Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:21, 3 January 2012

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]

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

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

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]

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

External conduct

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Paid Editing

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Template

X) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

TimidGuy's Block Log

1) TimidGuy's block log is clean.

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Method of banning

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

TimidGuy's ban

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No on-wiki notification

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Template

X) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

TimidGuy and Will Beback: interaction restriction

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Will Beback desysopped

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

Legitimacy of secret bans

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by 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]

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

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

Template

X) {text of Proposed principle}

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]

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

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

Comment by 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 in his responst to Will Beback: "I have long acknowledged having a conflict of interest". I also note that Will Beback has endorsed this proposal while at the same time saying in his opening statement for this case: "it is inequitable for TimidGuy to deny having a COI on-Wiki" and "TimidGuy denies publicly having a COI". Seems like he 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]

Other comments at this COIN include:[9]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Refusal to follow COIN Findings and Directives

4) TimidGuy has openly defied the directive from COIN that he not edit TM-related articles, claiming that there has never been a finding that he had a conflict of interest and that he had never been instructed not to edit the TM-related articles.[11]

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

Comment by parties:

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.[13][14]

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

*DONE 12/16[15]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.[16] Here's TimidGuy's the lie at SPI about being the 76.76 sockupppet. [17]. Here's the admission that it was a lie, and that he was the 76.76 sockpuppet after all. [18] 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.[19][20][21][22][23][24]

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

*DONE 12/16 [25]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[26], 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.[27]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." [28]

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

DONE 12/16 [29]Fladrif (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

Continued misconduct post-ArbCom and after AE topic ban

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

Comment by arbitrators

Comment by parties

Comment by others

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

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

In the case of the SLAPP suit by two TM-Org entities against the AMA, he argues that an unpublished docket form needs to be cited in order to show that the case was dismissed pursuant to some kind of settlement. He can cite no source that there was a settlement - a claim by Deepak Chopra's attorney that there was a monetary settlement that got published in Newsweek some years later was withdrawn by Newsweek, stating that the report was false and there was no monetary settlement. In fact, in a case widely noted in scholarly media law sources, the Judge in that case had ruled against the TM-org plaintiffs on their motion for an injunction, noting that they had no liklihood of success on the merits of their disparagement claim. Shortly thereafter, the Plaintiffs simply walked away, and the case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. That, however, doesn't fit TG's desired narrative. [30]

Simultaneously, Timid Guy was arguing in another article that the reported decision of the Federal District Court in a lawsuit by a former TM practitioner for fraud should not be mentioned at all because it was a primary source and wasn't mentioned in secondary sources. (Actually, the latter isn't correct either because the decision was mentioned in a article in a magazine published by a religious organization, which he had vigorously argued at RSN some time earlier should not be regarded as a reliable source because it was published by a religious organization.[31]) The case held that the practice of TM and TM-Sidhi was a religion. This was the second case, and third Federal Court to have so held. The decision was affirmed on other grounds, and it was unnecessary for the Court of Appeals to address this holding. TimidGuy first tried editing it but then deleted it entirely on May 27,2011, as well as any reference to it in any other articles. Again, this doesn't fit TG's narrative that TM, TM Sidhi and related products and services aren't a religion, and that the 1979 Federal case Malnak v Yogi barring the teaching of TM in public schools was some "New Jersey" case that only affects a handful of school districts in that state that is an abberation. (He had earlier falsely posted that no other court had ever followed this decision). [32][33][34][35][36]Fladrif (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2012 (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. As this diff shows, Will Beback has edit-warred with TimidGuy. Cla68 (talk) 04:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback and COI accusations

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Will Beback has shared personal details

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

@Keithbob: TimidGuy has repeatedly stated that he is an associate professor at MUM, that he lives in the dorms there, and that he is paid $400 per month,[37] in addition to other personal details. "Paid advocate" is neither a job title nor any other kind of personally identifying information. Will Beback talk 00:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

Support--WP:OUTING says: "Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. (italics from original text) Since Will Beback has alleged on-Wiki that Timid Guy is "MUM faculty"[38] "paid advocate" [39] [40][41] "public relations officer" [42][43] "PR professional", "public writer" [44] it seems safe to assume, at least for the sake of this proposal, that the emails "to other Wikipededia editors" also contained "personal information". Maybe the language in the proposal could be amended to read "personal information about Timid Guy" rather than "details about TimidGuy's personal life".-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jmh649 has edit-warred

5) Jmh649 has edit-warred in the TM topic area [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Will Beback has edit-warred

6) Will Beback has edit-warred in the TM topic area [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] and has openly declared that he will continue to do so [77].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Will Beback has violated WP:BATTLEGROUND

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Proposed, based on evidence presented by Keithbob, yours truly, Littleolive oil, and 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. [78] 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. [79] Will Beback was told twice by an uninvolved editor "Please do not continue the disruptive arguing"[80][81]-- — 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 [82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89] 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:

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

Comment by others:

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

Timidguy editing

~~Timidguy has made some claims which are supported by primary sources,[90] [91] 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: [92]

Review: [93]

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

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

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

@Littleolive oil. The above link includes TimidGuy's 1500 edits for the past year and half since the 2010 RFAR/TMM case, which is the general time frame we're dealing with in this appeal. If we look at all of his edits since 2006 then at least 2,882 out of a total of 3,306 mainspace edits have been made to TM-related articles, or 75%.[94] If we look at his considerable talk page entries, the proportion is even higher. Out of a total of 2,868 talk page edits, about 2,495 have concerned TM-related topics, or 87%. However he has stopped editing other topics to any significant degree since July 2010 so he has become a single purpose editor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by others

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

Link to TimidGuys' mainspace edits.[95]

Will you don't have the right to redefine Wikipedia for your purposes then to try and hold other editors to your definitions. Most frequently edited is not the same as a SPA definition [96]. You’re ether a SPA or not one; you aren’t one because of a limited and cherry-picked timeframe of edits. By that definition, any editor could become a SPA if they focus on one area for a while.(olive (talk) 05:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

My participation in Wikipedia is light and almost exclusively limited to an hour or so in the morning before 6:30 a.m. See WikiChecker for my last 2,000 edits.[97]TimidGuy (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Since TM arbcom (6/6/10) Timid Guy has edited exclusively between 9 and 12 UTC (3am to 6am USA CT), 7 days per week. see link here (it works after a few tries)
Since TM arbcom, 23% of Timid Guy’s edits have been on Community pages, with his most edited page being the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. [98]
Since TM arbcom, Will Beback’s 1055 edits are almost double the number of edits made by Timid Guy (559 edits) on TM related articles.
40% of Timid Guy’s top twenty, most edited articles since 2006, are not related to TM. [99]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed remedies

TimidGuy's ban maintained

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

@Casliber: The issue is behavior. Using Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote a pro-TM POV is clearly unacceptable. TimidGuy admits that he came to Wikipedia to work on the TM article.[100] His editing history shows that his work has been almost entirely pro-TM. It is possible to use Wikipedia for promotional or advocacy purposes without making egregious violations of NPOV. Will Beback talk 21:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[101] - removes a sourced section critical of the methodology of scientific studies of the benefits of meditation.
[102] - next day reverts the restoration of this section
[103] - 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.
[104] - 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

[105] mentioning individual studies prior to the meta analysis is unhelpful.
[106] - 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.
[107] same again.
[108] - compared to the above, this isn't serious.
[109] - not especially problematic as the sources are used elsewhere.
[110] - same as before - misrepresenting the source.

Since the 2 month topic ban

[111] - a non-neutral edit.
[112] - as noted by Cas, this is cherry picking a favorable source.
[113] - 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[114].
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.[115][116] 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[117], 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[118], 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[119], which you say is a "non-neutral" edit, in what way is this not accurately representing the content of the article? However, my preferred version of the lead would be to use just the second paragraph of the lead. I've argued in the past that this would be the best lead for the multiple findings in the article. Would you support that?
Regarding the alpha wave cherry picking claim, I don't understand the violation. This is a secondary source reviewing primary research. The secondary source describes the study and presents the finding. My reading of MEDRS is that if a research review (a secondary source) discusses a primary source, then that research can be cited, as long as it's not misrepresenting the overall conclusions of the research review. Would it be appropriate to use this source if a qualifying phrase were added about alpha not being well understood?
And regarding your statement that the geriatric review is being cherry picked, I don't understand what in the guideline would disallow it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

Reply regarding BP

The edits in question are my very first edits to any article on TM [120] 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]

[121]. 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 [122]

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response from Jmh649/Doc James to analysis by PhilKnight

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Doc James, the "not found health benefits ... beyond relaxation and health education" wording is still in the article now, nearly two years later: [123]. Given that the beneficial effects of relaxation and health education are widely acknowledged, and TM is acknowledged to have similar benefits, the wording does indeed seem invidious. --JN466 13:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

This, "not found health benefits ... beyond relaxation and health education" appears in three separate articles, and twice in the Transcendental Meditation article: Transcendental Meditation, and in the same article, summary of the research section[124],TM technique, and TM research. (olive (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

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

Analysis by PhilKnight of evidence presented by Fladrif

Post-ArbCom, Post Topic Ban Editing

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

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

Comment by parties:

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

To pick one edit in particular: [141] That added contentious material from poor quality sources. "Beirut Online" is a news portal that simply compiles press releases,[142] etc. and has no reputation for accuracy, especially when dealing with a complicated sociological topic.[143] Another source, which was hotly debated for years and ultimately removed following RSN input, is a self-published website by an MUM professor and colleague of TimidGuy's writing outside of his area of expertise.[144] See also these archived threads, and the 20 (!) older threads linked within:Is the Maharishi Effect paranormal?, Use of self-published sources Will Beback talk 21:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Diff 93: I believe Will Beback added some or all of this this ," at which all students and faculty practice the Transcendental Meditation technique daily), who has researched the Transcendental Meditation technique and the paranormal Maharishi Effect," although I can't seem to find the diff, perhaps he could clarify, while Oxford73 added this, "which has also been characterized as a 'new technology." [145]. (olive (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Re the last four diffs, PK has missed the point entirely. You can't look at them individually or in isolation, but as a whole and as part of a pattern. See analysis above.[146] In the two discussion threads, TG is simultaneously taking diametrically opposed positions on the use of court documents from trial courts, in one instance insisting that it is proper for him to use an unpublished trial court document as a source, and in the other that it is improper for others to use a published trial court decision which has been noted in a secondary source as a source. Yes the discussions are polite. So what? He then includes text based on the source he wants in one article, and in the other articles excludes text based on the source he doesn't like. The continued taking of inconsistent positions on sources to push a pro-TM Org POV, eliminating from articles that which it finds inconvenient, and putting a positive PR spin on the things that he can't get away with deleting entirely, is a clear violation of COI and the TM-Arbcom. Fladrif (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Analysis of Cardamon's evidence

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

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 1,205: / Line 1,205: @@
 ::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? &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)
 :::I read a lot of medical literature as can be easy to see from the GAs and FAs I have worked on. I write as a Wikipedian in my own time as a hobby. I do not receive financial reimbursement for anything I do here if that is what you mean. But I have had offers which I have turned down. [[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)
+:::::Roger, just what ''does'' this question mean? '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 22:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 ::::Without naming names (unless you want to), and just out of interest – what sort of individuals or organisations have made such offers to you? --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|J]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|N]]</font><font color="#0000FF">[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 13:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 :'''Comment by parties:'''