Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:48, 29 December 2011

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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.

Motions and requests by the parties

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)

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:NuclearWarfare

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]

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. Them From Space 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Proposals by User:Alexandria

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]

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]

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]

Comment by parties:

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]

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]

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]

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

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:

Notify the affected user that a ban is being imposed;
Notify the affected user as to the terms of the ban;
Notify the community that the affected user is banned; and
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:

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]

Comment by parties:

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]

Template

X) {text of Proposed principle}

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}

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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 at the TM ArbCom: "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 wants to have it both ways.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:15, 23 December 2011 (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.[6]

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

*DONE 12/16[7]]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[8].-- — 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]

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.[9]

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

*DONE 12/16 [10]]Fladrif (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2011 (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:

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.[11][12]

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

*DONE 12/16[13]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.[14] Here's TimidGuy's the lie at SPI about being the 76.76 sockupppet. [15]. Here's the admission that it was a lie, and that he was the 76.76 sockpuppet after all. [16] 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.[17][18][19][20][21][22]

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

*DONE 12/16 [23]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[24], 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.[25]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 flack~~weasel~~ 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." [26]

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

DONE 12/16 [27]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]

Proposals by Cla68

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]

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. Them From Space 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. Them From Space 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]

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]

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]

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. 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]

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]

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]

Will Beback has violated WP:BATTLEGROUND

5) 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:

Comment by others:

Proposed, based on evidence presented by Keithbob, yours truly, Littleolive oil, and presumably 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. [28] 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. [29] Will Beback was told twice by an uninvolved editor "Please do not continue the disruptive arguing"[30][31]-- — 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 [32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] 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]

Proposals by User:Casliber

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]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Timidguy editing

~~Timidguy has made some claims which are supported by primary sources,[40] [41] when medical article sourcing guidelines and verifiability policy indicate secondary sources are required:~~

Comment by Arbitrators:

Incomplete, have browsed bits and pieces thus far. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at:

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: [42]

Review: [43]

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]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:PaoloNapolitano

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

Comments by parties

Comments by others

Analysis of evidence

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

[44] - removes a sourced section critical of the methodology of scientific studies of the benefits of meditation.
[45] - next day reverts the restoration of this section
[46] - 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.
[47] - 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

[48] mentioning individual studies prior to the meta analysis is unhelpful.
[49] - 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.
[50] same again.
[51] - compared to the above, this isn't serious.
[52] - not especially problematic as the sources are used elsewhere.
[53] - same as before - misrepresenting the source.

Since the 2 month topic ban

[54] - a non-neutral edit.
[55] - as noted by Cas, this is cherry picking a favorable source.
[56] - 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[57].
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.[58][59] 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[60], 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[61], 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[62], 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]

Reply regarding BP

The edits in question are my very first edits to any article on TM [63] 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]

[64]. 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 [65]

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]

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"

It did not use the term equivalent to thus neither did IDoc 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 written. 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.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

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]

^ Ospina p.v
^ Ospina p.166
^ Ospina p.167
^ Ospina p.v
^ Ospina p.4
^ "The Transcendental Meditation program". TM.org. Retrieved 27 August 2011. The Transcendental Meditation technique is unlike any other form of meditation or self-development—in practice and results. The technique is distinguished by its naturalness, effortlessness and profound effectiveness.

[1] Ospina p.v

[2] Ospina p.166

[3] Ospina p.167

[4] Ospina p.v

[5] Ospina p.4

[6] "The Transcendental Meditation program". TM.org. Retrieved 27 August 2011. The Transcendental Meditation technique is unlike any other form of meditation or self-development—in practice and results. The technique is distinguished by its naturalness, effortlessness and profound effectiveness.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

@@ Line 1,068: / Line 1,068: @@
 :::@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. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 09:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 ::::@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. &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 11:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
+:::::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.<ref>{{cite web|title=The Transcendental Meditation program|url=http://www.maharishi.ca/10-facts.php|work=TM.org|accessdate=27 August 2011|quote=The Transcendental Meditation technique is unlike any other form of meditation or self-development—in practice and results. The technique is distinguished by its naturalness, effortlessness and profound effectiveness.}}</ref>--[[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) 13:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
+::::::But most importantly lets look at what the reference in question says before I am drawn and quartered
+::::::<blockquote>"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" </blockquote>
+::::::It did not use the term '''equivalent to''' thus neither did I[[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) 13:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 ::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? &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 08:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 :::I did correct it less than 2.5 hours latter. And made many further corrections to other parts of the article.[[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) 13:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)