".   Will Beback  talk  23:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Keithbob: Can you show even three edits I've made about TimidGuy which are unequivocally "offensive behavior"?   Will Beback  talk  04:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

That's not exactly a "policy extract". Nowhere in policy, to my knowledge, is "repeated questioning" considered a form of personal attack.

Secondly, this principle omits a more relevant extract from WP:NPA: Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack, speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense. It seems to me that the question is whether Will's actions fall under the first half of that sentence ("pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest") or its second part ("outing"). MastCell ^Talk 18:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HARASS says: (proposal below on harassment. I decide to quote this anyway as it is so appropriate here.)

Harassment is defined as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely.

And WP:NPA says, "these examples are not exhaustive", the policy is general. I think this depends on the kind of questions and what purpose they ultimately serve. Repeated questions, over and over in an interrogative style, over years, to multiple editors, during content discussions point to intimidation, become a way to attack editors in a personal way, and helps discount their input in discussion. This is harassment, and given the duration, severity, and that it continued after an Arbitration, is a serious policy violation, and more serious given its scope, for an admin.(olive (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

The Evidence Page shows many examples and diffs that draw a picture of a long term pattern of personalized comments designed to undermine other editors during content disputes (and in private emails) via repeated allegations of COI, [and repeated requests for personal info,] despite numerous warnings from fellow editors and Administrators, that this behavior violated policy and needed to stop. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harrassment

9) It is prohibited by policy to disrupt other editors' enjoyment of Wikipedia by making threats, making repeated unwanted contacts, making repeat personal attacks, engaging in intimidation, or posting personal information.

Comment by arbitrators:

Policy extract,  Roger Davies ^talk 09:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

For some reason, the ArbCom would not allow evidence to be posted about editors who have harassed me.   Will Beback  talk  05:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Battleground conduct

10) Wikipedia is not a battleground. Repeated use of community processes seemingly to further ideological disputes is extremely disruptive and creates a toxic environment.

Comment by arbitrators:

Longstanding principle:  Roger Davies ^talk 09:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

There is something missing here: that factional editing is a part of battleground behavior. For example, the matter of stealth canvassing and bloc voting.   Will Beback  talk  05:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Conduct unbecoming an administrator

11) Policy states "[while] administrators are not expected to be perfect... sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status".

Comment by arbitrators:

Standard,  Roger Davies ^talk 09:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked slightly in deference to WBB's comment.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Will, absolutely. That is why any sanction considered in the case will be based on a pattern of conduct that extends beyond any single event. Jclemens (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

The quotation excludes an important part: "Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect."   Will Beback  talk  05:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Paid editing

12) Paid editing is not prohibited though point-of-view pushing is.

Comment by arbitrators:

Added by popular request. This one derives almost entirely from a comment by JClemens, above,  Roger Davies ^talk 16:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Will Beback & Fladrif: Even as I write this, there's a huge banner running across the top of my watchlist inviting applicants to become Wikipedian in Residence at the British Library. This is a paid editing job, focusing on the British Library's collections, and recruiting editors to assist. The principle above easily accommodates such initiatives; your suggestions don't.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Fladrif, some things, like paid editing, are not against policy because the community reviewed the unwritten policy in 2009 and declined to enact it. Paid advocacy, on the other hand is against policy... but not because Jimbo says so, nor because of payment, but because advocacy is against policy. Thus, if there's no proof of inappropriate advocacy, there's no case, and then we're just left to look at the conduct of the other parties to the case... Jclemens (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

This is very incomplete. It should include a statement that COI editing is strongly discouraged and that "editing in the interests of public relations ... is particularly frowned upon. This includes ... professionals paid to create or edit Wikipedia articles."   Will Beback  talk  17:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even more directly, WP:COI says:

• Accounts that appear, based on their editing history, to be single-purpose accounts that exist for the sole or primary purpose of promotion (e.g., of a person, company, product, service, website, or organization), in apparent violation of this guideline, should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked.

The editor in question has been a single purpose editor whose primary purpose has been to promote products, services, and organizations which all come under one umbrella. He has been warned about his behavior, which has continued.   Will Beback  talk  04:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies: First, I'm not seeing an acknowledgement that the COI guideline does cover the issue of blocking single-purpose accounts engaged in promotion. Second, as to the Wikimedian in residence program, I don't get that link so I don't know the specifics. Other WIRs are volunteers.[119] Either way, I would not expect WIRs to engage in disputes over the relative excellence of their institution or its holdings. In fact the guideines for WIRs says: "Avoid conflict of interest, including not directly editing articles about the institution, itself." So I don't think that's the same as a university public relations officer making extensive edits to articles about their employer, his colleagues, and their unique products and teachings.   Will Beback  talk  21:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Keithbob: This section is devoted to discussing proposed principles, none of which are specific to individual editors. None of your links are specifically about TimidGuy, but rather apply to the alleged circumstances in general.   Will Beback  talk  22:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I would suggest that committee find instead "Jimbo Wales has stated "Some things are not policy simply because it's never been necessary to make it policy. It is not ok with me that anyone ever set up a service selling their services as a Wikipedia editor, administrator, bureaucrat, etc. I will personally block any cases that I am shown. There are of course some possibly interesting alternatives, not particularly relevant here, but the idea that we should ever accept paid advocates directly editing Wikipedia is not ever going to be ok. Consider this to be policy as of right now."[120] No consensus has been established to overturn Jimbo's statement of policy on paid editing or that any ban imposed by him for paid editing should be overturned. Jimbo's ban of TimidGuy in this case is consistent with his stated policy of blocking any editor engaged in paid editing, and is consistent with his ban of editors associated with MyWikiBiz and other bans of paid editors imposed by various administrators [121][122][123][124], etc." Fladrif (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@JClemens. It is repeatedly stated at Wikipedia that consensus wasn't reached on paid editing in 2009. That doesn't mean there isn't a policy. Seems to me where that leaves things is, rather, that Jimbo's announced policy that he will ban anyone identified to him as a paid editor will be banned was neither affirmed nor overturned. If you want to hang your hat on "no consensus", you're forced to concede that there is no consensus that Jimbo is wrong, or that his announced policy is contrary to policy. You can hardly be surprised, and you can hardly fault him, for doing in this case exactly what he did in the MyWikiBiz case, exactly what he said he would do in the future, and exactly what many other administrators and committee members have done in may other cases, sometimes summarily, and other times after noticeboard discussion. Of course TimidGuy has engaged in improper adovocacy; that's all he's ever done; it's pretty obvious, reading between the lines of what has been said about the secret evidence, that's what he's being paid to do. Striking contrast between this kind of editing and the way Gingrich's PR guy has participated, which Jimbo says is perfectly OK. Had TimidGuy done the same, which not coincidentially, what he was directed to to at COIN '5 years ago - confine himself to TM article talkpages only - he wouldn't have found himself in this position. Fladrif (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Will Beback continues to allege that Timid Guy is a "public relations officer" [125][126][127] even though Timid Guy has never said these things about himself. This is Outing and it needs to stop. If anyone wants to prove me wrong than please do so by providing a diff where Timid Guy states he is a public relations officer.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Analysis by PhilKnight of evidence presented by Doc James

Prior to the previous ArbCom case

• [128] - removes a sourced section critical of the methodology of scientific studies of the benefits of meditation.
• [129] - next day reverts the restoration of this section
• [130] - in the results section of the abstract, the study says 'Meta-analyses based on low-quality studies and small numbers of hypertensive participants showed that TM®, Qi Gong and Zen Buddhist meditation significantly reduced blood pressure.' However, overall I consider this edit by Timid Guy to be misrepresenting the source.
• [131] - adds sourced content favorable to TM. Doc James is correct this is a lowish quality source, but this is no where near as serious as the above diff.

Since the previous ArbCom case and prior to the 2 month topic ban in August 2010

• [132] mentioning individual studies prior to the meta analysis is unhelpful.
• [133] - this is, again, misrepresenting the source. If a source says 'Meta-analyses based on low-quality studies and small numbers of hypertensive participants showed that TM®, Qi Gong and Zen Buddhist meditation significantly reduced blood pressure', this shouldn't be summarized as 'found that Transcendental Meditation lowers blood pressure' - the nuances and qualifications are too important to remove entirely.
• [134] same again.
• [135] - compared to the above, this isn't serious.
• [136] - not especially problematic as the sources are used elsewhere.
• [137] - same as before - misrepresenting the source.

Since the 2 month topic ban

• [138] - a non-neutral edit.
• [139] - as noted by Cas, this is cherry picking a favorable source.
• [140] - same as above.

Response from TimidGuy to analysis by PhilKnight

PhilKnight, I'm really glad you're taking a close look at this. I kept thinking that it would be great if there were some sort of venue where this could be discussed and debated. I'd like to offer my comments on your comments.

Prior to the previous ArbCom case

• Regarding my 2009 removal, see my explanation here[141].
• Regarding my adding the statement that TM lowers blood pressure, which you mention several times and which is explicitly in the source, note that Doc James says in his evidence that the source says the opposite, which would imply that TM increases hypertension. In fact, citing AHRQ, he wrote in the TM article in Wikipedia that TM "worsens" and "increases" blood pressure.[142][143] Is that an accurate representation of the source?
• Regarding my "lowish quality source," note that it's on the Brandon/Hill list of core medical journals that WP:MEDRS advises is a good guide to high-quality sources for use in medical-related articles. Also note that it's the very same journal that published the quality section of the AHRQ review.

Since the previous ArbCom case and prior to the 2 month topic ban in August 2010

• Regarding mentioning individual studies before the meta-analysis, note that this section of the article is talking about the review of quality, not the meta-analyses. The section says that the research is weak and poor. I thought that by way of background, it would be good for readers to know that these studies have been published in journals put out by the American Medical Association, American Heart Association, and other medical journals. But I had no problem with Doc James moving it lower in the section.
• Regarding this edit[144], I examined the sources cited and the information I deleted wasn't there. I don't see where it uses the word "devotee," where it says "universities tied to the Maharishi," and where it says that many studies have been conducted on subjects with a favorable opinion of TM. Maybe it's there, but I didn't see it. Regarding the latter, it's possible that Doc James is generalizing from four specific studies mentioned in the 2003 review to all TM research but I would question such generalization as original research. Also, regarding "universities...", I changed the wording to "TM organization," which is what the source used.
• Regarding my deletion of two sources, which you say is "not especially problematic," note that I removed them because I couldn't find anyplace where they made a general statement regarding a lack of rigor in meditation research. They were very narrow reviews, examining a total of just six studies between them.
• Regarding this edit[145], it's not clear what was misrepresenting the source. The PMR finding is explicitly in the source. (Also, note that the PMR finding is based on the two highest quality sources out of all 27 that were examined in that major section of the report). It's not clear why the health education finding can be represented in the lead but not the PMR finding. Or the results of the other three meta-analyses.

Since the 2 month topic ban

• Regarding this edit[146], which you say is a "non-neutral" edit, in what way is this not accurately representing the content of the article? However, my preferred version of the lead would be to use just the second paragraph of the lead. I've argued in the past that this would be the best lead for the multiple findings in the article. Would you support that?
• Regarding the alpha wave cherry picking claim, I don't understand the violation. This is a secondary source reviewing primary research. The secondary source describes the study and presents the finding. My reading of MEDRS is that if a research review (a secondary source) discusses a primary source, then that research can be cited, as long as it's not misrepresenting the overall conclusions of the research review. Would it be appropriate to use this source if a qualifying phrase were added about alpha not being well understood?
• And regarding your statement that the geriatric review is being cherry picked, I don't understand what in the guideline would disallow it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

There some concerning edits since the 2 month topic ban, but not many. PhilKnight (talk) 08:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the edit by Doc James claiming that TM increases blood pressure, I can't see where it says that on page 167 of Ospina. It does say "analysis indicated a statistically and clinically significant reduction in DBP in favor of TM® (WMD = -5.19, 95% CI, -10.24 to -0.13) in the long-term studies" where I gather 'DBP' is 'Diastolic blood pressure'. PhilKnight (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the original text ignores the Results from Ospina, P. V, and cherrypicks from the Conclusions, I conclude that it misrepresents the source. Although TimidGuy's edit was far from perfect, it does at least introduce some balance. While I'm reluctant to suggest we review the two-month ban, I don't think it's right to put too much weight on it.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Again, thanks for your analysis. I hope we can discuss this further. TimidGuy (talk) 12:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight -- it would appear, then, that Doc James has misrepresented the source. Have you had a chance to look at the other reviews? Did you find where Canter and Ernst said the negative things that I deleted? If they didn't say these negative things, then was it a violation of policy to delete them? If you don't have these reviews in hand, shoot me an email, and I'll send you the PDF files. TimidGuy (talk) 11:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight — Fladrif points out below that one of the 15 blood pressure studies in the meta-analyses showed that the TM group had a small increase in blood pressure. The Results section of the abstract reports a combined estimate based on meta-analyses of all 15 studies (which showed a statistically significant decrease in blood pressure). Was it an accurate representation of AHRQ to report the results of this single study and ignore the meta-analysis that produced an overall combined estimate? MEDRS says that meta-analyses "combine the results of many clinical trials in an attempt to arrive at an overall view of how well a treatment works." TimidGuy (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James — We're trying to understand why you claim in your evidence against me that TM increases blood pressure. And we're trying to understand in what way I misrepresented the source when I cited the combined estimate for all 15 studies that showed that TM lowers blood pressure -- the finding that's reported in the Results section of the abstract. TimidGuy (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits based on discussions in arbitration workshop comments, please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal/Workshop#ArbCom deciding content. We are not here to decide on or seek consensus about content issues.   Will Beback  talk  21:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply regarding BP

• The edits in question are my very first edits to any article on TM [147] where I added

A 2007 review of evidence on meditation including Transcendental Meditation concludes that firm conclusions on health effects cannot be draw as the evidence base is of poor methodological quality.^[1] Some studies have suggested effects from Transcendental Meditation technique on health-related physiological states, including: increased blood pressure,^[2] no significant effect on cholesterol,^[3]

The increased blood pressure bit was based on "The combined estimate of changes in SBP (mm Hg) showed a small, but nonsignificant improvement (reduction) in favor of NT" and "A subgroup analysis indicated that for the long-term studies there was a nonsignificant improvement (reduction) in SBP favoring TM® (WMD = -5.24, 95% CI, -12.85, 2.37); for the short-term study, there was a statistically significant improvement favoring NT (Figure 28)." I was basing this text on the only "significant" finding in this paragraph.

As I read this paper further I found where the conclusions where summarized on page 4 and replaced what was there previously with better content less than 2.5 hours latter with

A 2007 review of evidence on meditation including Transcendental Meditation concludes that firm conclusions on health effects cannot be draw as the evidence base is of poor methodological quality.^[4] The overall conclusion based on the limited evidence was that TM® has no advantage over health education to improve blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, or level of physical activity in hypertensive patients.^[5]

[148]. I agree that quoting subgroup analysis is data mining and thus not of high quality as a source. I subsequently proposed a summary of the literature here [149]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I'm unclear as to why pre TM Arbcom diffs have been posted here let alone why they are being considered; there have been several advisories to avoid old evidence. (olive (talk) 17:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

@PhilKnight - I can't find it in the discussion archives, but I do recall that on first read back when this was first discussed, I also couldn't find what DocJames was referencing, about increased blood pressure. I asked him about it, as I had misunderstood what he was referring to (I thought he meant that decreases in blood pressure for people who weren't hypertensive is not a positive effect). But it is there, IIRC, and Doc can point those of us who aren't medical professionals to the correct reference. Give him time to respond. All of this is in the talk archives for one of these dozens of articles, as TG well knows, but I can't find it now. Doc will point you to the right place. Fladrif (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The tables on p 166 and 167 show that one of the studies (DeArmond) showed an increase in blood pressure with TM, not a decrease. Fladrif (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed they do, though - unless I missed it - they don't find their way into the narrative. This looks like UNDUE WEIGHT to me.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the tables in question, I agree with Roger that the conclusions as originally presented do not accurately characterize the findings. More to the point, they appear to be picked from an anti-TM POV. Given that the forest plot shows minimal pro- and minimal anti- findings in such close proximity, I'm unclear how any NPOV editor would mention one without the other. I am, to the best of my knowledge, the only arbitrator who's actually had formal education in evidence-based medicine--having said that, Roger's analysis appears correct. Jclemens (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, I have. I'll read as well a bit later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was not based on the forest plot but the text "there was a statistically significant improvement favoring NT" but as stated previously I changed the wording as I read the source in question further, less than 2.5 hours latter.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right, Cas, sorry about that. Jclemens (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not quite sure I believe what I'm reading in this thread. It looks for all the world like Arbitrators are determining the "correct" text which an article should use to present a source. It's one thing to determine whether or not an editor has misrepresented sources, and quite another to put the weight of ArbCom behind a specific wording. You're going way over the line into the latter, which is dangerous territory.

  As a separate matter, you're all missing the point of the AHRQ paper. The point is that published research on meditation is of remarkably poor quality and that no firm, scientifically grounded conclusions can be drawn from the existing literature. Don't bother arguing over the forest plots on page two-hundred-something, or asserting your training in evidence-based medicine. It doesn't require any specialized training to see what the source is trying to convey - namely, that it's no use trying to draw "pro" or "anti" conclusions from the literature, because there is no decent-quality literature upon which to base such determinations. MastCell ^Talk 00:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! In plain English, what AHRQ found was that the highly-touted meditation research that it was funding at MUM and elsewhere was virtually all crap, and the handful of it that wasn't total drek is insufficient to draw any valid conclusions. Editors far smarter than me have been pointing this out for years[150], to deaf ears. Thank you. Fladrif (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has been accused of being an advocate and editing improperly. If the arbs can't analyze the quality and content of the edits and what’s behind them, then how can they determine if TG is improperly editing or is an advocate? They’re not ruling on content, they are using the only fair means available to them to determine if the editor has been editing properly. (olive (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

As I said above, of course ArbCom can analyze the sources to determine whether an editor is misrepresenting them. But this has gone way past that realm, into asserting a particular wording as "correct" and defending it. And editors are already citing the Arbs' comments to buttress their position in this content dispute (e.g. edit summary, [151]). Of course Jayen and especially Cla68 should know better, but the way the Arbs are handling this is practically begging editors to imply they've made a content ruling. MastCell ^Talk 04:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for myself, I treated it as an informed opinion from a previously uninvolved editor with experience in evaluating edits, not as coming from the ArbCom committee. Based on Jayen's comments, he did the same. As I said on the talk page of that article, comments and suggestions such as that one which helped improve the article should be treated with thanks, not criticism. MastCell, I take it you don't agree with the suggested change to the article? I should know better than to consider outside comments on the way something is phrased in an article? Cla68 (talk) 06:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I explained below, a week ago, why I thought the existing summary in the article was poor. If the review's structured abstract, at the very beginning of the document, says, in its only reference to TM,

"Meta-analyses based on low-quality studies and small numbers of hypertensive participants showed that TM®, Qi Gong and Zen Buddhist meditation significantly reduced blood pressure",

• and editors then begin to demur and argue that we mustn't say that in the article, or it's better not to say it, or whatever, because the review authors' own abstract is misleading and the authors need help from more qualified Wikipedians to correctly summarise their research, which is why we need to instead quote something from 13 pages further on in the document that sounds more unflattering to TM, and mustn't say anything else, then all is not well. For the avoidance of doubt, the "comments at arbitration" I was referring to were these: [152][153] --JN466 13:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The conclusion of the AHRQ review could not be clearer: the state of evidence on meditation is too poor to permit any sound conclusions about its efficacy. That's in the abstract, under "Conclusions". This viewpoint is not unique to AHRQ, but is also evident in high-quality systematic reviews of the topic (e.g. PMID 15480084, PMID 16437509). It is an editorial mistake to use these sources to argue for or against a benefit from meditation. These sources are beating us over the head with the fact that the literature is so poor as to be useless, but we seem to have trouble conveying that obvious reality clearly to the reader.

On that topic, I don't understand why we have an entire lengthy article on Transcendental Meditation research. The article should be two sentences long: "Although a number of published studies have examined the health effects of meditation, these trials are of poor quality. Given the methodologic flaws which are pervasive in the published literature on meditation, no firm conclusions can be drawn about its health effects." That's what the sources actually say, but instead we have a long article which gives the (false) impression that there is a substantial body of meaningful research on the topic.

Plus a massive graphic of a forest plot, which totally misses the point. It doesn't matter what the forest plot shows, because the evidence is of such poor quality. Someone looking at the forest plot (which takes up half the screen on my monitor) would conclude that Tai Chi and yoga are "better" than TM. That would be a complete misinterpretation of the actual source, which is saying that we can't possibly know which, if any, of these modalities are beneficial because the literature is useless. It's disappointing how badly we're failing the reader here. And that's really all I have to say on the topic; it's raising my blood pressure, ironically. MastCell ^Talk 18:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this and agree that that is a great summary.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jmh649, you uploaded that forest plot [154] and immediately added it to the TM article. Today you agree with MastCell that having the plot in the article is misleading. Shall we delete it?

MastCell, if a review abstract says, "Meta-analyses show TM to have a significant positive effect, but the evidence is not good enough to allow any definite conclusions, and there is a risk of bias" then it is good for us to represent all three parts of that statement in summarising the source, omitting none. --JN466 22:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstracts are usually 300-500 words long. I find that it's best to look to the "Conclusions" section of an abstract when deciding how best to convey the authors' conclusions. After all, these are the few sentences that the authors themselves chose as best conveying the thrust of their work. I think the sentence you've chosen, from somewhere in the middle of an abstract (?), arbitrarily softens the authors' conclusions.

Do you see the problem? You think it's important to represent those three points in our summary. But when the actual authors went to summarize their work, they reflected only one of those three points - the poor quality of the literature. You're substituting your preferred emphases for the authors' preferred emphases. But I recognize that this is a matter of editorial judgment. It's not that your preferred wording is inaccurate, just that I think it doesn't quite reflect the sources' actual emphases. MastCell ^Talk 01:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'll not be able to convince me that it should be undue, in an article on TM, to reflect the only sentence in a 400-word abstract that actually mentions TM [155]. If the authors reported (1) meta-analysis results for various methods and (2) an overall conclusion in their abstract, then it's surely fine for us to do the same. So, to recap – no, I did not "arbitrarily" pick a sentence "from somewhere in the middle of an abstract". I picked the only sentence in the entire abstract that referred to TM by name. That's the abstract right at the beginning of the source we were summarising, the "executive summary", as it were. And I certainly included the authors' conclusion – that the evidence is not sufficient to allow any firm conclusions to be drawn – along with copious caveats about poor methodological quality and the risk of bias. --JN466 11:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of cherry picking to try to make this report say the exact opposite of what it actually concluded is one of the things that drives me insane about these articles. The conclusion of the AHRQ meta-analysis was that all of the meditation research was crap. It's all useless. You can't draw any conclusions from any of it. AHRQ took a second look at the meditation research the following year, and what it underscored was not "oh, a couple of these studies aren't as bad as the others, and based on those we might conclude....". What it underscored was precisely what MastCell is saying: "Most clinical trials on meditation practices are generally characterized by poor methodological quality with significant threats to validity in every major quality domain assessed. Despite a statistically significant improvement in the methodological quality over time, it is imperative that future trials on meditation be rigorous in design, execution, analysis, and the reporting of results". [156] It is ironic that Jayen had a virtually identical round of this same discussion during the TM ArbCom nearly two years ago, in that case with Woonpton, but there at least admitted that he was proceeding from a preconception based on popular literature that there was all kinds of valid research supporting these kinds of claims of health benefits from meditation, and was out of his depth when it came to understanding what these meta-analyses of the research actually meant. [157] What they mean is that such preconceptions are misconceptions because the research is so fundamentally flawed as to be useless. Fladrif (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the JACM publication wasn't a second look. There was no additional analysis. The authors simply published a portion of the report that had originally been released online and added a bit of discussion. And it's not true that "all" of the research was crap. Ten percent of the studies they assessed scored good or better on the Jadad scale, including some of the TM studies. This report is getting a bit dated, covering only research until September 2005. Also, it only included research on adults. I've heard that Johns Hopkins University is in the midst of a similarly comprehensive review. But likely they'll use an assessment scale more appropriate to behavioral research. TimidGuy (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The TM research dragged that 10% average down quite a bit, with only 3 4 of 230 TM studies included in the meta-analysis being considered of "good" quality. (Would that be a "statistically significant" difference in quality? I'm guessing so.) So, you're right, AHRQ found that only 98.7% 98.3% of the TM research was total crap, and the balance of 1.3% 1.7% based on such small samples and limited scope as to be useless to draw any conclusions. Fladrif (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure your figures are correct. I counted 4 studies assessed at Good on the Jadad Scale, which was only used for the RCTs, right? I've never checked to see how the TM cohort, cross-sectional, etc. studies fared on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scales. Did you? I'd be curious to know what they found. It would involve digging around in the appendices. TimidGuy (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fladrif, you're telling me that it's "cherry-picking" to neutrally reflect what the structured abstract says, right at the beginning of the document. [158] That's absurd. --JN466 19:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's absurd is that someone would argue that this source concludes anything other than that the research is useless and doesn't prove what it purports to prove. It is a misuse of a source like this to be cherry-picking anything other than the authors' actual conclusions. See where is says in big, black letters "CONCLUSIONS"? Where it says the research is all crap and you can't draw any conclusions from it? See that part? That's the part you get to use, not some other part. Otherwise we get people trying to claim that this study shows something that the authors say in no uncertain terms it does not show. And, there's lots of things in this report one could cherry pick from. You've picked one part. I can pick lots of other parts, like the table showing that one TM study had the result that blood pressure in the subjects went up instead of down, or the meta-analysis of the short-term TM studies that showed it was worse than No Treatment at lowering blood pressure. Fladrif (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The abstract has a "Results" section and a "Conclusions" section. Given that TM is specifically mentioned in the Results section, we should report what the authors said there. One sentence is enough room to mention both the Results and the Conclusions that the authors chose to include in the abstract (which is what I did). Furthermore, your assertion that only the Conclusions themselves should be reflected in Wikipedia would have more credibility if Jmh649/Doc James were less insistent about quoting a particular result – one that is not mentioned in the abstract – from 13 pages further on into the report, and if we didn't have a prominently displayed forest plot from page 130 of the same study – again not chosen on the basis that the authors felt it was particularly important, but apparently because some Wikipedians liked it. We are missing stuff the authors chose to put in their abstract, while prominently featuring stuff they didn't put in their abstract. --JN466 20:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I've been quite consistent in my position about what we should and should not say in these articles about the conclusions of the AHRQ meta-analysis. As noted above, a number of other editors with strong science backgrounds like Woonpton and MastCell have come to the identical conclusion as to what use may be made of that source at Wikipedia. That editors such as TimidGuy (and now yourself) have proposed to include things favorable to TM cherry-picked from the report, and still others, such as DocJames, have proposed to include other things unfavorable to TM cherry-picked from the report is irrelevant to the credibility of my position that AHRQ should be cited for a single proposition: the overwhelming majority of meditation research is total crap, and you can't conclude anything meaningful from the miniscule bit of the research that isn't total crap. Fladrif (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accurately reflecting the authors' own abstract is not cherry-picking. Picking something up from page 130 of the report and putting it in our lead, however, is. Frankly, Fladrif, I couldn't care less if what the authors say in the abstract sounds favourable or unfavourable towards TM. But several editors here seem to want to use favourableness or unfavourableness as a criterion to include or exclude material, and that is improper. If you think the study authors' statement that "Meta-analyses based on low-quality studies and small numbers of hypertensive participants showed that TM®, Qi Gong and Zen Buddhist meditation significantly reduced blood pressure" sounds too positive, complain to them, but don't tell me or other editors that we mustn't quote that part of the abstract (along, of course, with the overall conclusion that the evidence is not strong enough to allow firm conclusions). --JN466 23:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayen466, now having read the AHRQ article, I must say it's been a while since I have seen authors emphasis over and over that no conclusions can be drawn because of the quality of the material - and this is really their bottom line. period. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've read this suggestion, or one a lot like it, a long time ago somewhere. [159][160]Fladrif (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we want to summarize and eliminate TM related articles it would be best to consider all the recently created articles such as these 4 articles I've created: Nancy Lonsdorf, Nancy Cooke de Herrera, Transcendence: Healing and Transformation Through Transcendental Meditation, Maharishi and the 12 articles and forks created by Will Beback over the past few years: David Orme-Johnson, Transcendental Meditation movement, Bevan Morris, Maharishi University of Management stabbing, Tony Nader, Maharishi Group, List of Transcendental Meditation practitioners, History of Transcendental Meditation, Maharishi Peace Palace, Maharishi Heaven on Earth Development, MERU, Holland, Maharishi School, Golden Domes, some of which have been called "coatracks" and "fluff" on a talk pages, on a noticeboard and by a GA reviewer.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Jmh649/Doc James to analysis by PhilKnight

My diffs were only a brief analysis of TimidGuys recent edits. I am sure more questionable edits could be dug up without much difficulty. I am currently involved with other projects and thus have a lack of time.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Doc James, you do have a little time to highlight more material that you are concerned with - see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy_ban_appeal/Evidence#Deadlines_extensions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James: I have a general question about this topic, which as a physician you may be able to answer. We have a statement in the TM article that "independent systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation and health education". This strikes me as being oddly phrased, especially when the health benefits of relaxation techniques and rehabilitative education in reducing stress and anxiety, improving pain management, improving (reducing) BP, and so forth, are widely reported and acknowledged. Why, for instance, isn't the statement "independent systematic reviews have found health benefits for TM comparable to those from relaxation techniques and health education"?  Roger Davies ^talk 08:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger, yes there are benefits of relaxation and health education, and often specific therapies purport to have a greater benefit than non-specific ones (which is a key issue around which there is much discussion). Hence there is considerable discourse around the question of greater benefit of different types of psychotherapies vs. supportive councelling (in my profession), which is analogous to this discussion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Cas: thanks for that. However, I'm still left wondering why - in a general encyclopedia and without reference to the medical-profession-specific debate - this is expressed in grudging negative terms ("not found health benefits") rather than neutral ones ("found comparable benefits")? Incidentally, I'd still really appreciate a response on this from Doc James, as a key contributer to this article.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The RCTs in question where done to show superiority over controls and when they do not show superiority conclusions are typically states as "no better than control" rather than "equal to control". If the trials began with the idea to show equivalence to the control than we would be stating that they confirmed equivalence (if that is indeed what the proposed theoretical trials found). The TM organization does claim that it is superior to other meditation practices on its web sites.^[6]--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But most importantly lets look at what the reference in question says before I am drawn and quartered

"A few studies of overall poor methodological quality were available for each comparison in the meta-analyses, most of which reported nonsignificant results. TM had no advantage over health education to improve measures of systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, and level of physical activity in hypertensive patients"

They did not use the term "equivalent" thus neither did I. I however have no problem saying "has health effects similar to..." as it is support partly by the Cochrane review which I added latter but this concern was never brought up or suggested as a way of solving the issues in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James: The other question I have is why if the reference to increased BP is data-mining, didn't you just fix the article? Surely, it's not necessary to obtain consensus before correcting a misrepresentation?  Roger Davies ^talk 08:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did correct it less than 2.5 hours latter. And made many further corrections to other parts of the article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James: sorry about this (I know you're busy) but I have a further question. When editing articles such as this, do you do so primarily from the perspective of a physician?  Roger Davies ^talk 11:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read a lot of medical literature as can be easy to see from the GAs and FAs I have worked on. I write as a Wikipedian in my own time as a hobby. I do not receive financial reimbursement for anything I do here if that is what you mean. But I have had offers which I have turned down. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, just what does this question mean? MastCell ^Talk 22:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without naming names (unless you want to), and just out of interest – what sort of individuals or organisations have made such offers to you? --JN466 13:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

@Cla68: I two responses in reference to your 15:39, 30 December 2011 posting. As for the health benefits of meditation in general, no one is disputing those. However one of the issues with TM is that its proponents argue that it is uniquely effective compared to other meditation techniques, including Buddhist meditation. Another is that, unlike many other alternative treatments, it is presented as a panacea that can provide cures for a vast array of medical and psychological conditions. As for the issue of Wikipedia having a "house POV", it does have one: NPOV. That policy calls on editors to present all significant points of view in a neutral manner, with weight proportionate to coverage in independent secondary sources. We are not here to debunk fringe theories, but we're not here to whitewash them either. Wikipedia has trouble dealing with tag teams of editors who expensive "technologies" which are seen by many as pseudoscience. Consensus is not supposed to trump NPOV, but when there are a number of editors who know each other and support the same POV it is difficult to prevent them from effectively owning the topic.   Will Beback  talk  20:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

"I am sure more questionable edits could be dug up without much difficulty"? That sounds like prejudgement. Cla68 (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it would be useful if someone from arbcom looked through a section of TimidGuys recent edits to the main space. I am working on other stuff. Have seen other concerns but not cataloged them and do not have the energy to dig them up.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James, the "not found health benefits ... beyond relaxation and health education" wording is still in the article now, nearly two years later: [161]. Given that the beneficial effects of relaxation and health education are widely acknowledged, and TM is acknowledged to have similar benefits, the wording does indeed seem invidious. --JN466 13:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above was just paraphrasing the best available evidence.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Before making this outrageous accusation, did you bother to read the source, which says precisely that? It is not invidious to use the same language as the source itself, particularly in proper context. The "have not found" language is particularly apt, since the overall conclusion of the meta-analysis was that no conclusions could be reached as to the claimed health benefits of meditation and there was no reason to prefer one method over another. To turn that around and try to claim that the analysis concluded that TM has beneficial effects, and that they are comparable to relaxation and health education is to falsely misrepresent the conclusions of the AHRQ metaanalysis. Fladrif (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source is here. If I had looked to summarise it in one sentence, I would have gone to the structured abstract on page v. There, the source says, "Meta-analyses based on low-quality studies and small numbers of hypertensive participants showed that TM®, Qi Gong and Zen Buddhist meditation significantly reduced blood pressure", and adds a caveat about study quality. If, in addition, I had wanted to quote the "no advantage over ..." wording, I would have added a little more about the study design, and the ways in which the control groups altered their behaviours (described on page 3). As it is, it lacks context. If this wording is currently used in several articles, based on this source, it should in my opinion be changed. Don't you think so? --JN466 12:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I had to summarise the source, I might write something like this: "According to a 2007 evidence report on Transcendental Meditation and other meditation methods, meta-analyses showed that TM®, like other meditation practices, significantly lowered blood pressure in hypertensive participants. The review concluded however that no firm conclusions on health effects could be drawn, as the studies were of low methodological quality and involved small numbers of participants. When compared to control groups who received health education instead of practising TM®, TM® was not found to be superior to health education in terms of improving blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, or level of physical activity in hypertensive patients." --JN466 13:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@RogerDavies - I'm not going to go through the back-and-forth struggle that predates my involvement with these articles, predates WillBeback's involvement with these articles, and predates DocJames' involvement with these articles. The AHRQ metaanalysis does not conclude that TM has comparable health effects as rest. In addition to the language quoted by DocJames above, it concludes:

The field of research on meditation practices and their therapeutic applications is beset with uncertainty. The therapeutic effects of meditation practices cannot be established based on the current literature. Further research needs to be directed toward the ways in which meditation may be defined, with specific attention paid to the kinds of definitions that are created. A clear conceptual definition of meditation is required and operational definitions should be developed. The lack of high-quality evidence highlights the need for greater care in choosing and describing the interventions, controls, populations, and outcomes under study so that research results may be compared and the effects of meditation practices estimated with greater reliability and validity. Firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence. It is imperative that future studies on meditation practices be rigorous in the design, execution, analysis, and reporting of the results. [Emphasis added]

It is a fundamental and insidious misrepresentation to characterize the AHRQ metaanalysis as finding any benefits for any meditation technique, including TM. The "have not found" language is taken directly from the report. The "have not found" language in the article predates DocJames involvement, though it is difficult if not impossibel to track, due to the the unrelenting efforts by TimidGuy, Olive and others to exclude, misrepresent, qualify, discredit or cherry pick that report to attempt to make it appear to say the opposite of what it actually says. The "have not found" language he used is accurate. What you propose is not. Fladrif (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This, "not found health benefits ... beyond relaxation and health education" appears in three separate articles, and twice in the Transcendental Meditation article: Transcendental Meditation, and in the same article, summary of the research section[162],TM technique, and TM research. (olive (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

• I am, admittedly, a biased observer (although I don't practice transcendental or any other type of meditation) and so far I see more evidence of negative or anti-TM POV editing being done to this topic than "pro"-TM POV editing. Cla68 (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that is the case, then I am concerned that editors may have been pointing to diffs that reflect efforts to correct negative bias, with commentary along the lines of "Look, TimidGuy made it more positive and he has a COI" – because we all know that in the rough and tumble of AE, this may be enough to get an editor like Olive or TimidGuy sanctioned. --JN466 13:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. The thing that occurs to me is that, in my experience living in Japan, meditation is much more widely accepted as a health aid in Asia, especially where Buddhism is an influential belief system. What may be considered as "fringe POV" by western medical advocates in the US or Europe, might be seen as ethnocentristic myopia in my current country of residence. There should not be a "house POV" on transcendental meditation or any other alternative health practice. It sometimes seems that editors who strive to add negative or pejorative information about it often act as if it is inevitable that editors who add any positive, sourced information about the topic are fringe kooks with COI conflicts. So, who is really pushing the most bias here? Cla68 (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh my God, if you two patted each others' backs any more, Fred Phelps would be staging a protest. Is Big Science something else that's out to get you, Cla? Have to add it to my list. 141.0.9.137 (talk) 06:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • You forgot to log in. Cla68 (talk) 10:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis by PhilKnight of evidence presented by Fladrif

Post-ArbCom, Post Topic Ban Editing

• [163] - Not especially keen on the phrase "Research reviews have identified some studies as being "well-designed," "rigorous," or "high quality."" as this isn't fair summation of the sources. It's true, but only in a cherry picking kind of way.
• [164] - The use of "however" is covered by WP:EDITORIAL.
• [165] - A reasonable enough edit, although citing the research directly would be preferable.
• [166] - Appears to be a reasonable enough edit.
• [167] - A somewhat problematic edit. I don't see the value in mentioning the research into a supernatural belief in passing, let alone favorable quoting it's description as a 'new technology'.
• [168] - Appears to be a reasonable edit.
• [169] - Appears to be a reasonable edit.
• [170] - A fairly reasonable edit. Not especially keen on saying 'research', generally better to be more specific, however generally ok.
• [171] - Appears to be a reasonable edit
• [172] - A fairly reasonable edit. Not sure it's actually an improvement, but not especially problematic.
• [173] - Again, not especially problematic.
• [174] - Another fairly reasonable edit.
• [175] - Remains calm in a contentious debate.
• [176] - Obviously it would be preferable to include a reliable secondary source, however I don't consider this edit to be especially problematic.
• [177] - Polite discussion on a talk page.
• [178] - Reasonable edit, especially since he raised the removal on the talk page. If WB wanted to raise the subject at WP:RSN he is free to do so, and if a source is deemed reliable, the paragraph could be reinstated with the source.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Following the above analysis of evidence presented by Doc James, I was hoping for some clarity, however the picture here is as murky as ever. Overall, there have been a few problematic edits by Timid Guy since the topic ban, however also plenty of reasonable edits, and indeed some good editing. To be honest, I think a 1-year topic ban is beginning to look over the top. Perhaps 3 months? PhilKnight (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@JN466 - yes, that's a fair point, maybe even 3 months is excessive. PhilKnight (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Fladrif - I guess I read the diffs differently. I though TG had a discussion with WB, the outcome of which was that primary sources probably shouldn't be used, and that secondary sources were preferable. Following this TG asked WB about whether another paragraph that didn't have a secondary source should be removed. From my perspective TG's conduct was entirely reasonable. PhilKnight (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure whether to comment here or above, probably both - first one is fraught, as it risks if not transgresses undue weight when review articles are discussing global poor quality, second one introduces NPOV term "classic" when stating material is enough, third one is reporting of a single study in a newspaper (material like this gets pruned quickly at many medical articles as secondary sources are required). I'll keep going in the morning as it is late here and I need to sleep. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I am preparing evidence to post shortly which will probably overlap what Fladrif has posted. I reviewed all of TimidGuy's edits since the last TM RFAR in 2010. What I saw is that, while TimidGuy's edits were individually unobjectionable, taken together they consistently added positive material, made it more prominent, or argued for its inclusion, or they removed negative material, watered it down, or argued for its removal. POV pushing and advocacy does not require making singularly outrageous edits: they can be achieved by making many slightly POV edits.   Will Beback  talk  20:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To pick one edit in particular: [179] That added contentious material from poor quality sources. "Beirut Online" is a news portal that simply compiles press releases,[180] etc. and has no reputation for accuracy, especially when dealing with a complicated sociological topic.[181] Another source, which was hotly debated for years and ultimately removed following RSN input, is a self-published website by an MUM professor and colleague of TimidGuy's writing outside of his area of expertise.[182] See also these archived threads, and the 20 (!) older threads linked within:Is the Maharishi Effect paranormal?, Use of self-published sources   Will Beback  talk  21:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Will Beback, I did not use Beirut Online as a source, and you know it. And you know that I wasn't adding that material. I was reverting a non-consensus deletion by you. That paragraph was in the article for years and was written by many hands. You have yourself argued in the past that David Orme-Johnson is an expert and that his website is an acceptable source. And it's not obvious, given that he's an expert on the psychological effects of meditation, that he's not qualified to make the comment that cults use mind control and research shows that TM fosters greater independence of thinking. But I was happy to accept the comments at RSN. But as the evidence shows, you rarely accept the input of uninvolved editors. TimidGuy (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You restored it. We all bear some responsibility for material we add or restore. There is no evidence that I "rarely accept the input of uninvolved editors".   Will Beback  talk  19:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Cla68: This case is an appeal of a ban on an editor accused of paid advocacy, one who has effectively been a single-purpose editor for the past year and a half. The ArbCom asked me to supply evidence that TimidGuy has indeed engaged in advocacy. No one has presented evidence that I or the other editors you list have engaged in paid advocacy.   Will Beback  talk  01:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@CasLiber — I do hope you’ll look at the edits in context, at the sources I used, and at my evidence. I’ll respond in order, using your enumeration, but first a general comment. Note that Ospina/AHRQ represents a point of view. I’ve examined a couple hundred research reviews, and it’s the only one to globally characterize meditation research as “poor.” There was a small controversy surrounding their use of double blinding as a criterion for quality assessment, and even the Cochrane handbook says that double blinding isn’t practical in some types of medical studies. (If, for example, health education is used as a comparator, which is what many of the TM RCTs used, how can the subject be blinded to the treatment and not know whether he or she is receiving health education or practicing meditation?)

To enumerate:

• First: I believe I have accurately represented Shapiro 2003. The authors begin with a short literature review of early “foundational” studies and then go on to review a large group of studies that they characterize as “recent” and “well designed.” This group includes 15 studies on TM. The meta-analysis by Anderson examined 9 RCTs on TM and blood pressure, assessing them using a 19-point quality scale. Three were high quality, three were acceptable, and three were “suboptimal.” I don’t know that it’s accurate to say that this review globally identified TM research as poor quality. Given all of the emphasis on the conclusion of the AHRQ that the research is “poor,” it seemed appropriate, per NPOV, to have a single sentence that other reviews have identified some studies as being well designed and high quality. Other research reviews I’ve looked at make similar assessments.
• Second: It’s very important that this edit be examined in context. Doc James, quoting a 1985 book on religion, wrote that articles were subsequently published which found "that the original findings had been false or exaggerated."[183] I juxtaposed that with a statement from a 2009 research review in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences that referred to the original studies by Wallace et al. as “classic.” And I used “however,”’ because in my mind a recent statement in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences is stronger than a single sentence in a 1985 book on religion.
• Third: Regarding the newspaper citation, I deal with that in detail in my evidence (see my response to Fladrif), which you may not yet have had an opportunity to read. TimidGuy (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

@Phil Knight: Could you clarify please what point/points you are making, I'm unclear as to what you are suggesting, if anything here.(olive (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I see you are adding comments to explain the diffs.(olive (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Phil, just going by your summaries of TimidGuy's edits above – is any topic ban justified? If TG has done good to reasonable editing, with a small number of sub-optimal edits among them, is he actually worse than other editors in this topic area to the extent of deserving to be singled out for a topic ban? --JN466 18:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Diff 93: I believe Will Beback added some or all of this this ," at which all students and faculty practice the Transcendental Meditation technique daily), who has researched the Transcendental Meditation technique and the paranormal Maharishi Effect," although I can't seem to find the diff, perhaps he could clarify, while Oxford73 added this, "which has also been characterized as a 'new technology." [184]. (olive (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

• Re the last four diffs, PK has missed the point entirely. You can't look at them individually or in isolation, but as a whole and as part of a pattern. See analysis above.[185] In the two discussion threads, TG is simultaneously taking diametrically opposed positions on the use of court documents from trial courts, in one instance insisting that it is proper for him to use an unpublished trial court document as a source, and in the other that it is improper for others to use a published trial court decision which has been noted in a secondary source as a source. Yes the discussions are polite. So what? He then includes text based on the source he wants in one article, and in the other articles excludes text based on the source he doesn't like. The continued taking of inconsistent positions on sources to push a pro-TM Org POV, eliminating from articles that which it finds inconvenient, and putting a positive PR spin on the things that he can't get away with deleting entirely, is a clear violation of COI and the TM-Arbcom. Fladrif (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "...while TimidGuy's edits were individually unobjectionable, taken together they consistently added positive material, made it more prominent, or argued for its inclusion, or they removed negative material, watered it down, or argued for its removal. POV pushing and advocacy does not require making singularly outrageous edits: they can be achieved by making many slightly POV edits..." Is the pot calling the kettle black? If WBB, Fladrif, or Doc James were inserted in place of TimidGuy's name in the above quote, and "positive" changed to "negative", would the description fit their edits? Cla68 (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• For example, here, Will Beback calls the staff size of Maharishi U "dubious", giving the appearance that Will Beback edits the topic area from a position of having a negative attitude towards the subject. Cla68 (talk) 04:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just saying the number seemed high, and added a citation request. That doesn't mean I have a "negative attitude towards the subject". Twisting things like this makes the accusation seem mean-spirited.   Will Beback  talk  08:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • The cherry-picking generally seems to occur on the anti-TM side, making sources say things they don't say, and not saying what sources are saying (when they're saying anything remotely positive). Here is an example I noticed a few weeks ago: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_29#Promotion_of_the_TM_movement. That too: still in the article today. --JN466 00:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's unfair to say there is an "anti-TM" side. I, for one, have not expressed any anti-TM sentiments, and I've added lots of positive material on the topic.

The Lynne McTaggart material has been contentious for many reasons. However the matter in question was resolved amicably. "Cherry-picking" is a charge that can be leveled anytime an editor does less than convey every detail from a source.   Will Beback  talk  08:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I think it's unfair to say there is an "anti-TM" side. I, for one, have not expressed any anti-TM sentiments" Oh thank you for saying that. I got a really good belly laugh when I read that. It made my morning. Thanks :-)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Will Beback. You said today to TimidGuy "There is no evidence that I 'rarely accept the input of uninvolved editors'." It appears from your edit history that you often refuse input from editors (even this week); whether they are involved or uninvolved. Here are some examples (I can provide more if you need them):

• 1/11/12 @ LaRouche [[Despite consensus at RfC]: "because of the intransigence and battlefield tactics of one editor, very little has happened to improve the article.” [[186]
• 1/5/12 @ NPOVN “At this board, three independent editors, User:Collect, User:AndyTheGrump and myself are the latest in a long line of people giving similar opinions about Golden Domes. Much the same was said at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_21#Golden_Domes by User:Bigweeboy, User:Itsmejudith, User:Littleolive oil, among others. You appear to be hopping from board to board trying to argue down everyone who disagrees with you.” [187]
• 12/5/11 ‘Will, 'that is your opinion’, and it is clearly not shared by the majority of this project. …please leave and let those who like the scope work.”[188]
• 9/21/11 @ LaRouche “with consensus, Waalkes and Collect have begun removing material as called for in the RfC. Will Beback has revert warred against consensus to try to keep the material.” [189]
• 6/15/11 @ RSN “Please do not continue the disruptive arguing over this. It reeks of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT and is becoming disruptive” [190]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreeing with other editors during a discussion is not the same as ignoring them. In the first example, the comment is made by a single-purpose editor. The mere fact he makes a claim doesn't make it true. In the second example, the input has not been ignored. The fact that someone says a bunch of editors (half of whom are involved) disagree with me partway through a discussion doesn't mean that their input is being ignored. The accusation is forum shopping is absurd, since it was Littleolive oil who suggested going back to the noticeboards for further input. The third case is part of a spirited discussion of the scope of a Wikiproject, one in which as many people agreed with as disagreed, and there no evidence I ignored any input. The fourth case is a claim from Cla68, who calls even a single revert as "edit warring", a standard which does not appear in any policy or guideline. In another of his examples, Keithbob posted a wildly biased heading, contrary to guidelines: "Unreliable Source Needs Removal". [[191]] In the end, we all agreed on how to handle the issue, so it is not at all an example of ignoring input. In short, not a single one of these examples shows me actually ignoring input.   Will Beback  talk  22:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In short, you pay lip service to the expression "if there are any problems with my editing, I am happy to address them" but in reality you believe that you are beyond reproach. So when you are confronted with your mistakes, in black and white, here, or in any Wikipedia forum, you find a way to weave a tale and pretend they don't exist. What you will one day realize is that the only one you are fooling, is yourself. Good luck Will Beback.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have examples of me actually making edits which ignore input from neutral editors that'd be relevant. Posting soapbox declarations from contentious editors taken from the middle of ongoing discussions doesn't prove anything.   Will Beback  talk  01:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of Cardamon's evidence

Comment by Arbitrators:

The comparisons with other TM editors are not really relevant to this case, Cardomon. However, what might be interesting I suppose is a copmparison of TimidGuy's edits by article and article talk page with Will Beback's since 6 June 2010 when the last TM case closed.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Cardamon, note that it's not true that I have an overlapping IP. Ever since that issue came up in early 2010 I've been paying $10 per month for a static IP. It's 76.76.236.22, and it's not dynamically assigned to any other Lisco subscriber. TimidGuy (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I'm not sure of the point being made by Cardamon's evidence. There is nothing wrong with editing from an IP address that is similar to another editor, and there is nothing wrong with doing a lot of editing within the same topic area. There is also nothing wrong with being associated with the topic as long as one is following the WP's policies. This "guilt by association", which appears to be the crux of this case, in my opinion seems to be being used to try to win a content dispute. Cla68 (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some general points on Cardamon's evidence. I'm not sure what the chart is supposed to mean, but if these kinds of stats matter, then concerned parties should note that since TM arbcom, Will Beback has, 1055 TM related edits,which is double the number of edits made by Timid Guy (559 edits). This divergence is even greater when you look at Talk Page edits. Secondly, the chart includes edits I made here at this Rfarb, which hardly qualifies as a "TM-related article". Lastly the data seems inaccurate. For example, I have made 70 edits to the Evidence page [192] but the chart says I made 454 edits. I will also state here for everyone's general knowledge that I have a vision problem and it is difficult for me to read print on a computer screen. I use the preview window and I proofread my comments carefully, but even so, I often end up having to go back and make copy edits to tweak my spelling and grammar. So thank you for your patience with me in this regard. In spite of this, I enjoy copy editing, and I am a member of the Copy Editors Guild, and many of my edits on Wikipedia are copy edits. Cheers,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Keithbob: You wrote "I have made 70 edits to the Evidence page [193] but the chart says I made 454 edits." But you did make 454 edits to the evidence page of the previous TM case. I guess I could include edits to this case, but the numbers would keep on getting out of date. Cardamon (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the clarification. I still think its a bit odd counting edits for an Arbcom, but its your choice. Thanks again for clarifying.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the insinuations about sharing IPs. You say: "TimidGuy, Littleolive oil and Keithbob, was found to have edited using overlapping IPs" and you cite an IP check from 2 yrs ago. Your statement: "this remains true" is accurate in reference to the past, but has no bearing on the present due to the fact that Timid Guy has obtained a static IP (see above) and I left town more than a year ago and no longer use LISCO.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions for Will Beback:

• You said that you also emailed two editors when you emailed Jimbo with your COI allegations against TimidGuy. Which two editors did you email and why did you select those particular two?
• Why did you go to Jimbo with your allegations?
• Which other Wikipedia admins have you emailed with COI allegations about Wikipedia editors?
• What other Wikipedia editors besides TimidGuy have you accused of COI?
• How did you come upon the information that led you to conclude that these editors had COI?
• Why did you, when COI is only a guideline, feel that that justified you in investigating other Wikipedia editors?
• If the editors you accused of COI were making problematic edits, then why didn't you pursue dispute resolution related to the edits and not worry about any possible COI? If you did pursue dispute resolution, then why investigate them for possible COI?
• Do you feel that investigating editors for possible COI is helpful behavior for Wikipedia admins and editors? If so, why? Do you feel it could be interpreted as WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct?
• Since you are yourself an administrator, do you think that when you investigate another editor for COI that it might look like they are being investigated by Wikipedia itself, as in you acting in an administrative capacity in conducting the investigation? If so, do you feel it is ok for Wikipedia's administration to take on the role of investigating participating editors for possible COI, including going out and finding information on their real names and their employment histories?
• Articles about religious, philosophical, or political movements may be edited by editors who are affiliated with those movements. In those cases, do you feel it is appropriate for a Wikipedia administrator to use tactics such as off-wiki COI inquiries, aggressive sockpuppet investigations, continual interrogatory questioning of the motives of those editors, and the like, to expose them or drive or ban them away from those topics or from Wikipedia altogether? If so, why? Do these tactics create an overly-hostile environment? Do the ends justify the means?

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I believe that most of these questions have been answered in discussion between the parties and the ArbCom. Furthermore, several of these questions make incorrect assumptions.   Will Beback  talk  01:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Keithbob: The outing policy concerns the posting of personally identifying information on Wikipedia. Wikipedia ArbCom members, checkusers, oversighters, admins, and editors routinely write things in private emails and off-Wiki forums which would not be appropriate on-Wiki. The only prohibition governing off-Wiki communication of which I'm aware concerns canvassing.   Will Beback  talk  02:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Asked. Cla68 (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Timid Guy's statement on the Main Page of the case: "Will Beback accused me of conflict of interest via private email to Jimmy and Arbcom and two other Wikipedia editors on September 8." So it appears that Will Beback's email went to the entire Committee plus two other editors (and Jimbo). Why did he send personal information to two editors? Isn't this outing? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended the questions based on what Keithbob said. I apologize for the mistake. Cla68 (talk) 02:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Will Beback: Who are the two editors you sent the email to? (in addition to ArbCom and Jimbo)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]