HersfoldArbClerkBot (talk | contribs) m Bot updating evidence length information (toolserver) |
→Post-ArbCom, Post Topic Ban Editing: forgot about this one. Post ArbCom, legal threats continued against other editors |
||
Line 93: | Line 93: | ||
===Post-ArbCom, Post Topic Ban Editing=== |
===Post-ArbCom, Post Topic Ban Editing=== |
||
8) TG continues improper editing since topic ban expired |
8) TG continues improper editing since topic ban expired [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transcendental_Meditation_technique&action=historysubmit&diff=393185848&oldid=393182803][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transcendental_Meditation_technique&action=historysubmit&diff=401605365&oldid=401483585][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transcendental_Meditation_technique&action=historysubmit&diff=412139171&oldid=410632033][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transcendental_Meditation_technique&action=historysubmit&diff=438560277&oldid=437040064][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transcendental_Meditation_movement&action=historysubmit&diff=431317948&oldid=431293006][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transcendental_Meditation_movement&action=historysubmit&diff=433371445&oldid=431350443][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transcendental_Meditation_research&action=historysubmit&diff=403693722&oldid=403685183][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transcendental_Meditation_research&action=historysubmit&diff=404449403&oldid=403685183][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transcendental_Meditation_research&action=historysubmit&diff=429866600&oldid=428775228][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transcendental_Meditation_research&action=historysubmit&diff=443326883&oldid=442741548][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TM-Sidhi_program&action=historysubmit&diff=446130084&oldid=443534615][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TM-Sidhi_program&action=historysubmit&diff=439762567&oldid=439413122], including continued legal threats against other editors.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maharishi_University_of_Management&diff=next&oldid=374118882] |
||
== Evidence presented by Cla68 == |
== Evidence presented by Cla68 == |
Revision as of 21:22, 22 December 2011
Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
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 evidence to a maximum of 500 words and 50 diffs. Giving a short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 500 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 refactor 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 Keithbob
Current word length: 500; diff count: 43.
WillBeback's Misbehavior
- 9/18/10 @ Roseapple: "[follow] WP:COI which allows conflicted editors to post to the talk page" [3]
- 12/8/10 @ Keithbob: "maybe it'd be better if you worked on other topics instead" [4] Apology six weeks later
- May 2011 @ TMM: "editors have been failing to disclose any personal or professional connections"[5] [6][7][8][9]
- June 2011 @ RSN: "Despite prompting, none of the editors have admitted or denied a conflict of interest" [10] [11][12] [13]
- June 2011 @ TMS talk: "If any editors here knew them... they should either disclose that fact or refrain from participating" [14] [15]
- 7/5/11 @ Off2RioRob "Editors who refuse to admit their conflicts of interest... give Wikipedia a bad name" [16]
- 8/16/111 @ TMS talk: "If anyone here is personally acquainted with the authors of this study then it'd be appropriate to say so." [17]
- 8/31/11 2:33 UTC WillBeback emails Keithbob saying: a serious, undisclosed COI issue may need to go public if WillBeback's COI behavior and editing of TM topics become an issue
- 8/31/11 6:13 UTC @ Keithbob: "I see you're adding a lot of evidence...especially related to COI."
- 9/12/11 7:02 UTC WillBeback emails Keithbob saying he is going to submit to ArbCom confidential evidence about Keithbob's COI
- 9/12/11 20:47 UTC to Keithbob: "give complete and honest answers to the same three [employment] questions that user:NuclearWarfare has" asked TimidGuy [18]
- November 2011 @ DRN "Keithbob has not replied to my question of whether he is willing to have his conflict of interest disclosed"[19][20] [21][22][23]
Outing
- WP:COI "Do not out an editor's real life identity in order to prove a conflict of interest" [24]
- "Tiggerjay, the details of the COI cannot be discussed openly here ….. I can contact you by email.” [25]
- 7/6/11 AaronBrenneman: "I think you're going too far" [26] WBB: "I've replied by email" [27]
- 7/15/10 @ TGtalk: "MUM faculty" [28]
- TMS talk: "unless he's [TimidGuy] personally acquainted with Gackenbach." [29]
- Recent: "paid advocate" [30] [31][32] "public relations officer" [33][34] "PR professional", "public writer" [35]
Warnings
- 8/12/09 TimidGuy: "this is harassment — and exactly what COI policy says to avoid” [36]
- 3/3/10 Durova: "Continuing to ask after it's clear that a person will not answer might even get perceived as badgering." [37]
- 6/2/10 Risker: "I've redacted a significant amount of personal information that you have inserted"[38][39]
- 7/15/10 TimidGuy: "don't ever again try to constrain which articles I edit." [40]
- 11/21/10 FredBauder: "I've suppressed the edits you made which explicitly link…the person you believe is editing with a conflict of interest. …If there is bad editing, aggressive pushing of a point of view, that should be obvious, and actionable without definitive identification of the Wikipedia editor engaging in it"[41]
- June 2011 Littleoliveoil: "your attempts to deliberately malign another editor by citing false information on a NoticeBoard" [42] [43][44][45][46]
- 6/24/11 Keithbob: Comprehensive warning and diffs
- 11/13/11 Keithbob: "chronic use [of] unsubstantiated accusations of conflict of interest on a talk page or noticeboard"[47]
Evidence presented by Kww
Current word length: 97; diff count: 7.
TimidGuy clearly pushes TM and similar fringe topics
I encountered TimidGuy years ago during the interminable problems at What the Bleep Do We Know!?. It was clear that his editing was intended to remove negative statements about TM in general, Ramtha's School of Enlightenment in particular, and to attempt to obscure the fact that every scientific review of the film's material had dismissed it as claptrap. If the accusation of COI ties him to those things, I think it's substantiated.
- [48]
- [49]
- [50]
- [51] (note that any effort to summarize this material was generally attacked as original research, and, when substantiated, attacked as a "quote farm")
- [52]
- [53]
- [54]
Evidence presented by Fladrif
Current word length: 485; diff count: 27.
Numerous COIN Proceedings
1) TimidGuy's editing behavior on articles relating to Transcendental Meditation has been the subject of numerous discussions at WP:COIN.[55]
- Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 2#Transcendental Meditation
- Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_5#Transcendental Meditation
- Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_5#Maharishi_Mahesh_Yogi_.28history.7CWatchlist_this_article.7Cunwatch.29_.5Bwatchlist.3F.5D
- Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_11#Transcendental_Meditation
- Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 30#Article: Transcendental Meditation, Users TimidGuy and Littleolive oil
- Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 35#User 76.76. etc and Transcendental Meditation Article
- Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 40#Transcendental Meditation
Admission of a Conflict of Interest
2) TimidGuy has repeatedly acknowledged that he has a conflict of interest on articles related to TM. [56]
COIN Findings and Directives
3) TimidGuy was determined at COIN in 2007 to have a "clear and immediate conflict of interest" with respect to Transcendental Meditation-related articles, and advised that he should not edit those articles, but confine his activities to talk pages.[57]
Refusal to follow COIN Findings and Directives
4) TimidGuy has openly defied the directive from COIN that he not edit TM-related articles, falsely claiming that there was no finding that he had a conflict of interest and there was no instruction not to edit the TM-related articles.[58]
Sockpuppetry to advance positions
5) TimidGuy used an IP sockpuppet account to edit TM-related articles, deleting reliably sourced critical material, inserting unsourced favorable material, and engaging in disruptive editing. He dissembled about this to hide his sockpuppetry at COIN, then lied about it[59] at the SPI that led to the TM Arbcom, before finally admitting it[60].[61][62]
Collaboration with TM Officials and Legal Threats
6) Timidguy consults with TM-Org officials regarding content of TM-related articles, including its General Counsel, and based thereon has made legal threats against other editors.[63][64][65][66][67][68]..etc
Administrative Enforcement following TM ArbCom
7) Following the TM Arbcom, TimidGuy was first issued a formal warning for violation of the TM Arbcom [69] and subsequently banned in AE for two months from editing TM-related articles, and placed on 1RR restriction for "obstructing consensus through persistent stonewalling and unconstructive debating." His editing behavior was found to be "a persistent effort...to block consensus by an endless row of objections of wikilawyering and nitpicking nature, aimed at deemphasizing the findings of studies critical of TM. Many of these objections, mostly about the correctness of summaries of the research literature proposed by other editors, appear to be patently without merit. Taken in isolation, such objections would probably count as normal good-faith content disagreements, but in the larger picture and given their constant, long-time effect of blocking effective consensus-building, they take on the character of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT disruption, especially as he and the other editors who support his viewpoint are refusing to listen to independent outside input, which was successfully elicited by the RFC." [70]
The evidence in these two AE proceedings showed (i) TimidGuy caused a MUM-self published source to be changed to support previously unsourced content he had added [71] (ii) following a RFC [72], TimidGuy refused to acknowledge or follow the consensus of uninvolved editors, arguing they were uninformed and had been misled [73]; reverted consensus versions of the article reached per the RFC [74]; misrepresented reliable sources [75]; and removed references to reliable sources [76], all to de-emphasize unfavorable findings of highest-quality medical sources as to the alleged health effects of TM.
Post-ArbCom, Post Topic Ban Editing
8) TG continues improper editing since topic ban expired [77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88], including continued legal threats against other editors.[89]
Evidence presented by Cla68
Current word length: 95; diff count: 6.
Evidence in this case shows that Will Beback apparently went directly to Jimbo Wales with his concerns about TimidGuy. With most editors, this would be unusual. With Will Beback, it isn't. Will Beback can be very agressive, using a variety of tactics, in his treatment of editors with whom he appears to disagree:
- Treatment of User:Littleolive oil- Sockpuppetry investigation (pre-TM ArbCom case; negative result); threatens AE action; COI accusation insinuates COI. User:NuclearWarfare has also joined in with this at times, acting as an administrator: here, in my opinion, he asks inappropriate personal questions. Full discussion.
Evidence presented by Doc James
TimidGuy has repeatedly misrepresented or removed high quality sources negative to TM
- Before ArbCom
Feb 13,2009 Removed AHRQ [90] Feb 13, 2009 Removed AHRQ review again [91] Feb 13, 2009 Misrepresented the result of the AHRQ claiming the opposite of what it says [92] Feb 13, 2009 Added a poor quality source attempting to refute the AHRQ [93]
- Since ArbCom
- June 3rd 2010 Added a bunch of primary research before the meta analysis [94]
- July 31st 2010 I moved highest quality research first [95]
- 5 min later LittleOlive reverted [96]
- July 31 TG added incorrect conclusion reffed to the AHRQ [97]
- July 31 again [98]
- Aug 6th Removed statements negative to TM [99]
- Aug 6th Removed supporting refs. [100]
- Aug 8th after consensus was obtain at a RfC TG attempts to water down conclusions [101]
- Aug 25, 2011 Attempt to refute high quality conclusions with low quality evidence (unreffed in this case )[102]
He has added may positive finding of questionable significance/validity
- Aug 2nd, 2011 Here he adds the text "TM researchers have compared the alpha brain waves of individuals during Yogic Flying to those of subjects mimicking Yogic Flying by just sitting and hopping" which seems to insinuate that in fact TM allows people to actually fly as opposed to just hop [103] which of course contravenes a few laws of physics.
- Aug 9th 2011, Here he adds that TM is "associated with a slowing of the aging process"[104]
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence per REDFLAG. If someone is claiming that TM allows people to fly or extends their life they must present good evidence. Many more example like this can be easily provided.
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.