Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Evidence

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: Dougweller (Talk) & AlexandrDmitri (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Roger Davies (Talk) & Cool Hand Luke (Talk)

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

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

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

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

Evidence presented by Will Beback

The TM topic has been a problem for years. Peterklutz and his socks battled with some "anti-" editors known for their RL advocacy against the movement. Another major TM editor was "Vijayante", originally known as Maharishi International Publications Department. Those editors were blocked repeatedly. In more recent years the "anti-" editors seem to have departed while new TM editors appeared. By mid-2009 there half a dozen TM editors with only one editor who routinely championed the "anti" view, though he was uncivil and realtively ineffective. That's the situation I saw last summer.

Dozens of editors who're generally uninvolved in the topic have complained about the POV of the articles or other aspects of their editing. See: Complaints There have been numerous noticeboard and other postings.

Seven editors have made logged-out edits showing that they've edited from IPs in Fairfield, Iowa, home to a 2,000+ member, TM-oriented community, perhaps the largest in the world and the headquarters of the US movement.

Team editing

TM editors have dominated TM-related articles.

• The TM editors make the most edits to TM-related articles and co-edit many articles: See user:Will Beback/TM tables, UserCompare and Wikistalk

TM editors have engaged in various team editing practices. For example:

• For years these editors have made agreed between themselves to limit the topic of the TM article to keep out material on the movement, then deleted the material related to the movement (mostly negative material characterizating the movement as a cult or NRM), then objected to creating an article about the movement. The "movement vs technique" issue. It's an example of how the editors have exerted ownership of the topic.
• "Sexy Sadie"- For years, the TM editors have been removing from the biography any mention of a song by John Lennon which criticizes the Maharishi. The removals have violated NPOV, but the defense is that it was OK since they all agreed to it.
• MUM stabbing - TM editors have agreed to minimize and remove material on lawsuits concerning the movement, including one which alleged negligence concerning the widely reported murder of a student on the MUM campus.

TM editors have co-edited articles with no connection to TM: [1][2][3][4][5]

TM editors have literally "tag" teamed. One editor marked non-contentious material in the Deepak Chopra article with {fact} tags, then another deleted the text.

• Tagged: [6][7][8][9][10][11]
• Deleted: [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]

TM editors have !voted together:([20] and [21]), ([22], [23], and [24]), ([25] and [26]), ([27] and [28]), etc.

A leaked document posted on an "anti-TM" blog describes a plan to coordinate responses by TM insiders to blog threads that concern TM.[29] It refers to the existence of "team captains" who can coordinate a team response, including handing off issues from one person to another in cases of disputes. Two separate bloggers have complained about what appear to be sock puppets posting in the comments section.[30] In one case, a TMer wrote, "sorry, glory dog and I live in the same house, share a router with the same satellite server, but use two different computers, which probably more than anyone wanted to know. i could go downstairs and use my wife's cable DSL, if that would make you happy. it would show a different IP."[31] Among the usernames that frequently post to these blogs are "Tim Guy" and "Kbob108", which are reminiscent of TimidGuy and Kbob.

In two instances, inexperienced TM-editors interacted with non-TMers in such a way that it implied off-wiki communication:

• Hickorybark asked Rlevse for help, despite having no contact with him previously. Previously, other TM editors had come to Rlevse for help and advice.[32]
• Roseapple had no obvious contact with Dreadstar or !voted in any other RFA.[33]

• TM editors have made the same edits, teaming in an edit war:[34][35][36][37][38] (The inclusion of these links is debatable - the point here is the team editing: [39][40][41])
• Non-TM editors have been blocked for edit warring with TM editors, who've avoided individual blocks through team editing.

• I'd also like to draw attention to evidence of POV team editing that was added to the workshop page by an editor who isn't a party to this case: [42]

Individual editors

Common issues

The TM editors have all removed sourced, negative material from articles. They have also dealt with negative material by adding longer rebuttals and "balancing" material, even when if of unequal weight. 3RR-type edit wars have been rare, partly to the obvious pointlessness of edit warring against a team. They are polite.

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT: The TM editors have opposed or ignored input from outside sources, including feedback on COI editing, (thread,thread) the "Sexy Sadie" matter, and the recent feedback from WT:MEDRS, (thread), and WP:FRINGE/N (thread), and WP:RSN (thread). They're calling something a policy violation even though the WP:BLPN folks said there was no problem.thread

Evidence pages

The TM editors all espouse the same point of view. Their edits to TM-related pages as of February 20 are in parentheses, showing different levels of participation.

• /TM-Keithbob (5546) Kbob is the leading editor on over a dozen TM-related articles. 54% of all his edits have been to TM-related pages.

• /TM-Littleolive oil (4952) 69% of her edirts have been to TM topics. She is very aggressive on talk pages, and is the leading contributor the main TM-related talk pages.

• /TM-TimidGuy (3586) 76% of TG's over 4,700 edits have been to TM articles.

• TM-Bigweeboy (2253) Bwb often agrees enthusiastically with other TM editors, and has also engaged in plagiarism.

• /TM-Luke Warmwater101 (313)

• /TM-ChemistryProf (242)

• /TM-Roseapple (223)

• /TM-Hickorybark (49)

• /Other accounts

• /TM-Dreadstar Dreadstar has had a close relationship with some of the editors and has significant involvement with some articles related to TM. He has blocked or given admin warnings to users in disputes with the TM editors.

Other

• /TM background
• /TM-Personal editing
• /Saga of Sexy Sadie

Evidence presented by Jmh649 (Doc James) (984 words)

To summarize my concern we have a small group of editors associated with the TM movement who have been actively promoting TM while suppressing the general scientific / legal consensus regarding said movement. Issues of WP:CIVIL are minor with the main issues being WP:RS, WP:DUE, WP:COI, WP:AGF and WP:NPOV.

Consistent misrepresentation of the research

I first edited this topic area Jan 19 2010 after coming across a discussion at WP:MED[43]. My first edits were adding a 2007 review article which was somehow missed in favor of primary research from the 1970s. [44]. One issue since then has been multiple attempts to obscure and / or misrepresent the conclusions of this review by editors from TM movement. I have provided example below.

Most of the results of the review were removed from the lead here and the remaining bits were reworded to make it less understandable by Olive [45] Again Olive tries to change the meaning of the text to make it sound like this review is limited rather than the evidence it is based upon being limited. [46] and again [47] An attempt to reword it so that the review does not appear to related to TM [48] Here TimidGuy attempts to obscure the conclusions of the review [49] And again[50] and again [51] Here he claims a different review is an update of the 2007 review which it is not [52] Here Chemistry Prof attempts to weaken the conclusion [53] And again [54] And again[55]

I subsequently added a Cochrane collaboration which was not in our article. Here TimidGuy adds text not in the summary of this review in what appears to be an attempt to weaken the conclusion [56] And again[57]

Editors primarily edit TM related pages (WP:SPA)

1. User:Keithbob Most edited article is TM (630 edits) with 9 of 10 most edited articles TM related.[58]
2. User:TimidGuy Most edited article is TM (802 edits) with 6 of 10 most edited articles TM related.[59]. Over at simple english all 15 edits TM related.[60]
3. User:Littleolive oil Most edited article is TM (591 edits)with 5 of 10 most edited articles TM related.[61]. Over at simple english all 50 main space edits TM related.[62]
4. User:Bigweeboy Most edited article is TM (383 edits) with 9 of 10 most edited articles TM related.[63]
5. User:ChemistryProf Most edited article is TM (30 edits). [64]
6. User:Dreadstar Second most edited article TM related (What the Bleep Do We Know!?) (213 edits). [65]

• This group has by far the most edits on the TM page [66]

WP:AGF

• KBob sees those who disagree with him as the "enemy" [67]. TimidGuy says that we should use WP:MEDRS sources for health claims which I agree. Yet here TimidGuy and KBob complain about my removal of non compliant sources.[68] [69]

My editing

I have edited enthusiastically at times and have make mistakes early on. I do acknowledge the transgressions that Kbob refers too which occurred about a year ago. I have been involved in controversial topics such as Obesity, Rorschach test, and ADHD and have had my share of mud thrown at me. However in all of these instances my edits have remained firmly on these pages supported by the majority. My edits WRT TM are also well referenced and supported by consensus. Well I have editing many thousands of pages I have brought one to GA, Obesity.

If you look at Keithbobs diffs you will find that the "well sourced" references are primary research studies from the 1970s and 1980s. If one compares an earlier version of Transcendental Meditation just before I started editing [70] to the current one [71] as Luke Warmwater101 suggests it is easy to see that the medical aspects of the page have become a lot more compliant with WP:MEDRS.

Wikipedia needs to be evidence based and based on the best available evidence. Using the highest quality reviews on controversial topics is a must. One must remember that extraordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence. The fact that this is the same organization that claims that TM can give one eternal life, allow one to fly, and become invisible at will should make all of us skeptical. To top this of we than have the recent review done by the University of Alberta Evidence-based Practice Center [72] under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [73] and Cochrane review [74] that both concluded that TM was not different from health education / relaxation therapy.

POV

KBob's table: only conclusion it seems is that as time goes on more people are questioning the editing being done by these 6 MUM staff / TM instructors. In 2009 there was just two people trying to deal with this. Now we are up to five. Wondering if you can add tables for 06/07/08? [75]

WRT claims that we have editors on "two sides" if one look at the section on characterizations [76] what we were missing regarding TM was the POV of the US, French, German, and Israel governments. As well as the POV of major scientific figures, religious leaders, and "anti cult" groups. The POV of these organizations is now provided along side the self characterizations made by the TM movement. Carl Sagan has referred to the movement as pseudoscience in one of his books. There were attempts to remove this. The US courts deem TM a religion and there have been attempts to remove this as well. James Randi a well known expert on pseudoscience has also commented on TM and we have had attempts to remove his comments. [77]

Far fetched aspects of TM were also omitted. For example an "advanced" form of TM which supposedly allows you to fly, makes you invisible, as well as provides eternal life was not discussed. The Maharishi Effect was not mentioned ( where supposedly if enough people practice TM crime will decrease ).

I have been accussed of POV. These however are not my POVs but those of reputatable governmental and scholarly references as referenced here [78].

Evidence presented by Keithbob

WillBeback

Is a civil and highly skilled editor who Game's the System with Mis-Representation of Evidence, [79][80] Ownership, [81] POV, [82] Collaboration to Delete Sourced Content, [83][84] Support of Disruptive Editors, and COI Harassment.[85] [86] His evidence presentation rarely mentions specific editors and uses 4yrs of diffs to paint a dark picture of all who challenge his ownership and POV. He makes maximum use of suspicion and conspiracy theories to propel his assumptions and agenda. Under his passive-aggressive style of leadership the Transcendental Meditation article has become skewed, inaccurate and poorly written. IE this section [87] gives undue weight to a)religious b)pricing c)tax denial.

A Pattern of involvement in contentious articles on alternative organizations (PremRewat, LaRouche). In PremRewat2 WillBeback was admonished [88], restricted and blocked for improper behavior.[89] Criticized at Prem Rewat for POV pushing “[WillBeback] should not be allowed to push his opinion against other editors the way we are witnessing currently”.[90]

Evidence Mis-Representation

WillBeback's evidence is outdated and misleading (ie. shows collaboration and discussion, so what's the problem?) including the "Sexy Sadie" and "MUM lawsuit" edits.

• SPI: This diff [91] shows my deletion and discussion request which WillBeback reverted [92] Will mis-represents this as "3RR violation/edit warring"[93]
• Case page: In this talk diff [94] I proposed deletion of the MUM lawsuit/stabbing, from the TM article. There was consensus. WillBeback/Fladrif were present, but chose not to participate. After 7 days, I made the change. WillBeback misrepresents this as "tag team editing"[95]
• SexySadie: Civil, neutral, editing is blatantly misrepresented as POV. See my 'at a glance' diffs here [96]
• Off WP collusion—No evidence, just more assumptions and guess work based on web surfing. Should I do a web search for “WillBeback”?
• MUM Research-- Misrepresentation of discussion as "complaints".
• PremRewat Arbcom: User:Jayen644 reports seven "misrepresentations" of evidence by WillBeback resulting "from frustration leading to errors in perception" [97]

POV Team

• WillBeback POV: “new religious movement, has been called a cult, and has been accused of promoting fringe theories and pseudoscience, including dubious medical treatments."[98][99]
• Created the Maharishi University of Management stabbing article and entered in Did You Know[100]
• Defends Disruptive Behavior: Fladrif[101] [102] Jmh649 [103] KalaBethere [104] RFARB[105] [106][107][108]
• Communication: "[Fladrif] if you'd like to chat” (Fladrif declined) [109] and KalaBeThere: "I can send you some other materials"[110]The talk pages indicate that WillBeback, Jmn649 and KalaBethere communicate with each other in 'real life'.
• Collaboration: To delete sourced content [111][112][113]
• Coaching: Fladrif [114] and KalaBeThere [115] re: “formal dispute resolution”.
• RFARB Tag Team [116]

Ownership

• “I wouldn't want to come back to this article in 2011 and find that it's been removed again” [117]
• "desist from editing the articles actively. They're good enough already." [118]
• He created, and has 30% of the total edits for Transcendental Meditation movement.
• Placed wikilinks for 'his' TM Movement article in the lead of almost every TM related article and made it the template hub for every TM related article, replacing the prior template hub for Transcendental Meditation. When his TMM wikilink was edited out of the lead on one article [119] he put it back. [120]
• 12/31/09 WillBeback made 40+ edits to TM articles.[121]

COI Harassment

While I agree with WillBeback's objective of resolving COI issues his methods constitute harassment. [122]

Assumes guilt, accuses the editor, implies the need for personal information in order to prove their innocence [123][124][125][126]

Pronounces the editor to be “dishonest” or guilty of COI because they won't provide personal information [127][128][129][130]

Redefines as needed: “significant commitment” [131] “neighbors”[132] other [133]

Insults, badgers, intimidates[134] [135][136][137][138][139]

User:Fladrif Incivil

• Blocked: WP:NPA[140][141][142][143]
• Edit Warring [144]
• More[145][146][147][148]
• RFARB:[149][150][151][152][153][154][155]
• RFARB Admonishments:[156][157][158]

User:Jmh649 Disruptive/POV

• Previous ArbCom: edit warring, uncivil, six-month restriction [159] violated and blocked[160]
• First Day: Massive deletions of published research [161][162][163][164][165][166][167][168] despite objection [169]
• Threats [170][171] 3RR [172]
• POV: cults [173] pseudoscience[174][175] opposing editors [176]
• After 30 days Transcendental Meditation 4th most edited article, 26% of all 2010 edits. [177][178]

New!--KalaBethere and Tuckerj1976

SockPuppets or MeatPuppets? Technology that beats the CU system may exist and The7thdr is a determined sock with 5 previous incarnations. [179] Both accounts are SPA's with strong, parallel POV. I urge the Committee to examine the compelling behavioral evidence. [180]

KalaBethere 90 Days of Incivilities

• "vandals" [181][182][183][184]
• More:[185]

Kala Bethere: POV

• First Day:[186]
• “utter disgust and contempt”[187]
• Cult[188]
• “TM junk science"[189][190]
• "Advertisement quality research"[191][192]

Tuckerj1976: 30 Days of Disparaging Comments

• “Timidguy and to any of your potential sockpuppets... difficult to take you seriously"[193][194]
• “the TM org Sockpuppets” [195]
• “Harassment, Peer-review, biased research/journalism against TM and Coincidence, are these TM mantras?” [196]
• “that they have now been confirmed to be sock/meat puppets” [197]
• “are you still insisting that I am at least three different people?”[198]
• “Any evidence provided by these editors must be seen within this context of possible confusion.” [199]
• “it is not the first time you have.... removing it later when it seemed no one was looking” [200]
• “true believers” [201]
• “collusion, manipulation and outright dishonest editing.”[202]
• “Extremist pro TM editors" [203]
• "Kbob:Grow up"[204][205]

Tuckerj1976 POV

• First day: “members may have affiliations with said organization.” [206]
• “enormous astroturfing ...by the TM organization” [207]
• “confirmed your locations and that you share computers” [208]
• “findings were that TM is a religion” [209]
• “TM movement.... has clear political and economic goals. [210]

Puppetry: KalaBethere and Tuckerj1976

• SPI/RFARB[211][212][213][214][215][216]
• TM Talk Threads[217][218][219][220][221][222]

Evidence presented by Fladrif

My first edits at Wikipedia were in late Feb 2008.[227] A year and ~250 edits later, I looked at the Transcendental Meditation article because I was interested what other articles editors I had interacted with were involved. On TM talk page discussion of Neutrality Tag I wrote that, as an outsider with no interest in either the subject matter or in editing the article, the article did not appear to be neutral.[228] A few week later, again looked at the TM article. I noted tag-team edit-wars by TimidGuy[229][230], olive[231][232] and an IP editor to exclude reliable sources[233] and to misrepresent others[234] The editors involved were faculty members of Maharishi University of Management who had stated that their purpose as editors was to edit the TM articles. WP:COIN had addressed this problem previously, but decisions there were openly defied. The futility of dealing with concerted and coordinated efforts to resist correction of these problems, led me to started a new thread a COIN.[235]

TM Movement employees push the POV of the TM Movement

• The COIN archives document with diffs POV pushing [236]

• Two editors state they are MUM faculty. See SPI. Other editors posts suggest they are also MUM or other TM Org employees, and closely associated with TM Org officials.
• Average salaries for MUM full-time male($15,692) and female ($7,296) faculty are only 22% and 10%, respectively, of national average faculty salaries ($71,100)[237], less than half the lowest salaries reported by the American Association of University Professors.[238]
• Anonymous IP addresseslink title assigned to TM Org push the POV of the TM Movement.[239], [240] [241].

• KBob strongly pushes the TM Org’s POV. Examples include:

-100+ edits in a row, without discussion, removed and misrepresented reliable sources and substituting non-reliable sources [242]

-Deleting reliably-sourced material, first claiming that the source was “biased”, [243], then falsely claiming that the source didn’t contain the material. [244]

-Advocating removing mention of the Maharishi’s first book on Transcendental Meditation, a “banned book” within the TM Org. [245].

-Trying to delete text that the TM-Sidhi program claims to enable invisibility, walking through walls, superhuman strength, flying, etc...first claiming bias, then falsely claiming that the reliable source (JAMA) didn't mention TM-Sidhi, then Olive starts wikilawyering that it would be copyright infringement to cite the source.[246] Olive then, TODAY - OVER A YEAR LATER, tendatiously repeats KBob's false claim that the source didn't mention TM-Sidhi, claiming that the source and text should be removed![247]

TM Org Astroturfing through employee sockpuppet/meatpuppets

SPI's findings are conclusive. Relevant information posted at RFA.

Sockpuppetry by pro-TM editors is nothing new.[248]

TM Org astroturfing not confined to Wikipedia.[249] [250][251][252]

TimidGuy is the 76.76 sockpuppet; dissembled at COIN, initially lied at SPI before later admitting it.[253].

TM Org editors create a hostile editing environment

• Create hostile editing environment. Baseless accusations of bias, intimidation and incivility, COI , and tendatious refusal to comply with admin directions or to conform to noticeboard consensus. [254][255][256][257][258][259][260][261]

• Frivolous sockpuppetry allegations[262]

• Drive off neutral editors.[263]

• Multiple legal threats against other editors, claiming libel, copyright and trademark infringement. TimidGuy consults with MUM and Maharishi Foundation Ltd general counsel, stating that he must do so. [264][265][266][267][268][269][270]

Dreadstar

Dreadstar closelyconnected to TM editors, abuses admin tools, using threats to intimidate other editors. Multiple editors and admins have noted and commented on this connection, bias and abuse.

Responses & Rebuttal

@ KBob

• Doc's edits followed WP:MEDRS and unanimous consensus of uninvolved editors at FTNB, RSNB and Project Medicine[271] [272] [273][274][275] Fladrif (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• I do not suffer fools gladly. I have had my hand slapped as a result. I stand by the substance of every cited diff.
• I have no contact off wiki with any editor.[276][277][278]
• Claim that I cited unreliable source is false.[279]

@ TimidGuy

• Fringe Theories NB concludes TG misrepresented AHRQ study after unsuccessfully attempting to delete it

[280]

• Deleted Hendel v WPEC, then argues misrepresentation but never read the source![281][282]
• TG's quote from Grohol's website is interesting, but another observation by Grohol, which TG omits to mention is far more relevant to this ArbCom: But it’s no wonder the research section of this article makes little sense, as a quick look at the Discussion tab makes clear feuding editors battling for control about tone and focus.

@ Hickorybark

• Says other are "hostile" "ignorant" and "deranged"?[283]
• special pleading They alone are qualified; all others are uninformed, biased. anduncivil. Occams razor explains this:[284]
• Admits to being Hagelin colleague
• MUM stabbing shows no bias. [285][286][287][288][289][290]

-

@ Dreadstar

Incorrect timing on your bogus outing ban; my mistake. Withdrawn.

• TimidGuy and I worked cooperatively and cordially on Warnborough.[291]
• Misapply COI policy and not a good faith position
• I asked TG if he had connection to Warnborough, he said no. The end.
• WP:Call a spade a spade applies. Cited diffs, in context, show the extent of TM Editor abuse and violation of Wiki policy. Pointing that out, even in strong terms, is not the problem here. Fladrif (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

@ David Spector

• David posted that Will Beback is a neutral editor.
• I have no connection with TM, its competitors, nor any org opposed to it.
• Editors employed by competitor or org opposing has a COI & should not edit directly.

@ ChemistryProf

• CP et al edit warred to remove reliably-sourced assessments of Hagelin and his research, and "neutralize" criticism. Uninvolved editors at BLPN supported me, and said CP was emotional.[292][293]
• Has pushed "drug company conspiracy" similar to deleted sock editor post.

Evidence presented by Kala Bethere

Sockpuppet investigation started by Kbob closed when found to be unquestionably  Unrelated.

My concern would be that Keithbob's sockpuppet accusations are merely a "fake attack" to divert the criticism he personally has received recently with his own editing issues.--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

User Kbob's accusations were found to be unfounded and the alleged "socks" unrelated in any way by two Checkusers. "* I agree that the users are unquestionably  Unrelated.Brandon (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

{{SPIclose|archive}}"... was the conclusion of the final Checkuser.--Kala Bethere (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing by Primary Sources

A popular method of Disruptive/Tendentious Editing by TM-advocates is to insert many different scientific papers...often penned by TM movement employees or TM associates. These constitute blatant insertion of primary sources and a deliberate attempt to comprise the integrity of WP. Therefore such deliberate acts constitute Disruptive and Tendentious Editing and go against the spirit of WP policies.

Here's a relatively brief list of editors deliberately Disruptive Editing the Transcendental Meditation entry by adding Primary sources, all by well-known TM movement affiliates. As I have time and resources, I will add others. Please feel free to use my user page for examples I may have missed.:

TimidGuy Wallace RK. Physiological effects of Transcendental Meditation; Wallace RK, A wakeful hypometabolic physiologic state. American Journal of Physiology ; Travis, F. T., Tecce, J., Arenander, A., & Wallace, R. K. (2002); [294] TimidGuy, Physiological differences between Transcendental Meditation and rest [295]

TimidGuy, Electrophysiological correlates of higher states of consciousness during sleep in long-term practitioners of the Transcendental Meditation program, Patterns of EEG coherence, power, and contingent negative variation characterize the integration of transcendental and waking states, Psychological and physiological characteristics of a proposed object-referral/self-referral continuum of self-awareness, [296]

76.76.233.169 adds avis, F.T. & Wallace, R.K. (1999). EEG and Autonomic Patterns during Eyes-Closed Rest and Transcendental Meditation Practice: The Basis for a Neural Model of TM practice [297] after KeithBob had added a sentence describing it.

At my start of posting to TM-related entries on WP, I was amazed at the amount of primary sources being used. I also found solid opposition by the defendants in the TM-org related IP sockpuppets case's seemingly organized opposition to the removal of these violations of WP use of sources, where bias and primary sources hold little value.

I posted some of these to the TM entry talk pages. TM-related users began immediately trying to modify them. So I began collating lists of primary sources on my user page. It has been helpful, as it turns out that such sources were badly in need of removal and replacement with reliable, independent reviews, which were already commonly available for decades, with some being quite recent. I could see in the past inclusion of these reviews had been contentious, much of their conclusions had been removed slowly over time as the core group of TM editors controlled content, esp. as disgruntled reformers would eventually leave, it appears due to consistent pressure from these same TM sockpuppet defendants. --Kala Bethere (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence against users TimidGuy and LittleOliveoil

Cherry-picked material inserted from study to attempt to modify overall conclusion of review which shows TM research is overall, poor in quality. By comparing TM with no controls, it compares Transcendental Meditation to "no treatment". Almost anything compared to "no treatment" can be shown to show some change of some kind (e.g. compare someone with eyes open, to eyes closed and measure some physiological parameter). The study inserted, conveniently uses no controls, and was inserted without consensus.

It looks like LittleOliveoil is the most recent editor vandalizing research sections of Transcendental Meditation entry by restoring TM poor-quality, non-controlled research material that fits a pro-TM agenda [298]; it looks like it was originally added by TimidGuy [299].

Editing changes by checkuser confirmed likely sockpuppet/meatpuppet Littleoliveoil and checkuser confirmed direct IP match sockpuppet TimidGuy appear to be tag team editing and vandalizing this TM-related entry by deliberate use of unreliable sources pushing a pro-TM agenda. For evidence of checkuser showing sockpuppetry and/or meat-puppetry of these two editors, please see this ref [300].--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Likewise users such as LittleoliveOil also often feign not hearing that ""Peer review is an important feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, but it is not the same as acceptance" which to me represents a refusal to hear, a hallmark of tendentious editing, esp. when used to maintain the insertion of biased, TM Org produced or related Primary Sources.--Kala Bethere (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

913 words

I thought this page was being "protected"? I stopped posting evidence a while back and instead had to work on cutting it down (without knowing how to do so), yet other editors keep posting on and on. That doesn't seem fair to those of us who stopped when we were told last week! I've lost a whole week of material I could have added.--Kala Bethere (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Tuckerj76

Kbob grow-up

Like everything else he/she has stated above, ref edited to change meaning/take out of context , Real edit here [[301]]

Evidence regarding the none NPOV and editing history of the following editors:

Kbob: [[302]]

• [[303]]

• [[304]]

• [[305]]

BWB:

• [[306]]

Timidguy: *[[307]]

New! KBOB: Evidence that he promotes TM around the net, pretends he does not know about the movement, works with LittlOlive Oil off Wiki

(All of this assumes wiki Kbob is off WIKI Kbob108 although I will present evidence that he has at least once worked directly with Little Olive Oil off WIKI and signs his posts as Kbob.)

Promotes TM on Wiki questions by asking a question he knows the answer to and then answering it immediately [[308]], [[309]]. KBOB108 works directly with LittleOlive Oil on WIKI answers (note name of last editor) Kbob108 asks: [[310]]. Question asked [[311]] the question is first answered by Kbob108 and then LittleOlive Oil!!!

Admits to having inside contacts (a senior member he says) in the TM movement [[312]]

Pretends he doesn't know how to spell TMs Dr Fred Travis' name despite the fact he writes intensively about him on WIKI [[313]]

Signs his post simply as KBOB [[314]]

Actively promotes TM, has single use net wide accounts, admits to being a long time TM practitioner: A few brief examples: [[315]], [[316]], [[317]], [[318]], [[319]], [[320]], [[321]], [[322]], [[323]], [[324]], [[325]], [[326]], [[327]], [[328]], [[329]], [[330]] [[331]][[332]],[[333]]

Poor Kala Bethere

See here [[334]], and here [[335]]

Rebuttal to Kbob: POV and 30 Days of Disparaging and Sarcastic Comments

POV is not POV when it is truth. Trying to use WIKI guidelines to prevent an editor making a statement of truth is, I believe, further evidence of both "McCarthyism" and wikilawyering. Oddly, another use of wikilawyering and a misunderstanding (miss use?) of guidelines can be found here [336]. Truly, this becomes more like "MOMMM? Did you see what he said about me?" then any form of constructive argument. Or is that the point? Tucker ^talk 02:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

TM organization editors attempt to intimidate none organization editors away from the page on arrival

I created this account on: 17:28, 7 February 2010. My first edit was (unfortunately for me to the talk-page of the TM article here [[337]]. I simply added a reference that I had found for the attention of the editors (as can be seen most of edits have been directly to the talk-page for discussion and not to the article) [[338]]. (I have made only about 15 changes to the article and most of these have been correcting formatting, typos and a revert of what I thought at the time was one case vandalism)

Within 7 days one of the confirmed TM sock-puppets seems to attempt to begin the process of harassment to get me to stop contributing [[339]]. On the same day they they make the following comment on my talk-page [[340]]

Within another day I am added to this arbitration (of which I know nothing about as an involved party by a TM organization sockpuppet [[341]] I am added with the words that I am Curiously Missing, an odd choice of words [[342]]

Within a further day TM org editors are attempting to get me and another user banned from WIKI editing by accusing us of being both the same editor [[343]]

Within a further day these users have manged to conduct a detailed investigation and attempt to fabricate evidence that we are the same editor. They then formulate an official SPI [[344]]

Once the results of this are concluded and published they continue to harass both editors by claiming the results are untrue [[345]].

They then continue to harass both me and the other party (examples include: [[346]], [[347]],

Other examples of this tactic to scare-off none TM organization editors seemingly critical of the movement include with inuendo and legal scare tactics: [[348]], [[349]].

Tucker ^talk 19:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Innuendo begins against the Clerks of this case!

As a continuation of the evidence above: Note that TM organization editors have taken an unusual interest (and amount of resources)in my edit history, even counting my word count here and attempting to get an Clerk here to tell me (in this case correctly) to shorten it [[350]]. They made no such plea with their fellow organization members. And when they felt that the Clerk had not sanctioned me regarding this (although he/she did indeed inform me [[351]] per wiki guidelines)? They begin the innuendo and veiled threats against one of the Clerks here! Suggesting (in this now deleted comment (in an attempt,pt to hide it?) by Kbob that the Clerk in question appeared to be giving me "special treatment" [[352]]

Tucker ^talk 19:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Long term manipulation continues, even during this

I'm a little bored by all of this now and believe what has been happening here is obvious to any impartial reader,but I will leave that to any decision that is made. However, I felt that this was a good example of what has taken place on the article and even now continues. The evidence relates the so called Religious/Spiritual section of the article (it seems that this is a particular issue to the TM movement nearly as important to control as the health benefits section and the educational sectional. (I have not included all of the discussion over the years just some highlights. I think this gives a good overview of what takes place).

• 11:11, 28 February 2010 Timidguy (TG) raises an issue regarding court judgments classifying TM as a religion [[353]]
• 19:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC) I query why this is been raised again as it has already been discussed and the evidence found conclusive. [[354]]
• 16:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC) TG claims because it was added recently.
• Will Beback (WB) points out the previous discussion had occurred previously and concluded [[355]] He also explains how to search the archive, something I did not know was possible.
• I am amazed to find the amount of collusion, manipulation and outright dishonest editing that has taken place around this one subject since at least 2006. I make the following statement, providing detailed links. I hope this provides an insight to those who have never reviewed these pages:

It seems this is it/isn't it argument has been going on longer then I imagined it was [[356]]. This edit by Olive is very funny [[357]] And look at this wonderful re-write by certain editors (in no way indicative of a COI I am sure) [[358]], and this is quaint [[359]] And here is a wonderful discussion about reducing the religion section to decrease the article size and confirm that the mention of religion should not be in TM but in another TM movement article. It is wonderful to see how 3 editors worked so well and quickly together to get this done (that they have now been confirmed to be sock/meat puppets has nothing to do with it I am sure) [[360]] And on and on it goes Truly this is appalling.

Tucker ^talk 19:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Abridged and Revised Evidence presented by Hickorybark

Original Evidence Statement:[361]
Rebuttals:[362]
Additional Evidence of Anti-TM Advocacy:[363]

COI and NPOV

In initiating this hearing, Will Beback appears to be seeking administrative license to dominate the TM-related articles by suppressing responsible, informed contributors and asserting his own opinions, unimpeded. My hope is that the Arbitration Committee will be cognizant of how this would undermine Wikipedia’s mission to provide a reliable reference.

What has led Beback astray, I believe, is his apparent lack of understanding of the scientific method, one of the consequences of which is his failure to distinguish interest in a subject matter—even passionate interest—from conflict of interest. This has resulted in his

• reluctance to defer to mainstream institutions and procedures for conferring scientific legitimacy;

• intolerance of editors with whom he disagrees, assuming they are motivated by a COI. Needless to say, casting mud at other editors [364] does nothing for the advancement of the Wikipedia project;

• inappropriate fishing for personal information: Hickorybark is "invited to disclose …”[365] and “Hickorybark has an academic style of expression so it's easy to assume he's also on the faculty of MUM.”[366] (I am not, and I have sent my personal information to ArbCom.)

Astonishingly, Beback is so intent on pinning down COI that he is totally uninterested in my having the expertise to upgrade the problematic Flipped SU(5) page. If he succeeds in getting me banned, who will he find to do content-editing on Flipped SU(5) who doesn’t know (and respect) John Hagelin? Interest becomes COI when it results in advocacy and POV-pushing. In science, personal circumstances, affiliations, etc. do not invalidate research, provided proper scientific method is adhered to. Similar considerations apply to encyclopedia editing: the maturity of the editors, their willingness to work collaboratively and their ability to edit from a NPOV can outweigh circumstantial evidence of COI. This is true in real-world determinations of COI and is especially true for Wikipedia, where the protection of privacy and the presumption of good faith have made it possible for a large and enthusiastic community of knowledgeable, informed and qualified editors to produce an impressive compilation of high-quality articles.

Mainstream acceptance of TM

A ball-park sense of where the truth lies in a contentious dispute—or more precisely, where the reasonable, mainstream perception of the truth lies—can help to determine whether an editor is being obstructionist or responsible, engaging in advocacy or hewing to the NPOV. We can use as our guide Jimmy Wales’ understanding that, “NPOV does not require us to present all these views as if they are equal! This is one of the things that's hardest to remember about NPOV. If a view is the majority view of a broad consensus of scientists, then we say so.” [367]

Beback's anti-TM editing[368] and the prominence he gives to hostile sources is inconsistent with the mainstream validity the TM organization has acquired and merited. The scientific legitimacy of the Transcendental Meditation program has been earned through a substantial body of peer-reviewed publications, conducted at dozens of universities and research institutions over the last 40 years, leading to tens of millions of dollars in competitive research grant funding. Beback is engaging in advocacy by overriding the peer-review process, thereby dismissing the judgment of hundreds of journal editors and reviewers, and numerous grant referees , as in “there are systematic problems” with the TM research,[369] and “most of those studies have been conducted by the faculty of MUM.”][370]

Further evidence that the TM movement has earned mainstream credibility is the increasing use of the TM technique as an educational tool at numerous schools throughout the world, as well as at Maharishi University of Management, accredited since 1980. By creating an article exclusively devoted to the "Maharishi University of Management stabbing," Beback is aggressively POV-pushing. Every college and university in America has problems with violent crime without getting comparable treatment in Wikipedia's pages. Harvard’s article, for example, has no mention of murder or crime, or even lawsuits of any kind. Nor does it mention Harvard's high suicide rate.

Validity of content

Although I have not been active on the core TM articles, a quick review shows that they read like lurid gossip columns. On the Transcendental Meditation page (Access date: 2/27/2010), there are 19 references to "cult" or "occult," and 30 references to "religion," which is surprising since neither the mainstream press nor any TM-organization characterizes TM as a religion. It may be noteworthy that there are people who label TM a religion, but why do Beback, Fladrif and Kala Bethere make that the dominant theme? A 30-year old court case (Malnak v. Yogi) is referenced 11 times, including in a section heading devoted to the topic, even though school principals, boards and the public are largely ignoring that case and have adopted TM in a significant number of schools in the USA.

By contrast, the Jim Jones article mentions "cult" only six times, even though his group is the paradigm case of a cult, and it resulted in more than 900 deaths. The Hamas page never mentions "cult," even though it psychologically entrains teenagers for murder and suicide and critics frequently refer to Hamas as a "death-cult." All but one of the "Other Sites" links is to positive or neutral websites, whereas on the TM page, fully half of the links to "Further Reading" are hostile, including "TM and Cult Mania" and the "Demon-Haunted World."

Additionally, there is prima facie evidence of collusion between anti-TM editors and this anti-TM blog, funded for the sole purpose of discrediting the TM organization. [371] Note that this blog had detailed information about the upcoming TM Arbitration on January 29, a full 17 days before I was notified.

Conclusion

The “cult/pseudoscience” POV of the anti-TM editors is far removed from the mainstream scientific consensus regarding the validity of the TM research and from the general public’s view of the TM organization as established, responsible and respected in the fields of meditation, meditation research and alternative health generally. Consequently, the COI charges underpinning the current investigation are a “red herring,” a diversion intended to distract attention away from the real problem, which is the use of WP pages to attack and discredit the TM organization. Hickorybark (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Roseapple

I'm not a sock puppet

I became interested in the TM article a few years ago and created the Maharishi School article at that time. I edit from my home, but have occasionally used a library computer. I think if you look at my contributions [372] you'll find them quite innocuous. User:Roseapple

Evidence presented by BigweeBoy

As it apparent from my editing history, [373] TM is one of my main interests but I have edited over 1400 different articles. On close examination, you will see that a good percentage of my edits are grammatical, correction of punctuation or spelling, rewording, or reformatting, even on the TM related articles.

Sockpuppet Case

I am not a Sockpuppet. I am my own man and I edit on my own as shown by my edit history. I do not influence other Wiki editors on what, where and when to edit, and no other editors influences me on what, where and when to edit. I try to follow Wiki guidelines to the best of my ability and respond to other editors in a civil manner. I enjoy the lively discussion on the TM related talk pages, and this is part of my motivation to keep coming back. I sometimes think of the editors on these pages as characters in a soap-opera, and enjoy seeing the roles develop over time.

Frankly, I was surprised by the resent accusation of Sockpuppetry. I am not sure how much IP history Wiki keeps for each editor, by if the investigator of the recent case had reviewed my IP activity over a number of months, it would be plainly obvious that I am not a sock. In fact, I have been editing from the United Kingdom from about December 20. During this period, there have been numerous edits from other editors whom I am supposed to be in sockpuppetry with - Timid, Olive, Kbob - so a brief review of the IP records will show the accusation to be completely false. You are welcome to investigate my current IP address.

As I mentioned in the Sockpuppet investigation, in June 2009 I signed an edited as BwB while logged into an account (Mrsjolly) I had set up for my wife. I told the story of this on my talk page here [374]

On 13 July 2009, while visiting a friend in Fairfield, I made 2 talk-page comments signed as BwB that showed up as IP address 76.76.228.104 - one on the TM-Sidhi talk page, and one on the TM talk page. [375]

I am editing this section on Friday, 26 Febraury while logged out so my IP will be visible. BwB at --213.6.99.249 (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

And now logged in as Bwb. --BwB (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Will Beback's non-Admin-like editing

I am sorry that Will felt it necessary to bring this case to Arb, but am glad that this issue can be brought to others attention. As others have mentioned, Will is an intelligent editor. However, I think that, as an administrator, he may have become too involved in the content of the TM related articles and lately in the more heated debate on the talk pages. Perhaps if he had tried to apply more of his administrator knowledge and skills to these contentious articles and talk pages, some of the edit warring, name-calling, polarization of editors and uncivil behaviour could have been avoided. The following are examples of actions that failed to promote consensus and civility:

1. Will supports and protects editors who support his POV. He also silently supports their bad behavior against editors who do not share his POV. When I posted on Will's User Page the derogatory use of the term "True Believers" made by Kala Bethere, [376] Will Beback's response was to accuse me of COI. [377] WillBeback then attacked me by posting on my UserPage ""Teacher, teacher - Johnny insulted me! He said I'm dirty. Well, Peter, you are covered in mud. Are you complaining about the content of the statement or just about the way it was expressed?"[378] This was not the best way to deal with the issue I presented.

2. When Kala Bethere made more derogatory comments to me, on Will BeBack's UserPage, [379] Will tells Kala Bethere to "take the high road" and avoid becoming an "edit warrior", but makes no effort to correct Kala Bethere's incivility.[380]

3. When I posted on Will Beback's UserPage about the possibility of KalaBethere being a sock puppet, he defended Kala by investigating the edit history of Littleolive oil and TimidGuy.[381] [382]

4. As Olive describes in her evidence below, Will took me to task about the reworking of the Beatles section of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi article, even though I had posted my revisions to a Sandbox and invited others to participate.

I may have misspoken by saying that BeBack took this case to ArbCom. He did not take the case to the ArbCom. It was MuZemike who did so. Sorry for that error. --BwB (talk) 09:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Other stuff, please see User:Bigweeboy/tm-evidence.

NEW 27 MARCH: For a rebuttal to Will BeBack further evidence, please see User:Bigweeboy/tm-evidence. --BwB (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Final Words

I think what we are seeing here, more than anything, is human nature. One Wiki editor likes something (a pineapple, say), another doesn't. When editing the pineapple article, despite very best efforts for complete neutrality and impartiality, each of these editors is influenced by their POV on the topic. This is beautifully summed up in the song by George and Ira Gershwin, from 1937 - "Let's Call the Whole Thing Off."

"You say eether and I say eyether,
You say neether and I say nyther;
Eether, eyether, neether, nyther,
Let's call the whole thing off!

You like potato and I like potahto,
You like tomato and I like tomahto;
Potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto!
Let's call the whole thing off!

So, if you like pajamas and I like pajahmas,
I'll wear pajamas and give up pajahmas.
For we know we need each other,
So we better call the calling off off.
Let's call the whole thing off!"

Thanks to the ArbCom team for their time and efforts. --BwB (talk) 11:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

NEW: ANOTHER REBUTTAL TO WILL'S EVIDENCE

Please see my rebuttal to Will's points at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bigweeboy/Will_BeBack_Rebuttal.

Evidence presented by Durova

Internet connectivity in Fairfield, Iowa

Keithbob states "LISCO provides free wireless at many locations in Fairfield."[383] Tuckerj1976 also repeats "It has also been noted by the 'TM editors that Lisco provides free wireless access in the town of Fairfield'".[384]

According to the Fairfield Area Chamber of Commerce, the three major providers of Internet access for their community are Iowa Telecom, LISCO, and Mediacom.[385] LISCO itself does not provide free wireless.[386] The local public library for Fairfield has a NaTel Internet connection.[387] The two local coffee shops[388] are the 2nd Street Cafe whose Wi-Fi is an unnamed independent provider,[389] and Cafe Paradiso, whose staff confirmed via telephone that they use LISCO.[390] Other free wireless connections are the Thai Deli (a LISCO subscriber)[391] and Burger King, whose staff confirmed via telephone that they use LISCO.[392] The remaining free wireless spots are Kentucky Fried Chicken (no information on their provider) and several hotels. There are three to five locations in Fairfield outside Maharishi University where Fairfield residents can access free LISCO connections.

Edits to Wikipedia on this topic from three to five coffee shops and restaurants are probably less than from the university itself, since Maharishi University of Management has 47 faculty, 200 staff, and 1284 students.[393]

Fairfield is the county seat of Jefferson County, Iowa. Jefferson County has had a stable population for a century of approximately 16,000 people. Currently about 10% of that population have a MUM affiliation (faculty, staff, or student). Nearly two-thirds of the total county population lives in Fairfield.

About LISCO

LISCO is an internet service provider that serves southeastern Iowa.[394] It is based in Fairfield, Iowa and its website states "LISCO has had as many as 14,000 dial-up, broadband, and telephone customers" although it is unclear from that statement how many of those are Internet vs. telephone customers or how many customers it currently serves.[395]

Fladrif has obtained Iowa government reports on filings of LISCO utility revenue taxes. The figure at the company's website appears to be a cumulative total of all the customers the company has ever had. Based upon the assessment rate, LISCO grossed $268,000 in 2008. That translates to an active customer base of only a few hundred people.[396]

LISCO IP ranges

According to this report and the Soxred range contributor search, LISCO IPs and unlogged edits are:

• 69.18.0.0/18 (16384 possible IPs)[397]
• 216.251.32.0/20 (4096 possible IPs)[398]

Taken as an aggregate, these unlogged IP edits do not behave like a single purpose account. The majority of unlogged LISCO edits are not to TM topics.

Proximity of other institutions of higher learning

At the workshop Littleolive oil asserted:

There many universities and colleges in driving distance of Fairfield, and I know several Fairfield people who work at other universities, and other jobs outside of the town. This is an instance of laying a version of truth on an assumption. Fairfield is not remote. And whether an editor is a faculty member at another university you have no way of knowing.[399]

To test that assertion I ran the complete List of colleges and universities in Iowa through Google Maps[400] to obtain distances and driving times from Fairfield, Iowa.

Three institutions of higher learning are within a one hour commute of Fairfield:

• Maharishi University of Management: 1 mile--B-class Wikipedia article, 106 sources
• Iowa Wesleyan College: 22 miles (est. 40 minutes driving)--start-class article, no inline citations
• Indian Hills Community College: 24 miles (est. 38 minutes driving)--substub article, no inline citations

Neither Iowa Wesleyan College[401] nor Indian Hills Community College[402] uses LISCO.

It is more than a three hour round trip from Fairfield to the University of Iowa.[403] Wikipedia's University of Iowa article is start-class and that university's ISP is non-LISCO.[404]

This means it is likely that all the editors at this case who have disclosed faculty status at an unnamed institution of higher learning are faculty of the Maharishi University of Management.

Evidence Presented by Andrew Skolnick

I was a Wikipedia editor until I was driven away about 4 years ago, frustrated by a similar campaign of outsiders hell bent on controlling articles affecting them (some of whom appear to be involved in this dispute). This current dispute just came to my attention. As a recognized authority on the deceptive practices of Transcendental Meditation researchers and spokespersons, I think it is important that I provide evidence of the TM movement's long-standing and widespread campaign to infiltrate and deceive academic and scientific institutions. For background on my published research on the TM movement’s fraudulent and deceptive practices, please see: [[405]]

Evidence of Dishonest Editing by Kbob

In his effort to defend censoring out information attributed to my JAMA article, Kbob strung together a string of outrageous falsehoods:[[406]]

"I also suggest we remove the sentence: [Early promotional posters for program offered TM practitioners powers of Yogic Flying, invisibility, the ability to walk through walls, and have the "strength of an elephant".] as the reference source given is a JAMA news article on Maharishi Ayurveda and the TM-Sidhi program is never mentioned in the article. Also 'promotional posters' are never mentioned either." [Emphasis added.]

I discussed the TM-Sidhi program in 5 different places in my article (Skolnick AA. Maharishi Ayur-Veda: guru's marketing scheme promises the world eternal 'perfect health.' JAMA.1991;266:1741-1750.), including a quote from JAMA's editor Dr. George Lundberg explaining how the journal had been deceived by TM authors into publishing a PR piece:

"At that time, we did not know that 'Maharishi AyurVeda,' 'Transcendental Meditation,' and the 'TM-Sidhi' programs promoted in the article are brands of health care products and services being marketed by the TM movement."[Emphasis added.]

I also reported how lucrative the TM-Sidhi program has been for the Maharishi:

One extremely profitable example, reported in The Skeptical Inquirer (1980; 4:7-8), involved the rental of a gymnasium at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst during the summer of 1979 for TM's yogic flying courses. Three thousand students enrolled, one third of whom paid $3000 each to learn the Maharishi's TM-Sidhi program. According to promotional materials, the TM-Sidhi program allows one to master the forces of nature to become invisible, walk through walls, fly through the air, and have "the strength of an elephant." The Skeptical Inquirer article says that the other students learned more down-to-earth TM skills for $800-$1000 tuition and that the TM movement reaped between $3 million and $5 million, before expenses, from the courses at the University of Massachusetts."[Emphasis added.]

The latter shows Kbob's second blatant falsehood. I clearly discussed TM's "promotional materials" that claim the TM-Sidhi program allows one to master the forces of nature to become invisible, walk through walls, fly through the air, and have 'the strength of an elephant.'"

Other editors tried to inform Kbob of his errors with citations from my article, Kbob ignored them and continued to assert his false claim despite documentation to the contrary.

Kbob then topped it off with a final falsehood, implying that I wrote a possibly vindictive article because I had been sued by TM. That statement twists the facts far enough around to be considered libelous:

"Furthermore this article is written by Mr. Andrew Skolnick who was involved in a law suit with Maharishi Ayurveda so he is hardly a nuetral[sic] source for information."

I did not write the JAMA article on the deception of TM researchers because I was sued. I was sued because I wrote an article the TM movement wants badly to discredit. Kbob once again highlights TM's strategy: Sue critical reporters and then claim they had an "axe to grind" because we sued them.

If there is one "superpower" achieved through advanced TM training it is the power to tirelessly lie through one's teeth, as this shameless example demonstrates.

Evidence of Dishonest Editing by Little Oliveoil

In trying to delete information sourced to James Randi, a world-renowned authority on paranormal claims, Little Oliveoil deceptively claimed, "Randi is not a reliable source. He has a high school education and was a magician." [[407]] Kbob followed that by repeating a slur written by mystery novel author Michael Presscott -- hardly an authority on the the physics of "yogic flying" or any other area of science: "From What I can tell Randi really is the Flim Flam man."

What is flim flam are efforts of the TM movement to censor Wikipedia though edit warring and ad hominem and dishonest attacks against TM's critics. For those who may not know why Randi is considered a leading authority on the deception used by paranormal scam artists, here are a few facts: Randi is a recipient of the prestigious and coveted MacArthur ("Genius Award") Fellowship. Among many other honors, he has received the Forum Award from the American Physical Society, the Humanist Distinguished Service Award from the American Humanist Association, honorary degrees from colleges and universities, and countless other awards for his work exposing the criminal acts and wrong doing of con artists who prey on people's ignorance and gullibililty. His writings have appeared in major periodicals throughout the world -- Nature, New Scientist, the New York Times, Encyclopaedia Britannica Medical & Health Annual, Compton's Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Americana, Physics and Society, Technology Review, Los Angeles Times, to name a few.

This is the authority two TMers here tried to discredit as "a magician with only a high school education" and a "Flim Flam man." As long as TM's attack dogs are allowed to keep rewriting Wikipedia articles, this battle will continue ad nauseum and drive away contributors who decide to spend their time on more constructive projects.

Rebuttal to Kevin Carmody

Please see [[408]]

Rebuttal to Hickorybark

Hickorybark is now resorting to the worst kind of McCarthyism:

"there is prima facie evidence of collusion between anti-TM editors and this anti-TM blog, funded for the sole purpose of discrediting the TM organization. [260]"

Hickorybark provides no evidence that I or any other editor is "colluding" with the author of this blog -- which I never heard of before following the link. Nor that I or any editor here is "funded" for our work on Wikipedia.

"Collusion" is defined as "a secret agreement between two or more parties for a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose." This defamation alone should be reason enough to suspend or revoke Hickorybark's editing privileges.

For the rest of my rebuttal, please see [[409]]

Evidence presented by Luke Warmwater101

Will's POV vs COI

Most of the edits submitted as evidence by Will Beback are simply proof of a POV different from his. They are not dispositive of anything, and do not show tag team editing any more that his ‘own team’s’ repeated inclusion and support of the same POV type of material [410] [411] [412], deletion of material containing a differing POV [413] [414][415] [416], or concerted efforts towards a common goal [417][418] [419] are proof of illicit collusion. I will not go at length on Will’s repeated use of what he calls ‘an anti TM blog’, except to say that resorting to material posted by a person who seems to have quite literally made a career out of blaming TM for his difficulties in life (he writes in his blog: ‘Narcissistic thinking is something I battle with to this day. There's a big gap between my head and my heart...I think narcissism is one nasty side-effect of growing up TM that will haunt me for the rest of my life" [420]) is another indication of Will's strong POV. But, more importantly, Will’s airing on the evidence page of a speculative connection between certain Wikipedia editors to the author of an email posted on the Anti TM blog, and Will’s subsequent linking of this to other blogs whose authors reveal their real names, is tantamount to outing, and unworthy of an Administrator.

Will’s diff of “multiple editors making the same edits” rather than telling of a conspiracy, is actually evidence of frustration. It points the finger to Littleolive oil and Timid Guy, two editors with a POV opposite to his, but actually the tag team was originally composed by two editors who repeatedly added contentious material, Judyjoejoe, a SPA editor [421] who solely contributes edits critical of TM [422][423][424] [425] and who originally added the material [426] and Rracecarr [427] [428] [429][430]. The added material was once deleted by Littleolive oil who asked, as the topic was contentious, that it be discussed on the talk page. The material was not discussed but was added again, resulting in four editors with opposing POVs arguing among themselves. What is significant about this incident is that Will chose to selectively highlight this as evidence of misbehavior on the part of editors with a POV other than his own, rather than what it really was.

Will also voices his objection about an editor who “uses an article from Abu Dabai written by a restaurant reviewer to give a definitive opinion that TM is not a religion”, yet he voices no such objection when ad editor with his same POV inserts a casual, unsupported, disparaging comment on the Maharishi Effect, made by a columnist with no particular knowledge or expertise, who was publishing a sneering article on British third parties [431] [432].

Will’s double standards are indication of his very strong POV. The very POV that brings him to support editors whose POV matches his own, [433][434][435][436] [437] to the detriment of those who do not agree[438].

Naturally, a topic like TM will attract people with strong, opposing POVs. Yet, this case is about eliminating editors with a different POV, rather than COI. I respect Will’s intelligence, but I do not agree with how he attempts to achieve his objectives. When I reinstated information that Will had reduced from several paragraphs to one sentence, he was quick to accuse me of non-neutrality, [439] [440]. However, he did not say anything to Fladrif when he deleted an entire section of an article [441],[[442], nor did he object when others removed secondary sources with POV opposite his [443] or when someone behaved rudely to editors opposing his POV, [444] even if posted on his talk page. [445] He did warn editors who share his views to behave, but only in reference to looking good for the upcoming arbitration [446] [447] Otherwise he is often protective of editors sharing his POV, against editors who do not, regardless of the fact that the former are attacking the latter, [448] or if it supports his objectives [449], [450]

Topics like TM will attract two kinds of editors: those who think that TM is a good thing and those who don't. Removing one set for having a POV, regardless of the respectful way in which they have been editing, protecting a second group, regardless of how abusive they have been, seems hardly useful to Wikipedia. The result would be a series of one sided articles with much valid information removed [451] because it does not suit the POV of the sole remaining group. If one compares an earlier version of the article 'Transcendental Meditation' [452] to the current one, [453] it is easy to see what has happened lately: secondary sources have been removed, peer reviewed studies deleted en masse, paragraphs rewritten with pivotal sentences removed, or changed to alter the original meaning. [454] [455] [456] [457] [458]. I do not see how anyone could learn anything from such garbled misinformation; it is not how I would want an encyclopedia to read.

Impartiality

My editing is neutral and impartial. I have never reverted or criticized anything introduced properly and sufficiently sourced. I treat everyone with courtesy and respect [459] [460]. I have never ‘bitten’ or ‘driven away’ anybody. I adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. When I found an improper citation to a section created by Fladrif, I moved it to the sandbox, inserted ‘citation needed’, and left the body of the text intact.[ [461]. Incidentally, Fladrif did not extend the same courtesy to me: when I created a section in an article with an incorrect citation, he immediately removed the entire section [462],[[463]. Prior to this case, when reading accusations of COI, I would ignore them, feeling the real problem was that I expressed a view different from the accuser's. Will admits even those sharing his POV are not neutral,[464]. In light of recent events, it would seem that this is fine only as long as one shares Will's POV. If one's POV deviates from Will's, one may be asked by him to leave Wikipedia. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 08:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by TimidGuy

Outside evidence that the article on Transcendental Meditation has been distorted

In a post on March 5, Dr. John Grohol, founder of Psych Centeral and an expert in online psychology resources, described his experience of going to the Wikipedia article on TM and finding it to be biased and hostile[465]. To quote from the relevant portion: "Although Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be openly biased or hostile, it’s clear that whoever wrote the section on “Health effects” in TM research has an axe to grind. The entire section is written by cherry-picking research to support the authors’ point of view that TM has no research basis." Grohol has no connection with TM, as can be seen from his post. The example he gives was added by Doc James.[466]

Evidence against Doc James

Doc James deletes well sourced material and adds sources that aren't compliant. He deleted a 2006 study published by the AMA[467]. I assumed good faith, assumed that he wanted to set a high standard for the article, even though MEDRS doesn't require that all primary sources be removed. But then he also removed a secondary source [468] and at the same time he added a blog as a source.[469] Olive and Will objected to the blog on the talk page. [470] [471] I delete blog the following day.[472] Doc reverts.[473] He also added a claim that the effects of TM aren't substantiated by science that's from a 30-year-old book by James Randi.[474] He persistently removes content that accurately and properly represents independent, peer-reviewed research reviews, including removing meta-analyses sourced to the 2007 AHRQ review.[475] [476] [477][478]

Doc deliberately misrepresents sources. He wrote that TM worsens hypertension and cited the ARRQ review[479], but the source says the opposite in the Results section of the abstract (see p, v).[480] He misrepresented a 2008 research review he added to the article. He wrote, “These conclusions were supported by a 2008 review which found equivalent effects from relaxation training and Transcendental Meditation.” [481] The source says the opposite: “An old meta-analysis, published in 1989 about the effects of relaxation trainings on trait anxiety found that relaxation techniques had a medium effect size, while transcendental meditation had significantly larger effect size.”[482] Using magician James Randi's website as a source, Doc wrote that the claimed science behind TM is "crackpot science."[483] But Randi is referring to a specific analogy used by Maharishi: "One of the Maharishi's attractive analogies——in which he equates the solar system with the structure of the atom——is not only crackpot science; it is very bad crackpot."[484] When Doc added the blog as source, he misrepresented what it said. It talks about a single studywhereas Doc writes, “Some of the [studies...”[485]

Doc violates WP:LEAD and NPOV. He insists the lead only include a finding from the 2007 AHRQ review comparing TM with health education.[486] He makes no mention of four other comparisons that found positive effects. He deleted a meta-anlaysis of 9 studies that found that TM reduces blood pressure compared to health education and replaced it with a Cochrane review on anxiety that looked at a single study from 1980.[487] He excludes summary of the other research reviews in the article. At the same time he added to the lead that magician James Randi refers to the TM research as crackpot science.[488]

Doc and others disallow NPOV. Based on the 2007 AHRQ review, the lead and article say, "the definitive health effects of TM cannot be determined as the bulk of scientific evidence was of poor quality." There are differing points of view. The assessment was based on the Jadad scale. The authors of the report themselves discuss the other point of view — that the Jadad scale may not be an appropriate tool for assessing meditation research. Doc persistently removes any mention of Jadad.[489] Here Kala removes the published, peer viewed version of 2007 AHRQ that includes a quote in which the authors say that it can be argued that the Jadad scale may be unsuited for meditation research.[490] In the previously mentioned edit, Doc restores the JACM source but leaves out the sentences questioning the use of Jadad, and removes any mention of Jadad.[491]

Evidence against Fladrif

Fladrif deliberately misrepresents sources. He wrote, “Some researchers of TM effects subsequently retracted the conclusions of their earlier studies on meditation effects, acknowledging methodological weaknesses and bias....” [492] His source was a 1971 article in Time about two studies by Herbert Benson of Harvard and Keith Wallace, one of which was a questionnaire showing a reduction in drug use among 1,862 drug users. In the article Benson simply acknowledges the limitations of the study.[493] This is not a retraction, which is generally considered very serious, and it’s one researcher and one study, whereas Fladrif generalized to “some researchers” and to "earlier studies." And here he distorted the source by taking material out of context. He writes, “and TM is regarded as being outside the mainstream of health system and mental health practice.” [494] The source says, “Interestingly, in spite of TM’s status outside the mainstream of the health system and mental health practice, it has been subject to a significant amount of empirical evaluation, much of which has in fact supported its claims of effectiveness in countering the physiological effects of stress.” (See page 140[495])Fladrif misrepresented a 2001 AHRQ review on Ayurveda and diabetes. He misrepresented it as having reviewed all research on Ayurveda.[496], whereas the review only looked at studies on diabetes.[497] He also misrepresented it by saying that the review included studies on Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health. There are many more instances.

Evidence against Kala Bethere

Kala removes secondary sources: 2008 AHRQ research review in Journal of Complementary and Alternative Medicine[498], 2009 research review in Pediatrics[499] [500], 2003 research review in the Journal of Meditation and Meditation Research and in The Humanistic Psychologist (from APA)[501] [502], 2009 review in Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 2006 research review in Epilepsy & Behavior.[503], and material sourced to 2008 review in BMC Psychiatry.[504]

Evidence against Tucker

Tucker began in Wikipedia editor on February 7 and within 10 hours found his way to the Rational Skepticism Collaboration project for canvassing.[505] He removed the 2003 review sourced to the Journal of Meditation and Meditation Research.[506] He removed it again after it was pointed out that the same review appeared in an APA journal.[507]

Response to Will's evidence

Please see my response to Will's evidence, some of which is very odd, such as faulting me for removing obvious vandalism by a shared IP.

Responses to other accusations

Please see my brief rebuttals page.

Results of WP:COIN investigations

This summary of eight WP:COIN investigations shows that no problems were found.

Evidence presented by MuZemike

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

Timeline of events

My purpose is to outline and briefly summarize the events in the relevant discussion noticeboards from 2007 until present.

• January 2007: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 2
  • User:Sethie reports User:TimidGuy with regards to the Transcendental Meditation (TM) article.
  • Sethie states that TimidGuy is a faculty member of a "college run by the TM Organization" (presumably Maharishi University of Management) as stated here.
  • TimidGuy started the TM article, which Sethie alleged "reads like an ad" (see first edit)
  • The allegation, in a nutshell is that, while TimidGuy shouldn't be disallowed to work on the article, he shouldn't have removed sourced information about the college or the movement because of his conflict of interest.

• April 2007: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 5
  • Events regarding the TM article discussion:
    • Involved articles were Transcendental Meditation, Maharishi Vedic Science, Maharishi Ayurveda, Maharishi Sthapatya Veda, TM-Sidhi program, John Hagelin, Natural Law Party, and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.
    • Involved parties were TimidGuy and User:Sparaig (another TM practitioner) with User:Philosophus reporting.
    • Philosophus not only mentions TimidGuy and Sparaig but also other users in the TM article that potentially have COI problems. It's here where User:Littleolive oil (on the MUM's faculty) and User:Roseapple (another TM practitioner) are first mentioned.
    • Philosophus alleges that TimidGuy et al have been removing "critical edits" from the TM article or otherwise altering said critical information so that it is undecipherable to readers.
    • User:Dreadstar (under the doppleganger User:Dreadlocke) mentions that TimidGuy, a subject-matter expert on TM, has positively contributed without any bias and that said accusations of NPOV/bias have been untrue and unfounded.
    • User:Athaenara mentions about the low quality of the discussions that have went on in the articles' talk pages, saying that they "are prime examples of what happens when users confuse encyclopedia article talk pages with free webspace blogs".
    • It is mentioned here that User:Durova has recommended that TimidGuy limit participation to the articles' talk pages (presumably because of the COI). Also thrown on the table is the possibilities of an RFC to start, an RFC/U for user conduct issues, or Community enforceable mediation (which ended up becoming a failed pilot in WP's dispute resolution process).
    • From reading the end of that COI discussion, it looked a couple more neutral editors have started looking into it, and things started to settle at that point.
  • Events regarding the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi discussion:
    • User:Dseer is reporting with TimidGuy and User:Vijayante as the reported involved parties.
    • Dseer noted (as verified by the block log) that Vijayante has been blocked twice for violating the three-revert rule on the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi article.
    • The issues here regard the following: whether or not the Maharishi's relationship to his guru and teachings is "an invented controversy"; that Maharishi and his teachings are perceived as "secular and scientific", not religious; and whether or not the book (a book critical of TM written by Paul Mason) used to criticize the Maharishi and his teachings was not "neutral", not "scholarly" and "self-published".
    • TimidGuy dismisses the book used as a reliable source, saying that it is "apparently a self-published book by someone whose credentials as an expert on the Vedic tradition aren't evident".
    • Dseer reiterates that, while the involved COI editors are allowed to participate in the articles and discussions, they should not be preventing well-sourced critical information about the Maharishi, his teachings, or any controversy be added. One can infer at this point that it comes down to whether or not the sources used for this criticism are reliable.
    • Dreadstar repeats, almost verbatim, that TimidGuy is acting free of bias and well-within Wikipedia's policies regarding verifiability and neutrality. He further dismisses both Dseer's and Sethie's reports as attacks launched at TimidGuy and himself.
    • User:EdJohnston, in what it seems to be in a "third opinion" capacity, opines that Mason's book is not self-published and should not be dismissed on those grounds alone. He also asks Dseer to try to rewrite the disputed content himself in a neutral fashion.
    • User:Littleolive oil chimes in, saying that the article was very anti-TM in tone, and he intended to balance out the tone. He accuses Dseer of "not liking the article".
    • Durova reiterates that TimidGuy "has a clear and immediate conflict of interest" and again suggest that an RFC be opened on this topic.
    • The remainder of the 56KB-long discussion goes over whether or not Mason's book is reliable to use in the article.
• May 2007: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 11
  • User:Sardaka is the reporting party with TimidGuy, Littleolive oil, and now User:Michaelbusch (also with a COI) added on as reported.
  • The report is quickly dismissed, directing to talk page of the TM article for relevant discussion.

Evidence presented by Dreadstar

User:Fladrif incivility and personal attacks

User Fladrif (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a hostile and abusive editor who continually makes uncivil remarks and personal attacks. This is a long-term pattern of behavior since his involvement with TM articles over a year ago. Fladrif has been warned by several administrators about his behavior, and blocked twice for personal attacks. Fladrif's bad behavior is so consistent that he had to be warned to be on his 'best behavior' for the upcoming RFARB. [508] Even after this warning, Fladrif was unable to contain his vitriol and continued to make uncivil comments.

User:Fladrif seems to be editing from a WP:BATTLEFIELD mindset, by his own admission, [509][510] Fladrif wikihounded editor TimidGuy to the TM articles, having no interest in the subjects of those articles and apparently only following TimidGuy to further engage with him. Fladrif's first COI accusation against TimidGuy was in reference to Warnborough College, unrelated to TM.[511][512] Additionally, by his own broad interpretation of WP:COI, coupled with his admission of having attended there, and comments like this one about Warnborough executives: "I knew these frauds 35 years ago when they were just getting this scam started", Fladrif has a COI regarding Warnborough College and should immediately stop directly editing the article.

Additional evidence

Fladrif claims to never have assumed bad faith [513] and that his pre-TM relationship with TimidGuy on Warnborough was cordial [514], however these claims are untrue. In less than two months after Fladrif's first edit to WP, and prior to his involvement with TM, he was uncivil to TimidGuy, attacking and making accusations even at that early date:[515][516].

Fladrif NPA and CIV highlights

A larger list, including selected text from the below diffs, is located here: User:Dreadstar/FDIFFS. These are in no special order:

• "TG is a pathological liar"
• After being warned by an admin that calling another editor a “pathological liar” was inappropriate, Fladrif changed it to “serial deciever” instead: [517]
• [518][519][520][521][522]
• [523][524][525][526][527]
• [528][529][530][531][532]
• [533][534][535][536][537][538][539]
• [540][541]

Ongoing incivility

• Even in this RFARB, he cannot be civil: “KBob is quite correct. I do not suffer fools gladly.” and seems proud of it: [542],[543][544]
• Fladrif still continues to post insulting comments and personal attacks right on the RFARB Workshop page, [545][546], only moderating his last uncivil personal attack [547] after being cajoled by two other editors, [548][549].

Response to Fladrif

• Re: this false claim, Fladrif is incorrect, TimidGuy did not contact me about Fladrif’s attempted outing, I was monitoring the page long before then.[550], and before Fladrif’s first edits there.[551][552]. The block had nothing to do with TimidGuy, the attempted outing was against another editor – which, from the wording, was intentional and malicious, therefore grounds for an immediate block. Fladrif also misstates the facts when he says “a ban that was promptly revoked by another admin”, I agreed to the unblock only after Fladrif apologized and promised never to do it again.[553]. Fladrif even agreed that his comment could be seen as crossing the line. Fladrif's speculative cause/effect timing is apparently off too, the block was more than a week before his first edits to TM, where he stated the article wasn't neutral. This type of mischaracterization of events is fairly typical with Fladrif.
• Re: this false claim, the Arbitrators have the personal information I was referring to; it in no way indicates that I have any 'real-life connection' with the "TM editors" - I don't have a real-life connection with them, and would certainly not abuse or intimidate anyone on their behalf. The diff he presents does not show me as being on a "first name basis" with User:Sparaig; "Hey Andrew.." is the automatically added section title where I added a Template:Unsigned. "Hey Andrew" is User:Sparaig on a first-name basis with User:Askolnick.

Response to Jmh649 (Doc James)

• My inclusion in this list is far-fetched; even a casual look at my history shows that I’m not an editor who ‘primarily edits TM related pages'. I cannot agree that What the Bleep Do We Know!? is a TM article – it mentions the subject, sure, but it’s not about or produced by TM. I edited it because I had just seen the film, looked it up on WP, and saw a lot of OR and incorrect information in our article, [554][555] certainly not because it included TM. It is on my list of top-edited articles because it required a lot of clean-up and discussion.

Evidence presented by David Spector

I depart from the assertions/diffs organization in my section, as others have already provided useful diffs and I want to present a good, neutral statement of the problem.

Note: I object to using Scientology as the governing precedent since there are significant factual differences between these two cases.

Overview

In a nutshell, the problem here is not that there are two opposing POVs, but that both sides are more interested in self-righteously seeing their POV reflected than in writing an encyclopedia.

This has forced each side to an extreme, arguing endlessly about each of many scientific studies and metastudies (reviews of research). Both sides focus on sources that have ambiguities, trying to exploit the ambiguities to favor their own POV. Since, due to these ambiguities, both sides are equally correct (or incorrect), the disputes rarely achieve consensus.

The editors are unwilling to admit that there is no consensus opinion of TM in mainstream science (as there is, for example, concerning the Darwinian theory of Evolution, the stages of sleep, or the control over autonomic bodily functions by certain yogis who have been subjects of objective research studies). The TMM claims 600 positive studies, but most of these are easily dismissed as being bad science, redundant, or conducted by graduate students or other relatively inexperienced researchers. That still leaves about 100 good studies that show many benefits from practicing TM. Since most of these studies are self-conducted by TM advocates, this isn't enough to convince mainstream scientists and medical researchers. In the face of such ambiguities, a good encyclopedia should simply report both POVs and/or present a summary of the research and its limitations and criticisms. Arguing about the research yields only deadlock. Good editing of any controversial article requires cooperation between editors, exactly what has been lacking here for years.

Here are specific assessments of the two sides in this stalemate:

The Pro-TM Editors

• The Pro-TM editors pursue an agenda of molding the articles to reflect the truth as they see it about TM and other techniques and programs originating with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. They are primarily interested in accuracy as judged from their experience with TM and the TMM.
• In pursuit of this agenda, they use the WP policies and guidelines selectively (with frequent cherrypicking and wikilawyering) to justify their editing decisions. They seem completely unaware of their WP violations.
• They clearly believe that they are doing important work, providing reliable information showing the many benefits of TM.
• They have been extremely secretive, avoiding admission of their organizational affiliations. However, it is now known that at the very least, two are professors at MUM.
• No one knows if they are meatpuppets, planning with each other in RL. No one knows whether they tag-team to force their changes to stick. They do frequently support each other in consecutive Talk or Admin entries. I do not know whether they are editing WP as part of their jobs for the TMM (which would violate WP:COI) or as an amateur activity. There is much innuendo (in particular an old Blog posting stating that a group of MUM employees were tasked with 'protecting the truth' about TM on the Web by any means), but no reliable evidence and probably no way to obtain reliable evidence.

The Anti-TM Editors

• The anti-TM editors pursue an agenda of molding the articles to portray what they see as a fringe religious sect that makes dangerous medical claims and relies on pseudoscience. I definitely agree with the part about dangerous medical claims, such as that whispering a sound can cure cancer (in MVVT), and pseudoscience, such as invoking the Meissner effect when explaining the Maharishi effect and 'invicibility', but disagree that TM or the TMM are in any way religious or lacking in benefit. These editors claim that their objections to TM are obvious; they aren't. I suspect that some of them see Maharishi Mahesh Yogi as a money-making charlatan, which he most certainly was not. I suspect that some of them see TM as disguised Hinduism; actual Hindus would disagree, as do I. I suspect that some of them see TM as just relaxation; this would not account for its many benefits.
• Most are secretive about their RL affiliations. Some of them may be drawn from the well-known opponents of TM whose agenda is to spread negativity about TM. Some of these opponents claim (with little or no evidence) that TM is a dangerous cult and that only they can provide proper 'exit counseling' or rehabilitation. Of course, such an identification would establish COI violation.
• The anti-TM editors do not want to be called that. They consider themselves neutral and evidence-based. However, it seems clear to me that they are just as attached to their anti-TM agenda and almost just as willing to engage in wikilawyering. They seem completely unaware of their WP violations, including alternate WP:PUSH and WP:UNCIVIL.
• Unlike the pro-TM editors, the anti-TM editors dispense with civility when faced with any resistance to their authoritarianism (particularly Fladrif: Examples, Doc James, and Kala Bethere). They appear to enjoy a 'good fight' in support of Science and Truth. However, they are constantly frustrated with the pro-TM editors, who always respond politely yet firmly.
• While it is true that pro-TM editors have scared non-POV editors away with their obsessive agenda, so have the anti-TM editors with their own obsessive agenda compounded by their bullying, authoritarian 'voice'. Fladrif, for example, one of the bullies, behaves well in other venues, making significant and intelligent contributions. I speculate that a hidden POV causes him to PUSH.
• I do not know if they are meatpuppets, planning with each other in RL. They frequently support each other in consecutive Talk entries.

Responses

My responses are included here by reference.

Evidence presented by Littleolive oil

Rebuttals: Please see

• Will Beback Mischaracerizes User:Littleolive_oil/Will_Beback

• User:Littleolive_oil/Evidence_SexieSadie

• Rebuttal points on subpage including rebut to Jayen466. User:Littleolive_oil/Rebuttals

• /Rebuttals Will Beback

Untenable environment on articles: Kala Bethere: [556] Tucker1976: Thread: [557]

Considerations:

• Bias is inevitable. Underlying POV, and bias if acted upon can undermine the process of creating neutrality, setting an invisible, underlying standard for what is neutral. Editors who do not edit according to the pejorative standard/ paradigm, but attempt to add content that creates balance are considered POV pushers, whose agenda is pushing the positive side of TM. In reality, the underlying, paradigm was skewed to begin with.
• In the TM articles, what the pejorative and the positive are, and how they play out against the backdrop of the sources is cause for contention. Civility is the environment needed for establishing neutrality when bias and contention are apparent.

I stand by my neutrality, my edits, my attempts to adhere strictly to policy and to create articles that fairly represent sources. A few examples:

• Comments removing the pejorative comment “nonsense” in BLP [558]
• John Hagelin “crackpot”: I created a rewrite using the term, despite my sense that in a BLP “crackpot” was not a good word choice. [559] [560],
• Delete then reduce content on awards given to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi [561][562]
• Support agreement to merge MVSC: [563] [564]
• Addition of pejorative content on religion [565]
• Removing advert like material, POV content MUM [566][567]
• Critical content to lead:[568]
• I generally try to compromise: [569][570][571][572][573][574]

Deletions content positive to the topic: [575] [576] [577][578][579][580]

Bias against a topic, and editor bias is evident, recently, sometimes accompanied by incivility

• Dbachmann: First statement Fringe Theories /N [581]
• Doc James:[582][583]
• Kala Bethere [584]
• Science Apologist[585]

Add increased incivility to bias and the editing environment takes a turn for the worse.

Fladrif: [586], [587] [588] Kala Bethere: [589][590][591] Dbachmann: [592]

Evidence Will Beback:

Will Beback mischaracterizes

• WB mischaracterizes the TM organization in an opening statement to the Arbitration committee setting out a biased, pejorative, mischaratcerized standard for the organization against which any editing that does not seem to comply with that view can be seen as non neutral and POV. [593]
• Will Beback follows me to article Bill Viola, assumes a TM connection when there isn’t one, and accuses me of biased editing mischaracterizing my actions.

"I haven't looked closely at your edits, but this is one of the first I checked. It does not appear to be NPOV. I hope you can explain how it improved the NPOV of an article about an apparent TM practitioner" Will Beback talk 06:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC) The edit:[ [594] Comment on discussion page by neutral editor [595].

Will Beback mischaratcerizes/ harasses other editers in misplaced efforts to prove COI

Comment: Usually harrassment is repetitive behaviour, often insidious.Whether Will Bbeack knows he is harassing editors I don’t know, but the behaviour he exhibits time and again of mischaratcerizing , reframing, and demanding in multiple different ways that a COI be revealed, harasses.

Additional COI accusations, and attempts to have editors admit to affiliations so COI can be applied:

• Kbob's user page:[596]

Thread [597]

• Olive's user page:

Thread [598]

• BWB's user page:

Thread: [599]

• And during arbitration [600]

And Fladrif’s uncivil comment concerning my personal history when I warn him of 3RR:

“I don't need a nanny to count for me. But, since you seem to enjoy this passive-agressive exercise, let me turn the tables and remind you that, notwithstanding your nice little trick of having your profile history deleted, you are still subject to the COI rules, which you repeatedly and doggedly refuse to abide by.” Fladrif (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Article Decay

In the last month two of the articles have decayed into a non neutral, pejorative tone. Transcendental Meditation and TM Movement

Documents part of article decay on Transcendental Meditation

Biased editing: Jmh649

• Background

Opsina Bond is a meta study that included many studies on the TM technique as well as other meditative practices including physical practices.

• This:[601]

Becomes this:[602]

• Then to the lead which already deals with the research in a pejorative light, Jmh 649 adds two more pejorative statements.

[603]

• Jmh649 then later. adds and reorders content so content immediately following the lead is almost completely pejorative, including for example, subsections like, "Press", which is only about cult.

[604] [605]

• Will Bbeback suggests a change here [606]. but doesn’t comment on the obviously biased content nor does Kala,Tucker, Fladrif or Dbachmann.

Comment to evidence presented by Will Beback:

I have never as far as I can remember edited content into an article in opposition to noticeboard recommendations. Will Beback confuses having an opinion that does not agree with a noticeboard with editing against the noticeboard recommendations. I have never been restricted from editing due to COI nor has COI ever been proven in my case. I edit on my own computer.

Evidence presented by ScienceApologist

Here I shall present evidence that there was a concerted and coordinated effort to attack, malign, and attempt to get rid of editors who were not sympathetic to accommodating fringe beliefs in transcendental meditation on the part of multiple editors with a sympathetic POV towards the TM movement.

Little olive oil

• Tries to stifle through combative language legitimate discussion about her problematic editing: [607], [608], [609],
• Tries to poison the well: [610]
• In a classic Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing fashion, pays lip-service to civility in asserting that I'm both civil:[611] but then turns around and accuses me of incivility: [612] within 24 hours.
• Argues for ignoring WP:FRINGE: [613]
• Makes vague threats: [614]

TimidGuy

• Argues that transcendental meditation as a subject is not subject to WP:FRINGE: [615]
• Bait-and-switch technique. Focuses on the secondary nature of sources rather than looking for independent sourcing, in effect providing a biased source list (generally his tactic): [616], [617], [618], [619], [620], [621].

ChemistryProf

• Acting as an attack dog: [622], [623].
• Even to the point of editing his own comments to make them more inflammatory: [624]
• Proposes a revamping of Wikipedia guidelines (likely WP:PSTS) to fit his POV-pushing: [625]
• Then attacks the entire project: [626]
• Does not seem responsive to the advice I gave: [627] that he take a less combative role: [628]

Dreadstar

Far from being an impartial admin, is firmly in a pro-paranormal camp and has at least on one occasion thrown his admin weight to help one of his allies (only partially restoring a user page after a renegged WP:RTV request).

• Implausible deniability: [629]
• Before becoming an admin, Dreadstar made it clear that their sympathies lay with accommodating belief in the paranormal: [630] [631]
• Changes criteria in order to make his recall more difficult: [632] [633] after having established it in response to concerns over his sympathetic treatment to pro-paranormal POVs: [634]
• Threw weight behind the pro-TM side in disputes: [635] some 24 hours after changing his recall criteria.
• Removes content from What the *Bleep* Do We Know as late as December 2009: [636]
• Votes against an adversary in the WTBDWK conflicts in all his RfAs: [637], [638] in lock step with ally Littleolive oil: [639], [640]
• Restored Littleolive oil's talkpage without including previous history using admin tools as a favor to his ally to help her avoid scrutiny in violation of Wikipedia policy: [641]
• Attacks another user who dares to suggest that a banned user might be using a sockpuppet: [642]. You may note that this is another ally in the pro-paranormal camp.
• Reopens a discussion to investigate what he deems to be my misbehavior and the accusation he seems forcefully to oppose above: [643]

Evidence presented by ChemistryProf

Not a sockpuppet or meatpuppet

I am an independent editor. I edit neutrally and follow the WP guidelines, with the main goal of increasing the accuracy and respectability of Wikipedia (for an example, see [644]). In this talk page example, I sought to illustrate how even heated discussions could be related dispassionately. The end goal was to eliminate the word "crackpot" without eliminating the story of a few people with hot emotions. It illustrates how I have worked with other editors and compromised often to achieve a NPOV. My sporadic editing on WP began about three years ago and has been largely restricted to two or three of the articles connected with the Transcendental Meditation (TM) technique, including the BLP article on John Hagelin. I am aware that this makes me appear to be a “single purpose editor,” and my only excuse is that I have limited time to devote to WP editing, only becoming an editor when I saw what appeared to be imbalanced and unfair treatment of these topics. From the start, my notion has been to help bring these articles to WP Featured status.

Focus on science

My edits have focused largely on the science content. I am an active research scientist and have read most of the research papers and reviews on TM and its related topics. I prefer precision and accuracy in presenting the science content (for example, see here [645]). The additions in this example clarify the source and more accurately represent the statement from the source. Oversimplification often confuses the main issues. While my critical discussion has sometimes veered toward the other editors for what appears to be their non-neutral point of view, I refrain from ad hominem attacks and insinuations of incompetence. I am always happy to cooperate with editors that show an effort to see a topic from many angles and to work together to find the most ideal expression and the most reliable sources.

Rebuttal of Jmh649 ("Doc James")

Jmh649 (Doc James) claims in his evidence statement that the following edits were attempts to “weaken the conclusion” regarding effects of the TM program.[646], [647], and [648]. (The latter two are actually the work of TimidGuy, but I supported them on talk pages.) All these changes were attempts to represent the source more accurately and more comprehensively. In an earlier discussion, Doc James had agreed that since this source was a government report it was not peer reviewed. A main conclusion of the source was that the “majority of meditation research is of poor methodological quality” not that the “evidence base is of poor methodological quality.” Also, had I been more thorough in these corrections, I might have removed the parenthetical “including Transcendental Meditation” because there was no specific statement in the executive summary that research on the Transcendental Meditation technique was of poor methodological quality.

Will Beback complicity in WP rule violations

The “heated discussion” Will Beback mentioned in his evidence statement concerned a long paragraph about Hagelin that was replete with emotional tirades denouncing Hagelin as a “crackpot,” his research as “nonsense” etc. My position, stated clearly here [649] after having made essentially the same points several times in the discussion over a period of days (see here [650] 48. Reducing number of quotes, improving the tone), was that these quotes were being used rhetorically to promote the strong negative POV of one or more of the editors. Will Beback was a main player in this discussion, but although the rules and guidelines concerning the goal of maintaining an impartial, encyclopedic tone were perfectly clear, he argued for the more inflammatory quotes instead of the preferred summary style, and he waited many days through all this discussion before finally admitting that “crackpot” might not be an appropriate word. It is clear from reading the discussion (see here [651] 48. Reducing number of quotes, improving the tone) that Will was sympathetic to the strongly negative POV defended by Fladrif. It is highly likely that any editor truly striving for an NPOV and who was as involved in the discussion as Will Beback would have stepped in sooner to point out the need to adhere to the rules on this. This is one of many instances in these articles where Will has held back or even actively supported the less accurate interpretation of WP policies or rules to allow a strongly negative (non-neutral) POV to prevail.

Attitude of anti-TM editors toward WP

Recently I commented on a noticeboard [652] that some editors show what appears to be excessive antagonism toward editors who may be experts in a field related to the articles being edited. I summarized the results of a poll given to members of a professional society. The poll concerned how many had been editors on WP and listed reasons why most of those who had been editors no longer participated. The poll ended with a question about accepting the use of WP as a legitimate source for students (grade school level in this case). Two of the vociferous editors recently involved in the TM articles (Jmh649 (“Doc James”) and –dab) were shocked that “only” 61% of those polled said they “would not accept use of WP under any circumstances.” Both editors confirmed that they do not see WP as an acceptable source [653] (see their comments after mine). Yet neither of them admitted the possibility that their abusive behaviors toward anyone with expertise might play a role in the unreliability of WP. At different times, this attitude has been expressed by several of the anti-TM editors and may help to explain their lack of reticence in denouncing those who may be experts in the practice and knowledge of the TM program or in the scientific research on TM. In other words, it appears not to be the primary aim of these editors to create a reliable encyclopedia. Rather their primary aim seems to be to see that their POV prevails.

Evidence presented by Kevin Carmody

Importance of peer review process for published research

Both sides of the dispute seem to have missed an important point about TM research, namely that much if not most of it has been published in peer reviewed journals. Peer review often significantly delays publication, but it removes much of the doubt about author bias. MUM faculty generally submit their research articles to peer reviewed journals, because this is the standard to come up to if a research scientist wants to be taken seriously.

As a result, TM research is generally regarded as high quality by outside scientists, including NIH, which has funded quite a lot of TM research, usually through MUM faculty. See for example [654] or [655].

Therefore, I cannot agree with Tuckerj1976 when he says that much TM research is considered low quality by other researchers (Wikipedia:ARBTM#Statement_by_Tuckerj1976).

The writing style in a peer reviewed journal must come up to a high standard of neutrality. I think this is a good model for Wikipedians to follow.

Evidence presented by Jayen466

Dispute surrounding DYK nomination of Maharishi University of Management stabbing

Relevant diffs:

• DYK hook nomination
• Article status at the time
• Subsequent discussions of the hook at T:TDYK

User:Will Beback submitted the hook. When the first reviewer asked for a clarification of the sourcing, User:Fladrif stepped in to approve the hook. User:Littleolive oil raised neutrality concerns and pronounced herself "disgusted".

Materialscientist, a DYK regular, echoed Olive’s concerns, saying, "I am keen to reconsider, but there are at least two issues (i) "Crime" and stabbings, in this context, imply something wide-scale and repeating - this is by far not the case (a sudden act by a single person) (ii) The hook sounds as an accusation to the university, which I don't see enough grounds for (iii) minor: a couple of refs are not formatted. Materialscientist (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)"

User:Keithbob joined the discussion as well, characterising the hook as "tabloid fare". User:Bigweeboy joined in later, expressing concern at the "sensational nature" of the hook. I expressed concern that the original wording, "fatal Maharishi University of Management stabbings", made it sound like more than one person died.

The discussion led to multiple revisions of the hook, and ended in a collaborative atmosphere, with the revised hook appearing on the main page. The article too changed in the days following the submission.

Promotion of fringe science, opposing editors counter with WP:SYN

Editors with personal links and loyalties to TM have sought to promote exceptional claims with unexceptional sources. Opposing editors have used WP:SYN to counter this. Neither is appropriate. Related discussions/diffs: [656][657][658][659][660][661][662]

In light of Littleolive oil's rebuttal I would like to clarify that I agree with Littleolive oil that this edit removed a clear case of WP:SYN, as defined by longstanding OR policy (the Smith & Jones example).

Response from uninvolved user:Andries

reply to David Spector regarding his characterizations of the anti-TM editors

This is a reply to David Spector regarding his characterizations of the anti-TM editors

David Spector wrote "The anti-TM editors pursue an agenda of molding the articles to portray what they see as a fringe religious sect.. but [I] disagree that TM or the TMM are in any way religious”

Yes, you may come to that conclusion if you have a superficial view of TM and religion in general. (Religions have social and psychological functions and I believe TM that has more or less the same functions as a religion.) But I am confident that TM is seen by various reputable sources as religious or at least has strong religious aspects. I will check the sources.

Update 1: I already found a reputable source stating that TM has religious aspects for the core followers.

Paul Schnabel, English translation:"Transcendente Meditatition has for the core follower of followers an unmistable religious aspect, though it is for large number of peripheral people who received initiation not even a movement, but just a technique that one can learn.", Dutch original: "Transcendente Meditatie heeft voor de kern van volgelingen een onmiskenbaar religieuze inslag, terwijl voor de grote periferie van geïnitieerden TM niet eens een beweging is, maar alleen een techniek die je kunt leren." [663]

David Spector wrote "I suspect that some of them see TM as disguised Hinduism; actual Hindus would disagree, as do I."

That TM is disguised Hinduism or at least has aspects of disguised Hinduism as been thoroughly demonstrated in the reputable publication of Reender Kranenborg. I can try to get this source again.

My own background is that I am was never involved in TM and hardly in the articles, though I am in general wary about new religious movements and did a lot of reading about them. Andries (talk) 10:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}

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

{Write your assertion here}

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

{Write your assertion here}

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