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: Risker (Talk) & Roger Davies (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

Work in progress - I will post complete evidence shortly.   Will Beback  talk  05:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Jmh649 (Doc James) (615 words)

To summarize my concern is that we have a small group of editors associated with the TM movement who have been actively promoting TM well suppressing the general scientific / legal consensus regarding said movement.

Consistent misrepresentation of the research

I first edited this topic area Jan 19 2010 after coming across a discussion at WP:MED[1]. My first edits were adding a 2007 review article which was somehow missed in favor of primary research from the 1970s. [2]. One issues 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 [3] 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. [4] and again [5] An attempt to reword it so that the review does not appear to related to TM [6] Here TimidGuy attempts to obscure the conclusions of the review [7] And again[8] and again [9] Here he claims a different review is an update of the 2007 review which it is not [10] Here Chemistry Prof attempts to weaken the conclusion [11] And again [12] And again[13]

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 [14] And again[15]

The omission of material critical of TM

Well editing it also became clear that the more far fetched aspects of TM were omitted as well as the description of the movement by the main stream. For example an "advanced" form of TM which claim allows you can fly, makes you invisible, as well as provides eternal life was not discussed. The Maharishi Effect was also not mentioned ( were supposedly if enough people practice TM crime will degree ). Carl Sagan has refereed 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.

This group of editors primarily edits TM related pages

1. User:Keithbob Most edited article is TM (630 edits) with 9 of 10 most edited articles TM related.[16]
2. User:TimidGuy Most edited article is TM (802 edits) with 6 of 10 most edited articles TM related.[17]
3. User:Littleolive oil Most edited article is TM (591 edits)with 5 of 10 most edited articles TM related.[18]
4. User:Bigweeboy Most edited article is TM (383 edits) with 9 of 10 most edited articles TM related.[19]
5. User:ChemistryProf Most edited article is TM (30 edits). [20]

My previous editing

I do edit aggressively 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 Rorschach test, and ADHD and have had my share of mud thrown at me. However in both 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 hundreds of pages I have brought one to GA Obesity ( another highly controversial topic ).

If you look at Keithbobs diffs you will find that the "well sourced" references are primary research studies from the 1970s and 1980s in direct contradiction to WP:MEDMOS.

Evidence presented by Keithbob

I'm not a Sock Puppet

• I work on WP at home. My IP address is 69.66.89.118.[21] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.66.89.118 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC) I sometimes take my laptop to the public library and local coffee house and make WP edits. This is not a violation of WP policy. LISCO provides free wireless at many locations in Fairfield. For the duration of this ArbCom I will edit only from my home to demonstrate my authenticity as a single, independent editor.
• Kudos to Jpgordon for his SPI work. He also says "I've not analyzed any behavioral evidence". [22] My casual review of the IPs on that SPI shows no overlapping edits between IPs and some IP's had no TM article edits. User: Ruinia's comments [23] demonstrate that TM participants have varying opinions on Wikipedia TM articles. Kala Bethere has practiced Yogic Flying[24][25] and Jmh649 has an uncle who practices TM, [26] but this hasn't resulted in an allegiance to the TM movement. Fairfield hosts 'new age' programs that compete with TM ie. Oneness Blessing Noon Deeksha, [27], Shri Ravi Shankar [28] Mind Body Spirit Center [29], Yoga For Life [30], Shri Devi Mandir Temple.[31]. It also has several thousand residents who farm etc. and do not practice TM. We should consider carefully before labeling Fairfield a "TM town" based on the market dominance of LISCO.
• I use the Keithbob WP account and no other. I am no one's meat puppet. I edit independently. The talk pages indicate that Will Beback, TimidGuy, Jmn649 and Kala Bethere communicate with each other in 'real life' via email which is not a violation of policy. So it seems edit history and behavior is a key ingredient for a sock/meat decision. I trust in the Committee and their ability to come to a proper and fair conclusion.

Civil, Neutral Editing

I edit with civility[32], collaboration and respect.[33] I have never been blocked or brought to ANI. I am also not perfect and I learn from my mistakes. [34] [35][36]

I have 10,000+ edits on 400+ articles and I stand by my edit history. [37] My highest priority is the progress and well being of WP and its policies. I abide by the policy of WP:COI. My edits are not the product of a blind allegiance to any movement or ideology. I champion a balanced and accurate representation of reliable sources from all significant points of view.

• Vote to delete Maharishi Vedic Science[38]
• Add criticism TM-Sidhi [39]
• Remove promo MUM[40][41]
• Add Lawsuit Section Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation[42]
• Add criticism/remove promo Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health [43][44][45][46]
• Add criticism Transcendental Meditation [47]
• Add criticism Maharishi Sthapatya Veda[48]
• Add religious ceremonies Maharishi Sthapatya Veda [49]
• Remove supportive quote Maharishi Mahesh Yogi [50]
• Removed promo Ashley Deans [51]
• Remove promo Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic University[52][53]
• Add deficiency tags Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic University[54]
• Add criticism Deepak Chopra [55][56][57]
• Remove promo EL's Maharishi Sthapatya Veda[58]

Rebuttals

@Will Beback/Case page [59] The diff shows, I made a talk page proposal, other editors supported it, I waited 7 days, Will Beback and Fladrif were present, but chose not to participate. How is this "tag team editing"?

User:Jmh649 Disruptive Behavior

• In previous ArbCom: edit warring, incivil behavior, “personalizing editorial disputes”. Six month editing restriction 7/1/09 [61] violated and blocked[62]
• 3RR [63] first day at the TM article, massive deletions of published research.[64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72] [73] despite a request for discussion first.[74]
• After 30 days Transcendental Meditation ranks as his 4th most edited article. [75]

User:Fladrif Disruptive Behavior

• Warnings and blocks for incivility and personal attacks.[76][77][78][79]
• Edit warring and 3RR warnings [80][81][82]
• More incivility [83][84]
• Contempt for other editors [85][86][87]
• Most recent [88] [89][90]
• TM related articles/talk pages are major focus [91]

Evidence presented by Fladrif

My first edits at Wikipedia were in late Feb 2008.[92] About a year and ~250 edits later, I first looked at the Transcendental Meditation article because I was interested what other articles editors I had interacted with were involved. The TM talk page was discussing whether a Neutrality Tag should be removed. I wrote that if anyone was interested in the opinion of a complete outsider with no interest in either the subject matter or in editing the article, the article did not appear to be neutral.[93] A few week later, I looked more closely at what was going on in the TM article. There were some very serious problems with highly problematic and apparently coordinated editing, including extensive edit-wars to exclude reliable sources[94] and to misrepresent others[95] The editors involved most vigorously in this behavior at the time were self-identified as faculty members of Maharishi University of Management who had stated in their profile pages that their purpose as editors was to edit the TM-related articles. Multiple pages at WP:COIN had already dealt with this issue, resulting in direct instructions from at least two administrators to not to edit those pages. Within days, confronted with the reality of what was going on and the futility of dealing with a continued concerted and coordinated effort to resist any correction of these problams, I started a new thread a COIN.[96]

TM Movement employees actively edit to push the POV of the TM Movement

• Extensive discussion at COIN archive, including information on COI as well diffs showing POV pushing by the conflicted editors: (i) coordinated tag-team edit warring to delete reliably-sourced material (ii) edit warring to misrepresent and misconstrue relevant and reliably-sourced material (iii) edit warring to include material not reliably-sourced [97]

• Some editors who push the TM Org POV have identified themselves as current or former MUM faculty or closely associated with other organizations in the TM Movement. Refs at SPI. Other editors who did not specifically self-identified as MUM employees have made statements on profile andr talk pages suggesting that they are current or former MUM faculty, employees of other TM Org entities, and communicate with TM Org officials

• Anonymous editors from other non-Fairfield IP addresses assigned to TM Movement organizations push the POV of the TM Movement.[98], [99] [100].

• KBob strongly pushes the TM Org’s POV. His editing pattern is to make dozens of individual edits in a row. Embedded in these editing tornados is strong POV-pushing. In one instance, KBob made 100+ edits in a row, without discussion, to remove or misrepresent reliable sources and improperly insert non-reliable sources [101]. In another, he deleted reliably-sourced material, first claiming that the source was “biased”, [102], then falsely claiming that the source didn’t contain the material. [103]He argued for removal of references to the Maharishi’s first book on Transcendental Meditation, a “banned book” within the TM Org because it contains statements by MMY now embarrassing to the TM Org. [104].

I have neither the time nor the organizational resources apparently available to KBob and the other members of the Fairfield sockdrawer. I have no students or cadres of Purushas to do research for me and scour through scores of articles to compile hundreds of diffs, so I trust that the above examples will suffice.Fladrif (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

TM Org Astroturfing through employee sockpuppet/meatpuppets

There is no need to repeat the findings of the SPI, or to the matters posted there and at the RFA but I would emphasize that before TimidGuy ultimately admitted to being the 76.76 sockpuppet he appears to have knowingly lied about it at SPI.[105].

Sockpuppetry by pro-TM editors does not appear to be something new.[106]Fladrif (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

TM Org astroturfing of the interwebs, is not confined to Wikipedia.[107] [108][109][110]Fladrif (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

TM Org editors create a hostile editing environment

• TM-Org affiliated editors contribute to a hostile editing environment, constantly accusing other neutral editors and administrators of bias, intimidation and incivility, making baseless accusations of COI, refusing to comply with directions from administrators or to conform to noticeboard consensus. [111][112][113][114][115][116][117][118] Fladrif (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Frivolous sockpuppetry allegations.[119]

• As Will noted, they have over the years driven off most neutral editors, many of whom throw up their hands in frustration.

• Direct and indirect legal threats have been repeatedly made against other editors, including claimed libel, copyright and trademark infringement. TimidGuy regularly consults with MUM and Maharishi Foundation Ltd general counsel, and has stated that he must do so. [120][121][122][123][124][125][126]Fladrif (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Rebuttal

@ KBob regarding Doc James

KBob's accusations against Doc James completely misrepresent the facts. Doc James got involved in the TM-related articles following an extensive discussion at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard,[127] the Reliable Sources Noticeboard[128] and Project Medicine [129] The unanimous position of all of the uninvolved editors and administrators, and all of the involved editors who were not part of the Fairfield sock/meat drawer was that the research and medical research sections of the TM-related articles consisted almost entirely of improper reliance on Primary Sources that did not qualify as Reliable Sources under WP:MEDRS. The "massive deletions" that KBob complains of were all made pursuant to and consistent with WP:MEDRS and the unanimous consensus of a wide cross-section of uninvolved editors at multiple noticeboards. Doc James's continued involvement in the TM related articles is largely confined to implementing and enforcing that policy and consensus, in the face of continued, concerted and defiant attempts by muliple TM-Org affiliated editors on a daily basis to insert primary sources favorable to their position and to misstate and misrepresent the findings of reliable sources which they believe to be unfavorable.[130][131] Fladrif (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

@ KBob re Me

KBob is quite correct. I do not suffer fools gladly. I have had my hand slapped as a result. Nobody's perfect. Fladrif (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Kala Bethere

I am not a sock puppet

Hi KBob. I am not a sockpuppet, I post on my own internet account, under the same user name. I'm not familiar personally with the user The7thdr or Tucker1976, who I believe is away for a couple of days. I have seen the latter's posts, but we have not communicated other than through talk pages where we have crossed paths, as of this writing.

If a list of different meditation techniques and their prices is supposed to somehow show that I am biased in one direction of another, I think you need to look at the chart again. The purpose of the chart was to give an idea of how TM compared to other common meditation techniques in terms of price, that's all.

My concern would be that this is merely a "fake attack" to divert the criticism you personally have received recently with your own editing issues.--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Tuckerj76

What an insult to poor Kala Bethere

Well, if I am Kala Bethere, or indeed anyone else, this should prove interesting. I am sure a checkuser would quickly prove otherwise. I have attempted to be civil, and shall remain so, but the desperation (and paranoia it would seem) been shown by users who login from TM movement IPs is proving tiring. I will not enter into this level of childish behavior, but I am sure that a reliable admin can check. This is all I have to say on the matter although Kala has my sympathy, it must be deeply disturbing to be accused of having the same level of grammar and spilling (or should that be spelling?) as me . Have a good day Tuckerj1976 (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit: This must have taken sometime (and resources)[[132]] However, the level of detail that has gone into this,the resources required, together with the notion that one person is really 3 or 4 might be argued to be like the statements made in this "leaked" document form the TM movement [[133]] But I am sure this is just my paranoia developing. Nevertheless, it does seem to once again support the evidence that this article and it's editors need close scrutiny. Tuckerj1976 (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Finally, I would like to share Kala Bethere suggestion that this might be to simply distract from this evidence here: [[134]] Tuckerj1976 (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Note Will Beback has commented on the insults that have been already made by the TM org Sockpuppets, especially at educated and knowledgeable editors of TM who threaten their dominance (namely accusations at Kala Bethere. In what appears to be an attempt to push them away or push them into making uncivil response or edits. [135]

[136]. May I add to these the following that I have just found: [[137]] [[138]] Tuckerj1976 (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Hickorybark

In my four decades in scientific academia, one of the most popular of any of the courses I teach, and one that I teach at both the graduate and undergraduate levels, is the one on scientific method. A primary theme is that, although a host of sociological pressures impact the progress of science, ultimately scientific method is an objective phenomenon based on standards of verification and falsification. In actual practice, these standards have developed into a system of rigorous academic training, well-defined methods for theoretical progress, controlled experimentation free of tester bias, and the peer review process. Generations of scientists have cultivated this system, which places science on an objective footing, and frees researchers from arbitrary efforts to foreclose scientific debate or discredit peer-reviewed research based on who is conducting the research and other subjective criteria. Scientific legitimacy is earned through hard work and adherence to rigorous practices. That said, no important research takes place in science without a passionate interest on the part of the investigators, and it is a common mistake on the part of non-scientists to think that it does. Who would spend years or decades of their life developing and testing their theory otherwise? But this interest does not compromise the scientific legitimacy of the project, because standardized, content-based procedures for evaluating scientific legitimacy must be adhered to, independent of the personal interests of the researchers themselves.

With regard to the research on the Transcendental Meditation program, scientific legitimacy has been earned through the substantial body of peer-reviewed publications, over the last 40 years, leading to tens of millions of dollars in competitive research grant funding. In saying, “Most of those studies have been conducted by the faculty of MUM,”[139] Beback seeks to invalidate this peer-reviewed research, overriding the judgment of hundreds of journal editors and reviewers, as well as numerous grant referees. Further evidence that the Transcendental Meditation 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.

The issues about consciousness and its relationship to matter are the defining frontier of scientific research today. Because it’s too early for the scientific community to have arrived at an established, mainstream consensus, it is imperative that we adhere to the foundational principles of scientific method, the free and courteous exchange of ideas, as well as the highest standards of encyclopedia scholarship. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy concludes its article on Consciousness: “A comprehensive understanding of consciousness will likely require theories of many types. One might usefully and without contradiction accept a diversity of models that each in their own way aim respectively to explain the physical, neural, cognitive, functional, representational and higher-order aspects of consciousness. There is unlikely to be any single theoretical perspective that suffices for explaining all the features of consciousness that we wish to understand. Thus a synthetic and pluralistic approach may provide the best road to future progress.” [140]

As we continue to sort out these issues, and how to present them in Wikipedia, we can use as our guide Jimmy Wales’ understanding of the three broad categories of theories: (1) “the majority view of a broad consensus of scientists,” (2) “a minority view of some scientists, scientists who are respected by the mainstream that differs with them on this particular matter,” and (3) theories “held only by a few people without any traditional training or credentials ….” [141]

The four decades of TM research documents the value of meditation for stress relief, health and personal development and falls squarely into category (1); it is supported by the vast majority of scientists familiar with the field. Newer concepts, such as the Maharishi Effect, according to which consciousness is a field whose influence can be transmitted nonlocally, are still under investigation and fall into category (2). It represents a minority view by researchers who are highly trained and respected scientists.

What has led Beback astray, I believe, is his apparent lack of knowledge and 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 (a) his reluctance to defer to the mainstream institutions and procedures for conferring scientific legitimacy, believing he has insights into conflicts of interest that the peer-review process has overlooked, and (b) his intolerance of editors with whom he disagrees, assuming they are motivated by a COI. Needless to say, casting mud at other editors [142] does nothing for the advancement of the Wikipedia project.

Of course Beback is very familiar with the Wikipedia guidelines on pseudoscience and fringe theories, but he uses his facility to further his partisan agenda. The standards for scholarly objectivity are not served by dismissively labeling peer-reviewed research as “pseudoscience” and “fringe,” or the TM organization as a whole as a “cult.” [143] Moreover, in the editing on the John Hagelin page, by effectively helping to block any context for Peter Woit, who characterized Hagelin’s views on consciousness and physics as “nonsense” and Hagelin himself as a “crackpot,” Beback was more indirect. [144] But these kinds of epithets have no place in the scientific enterprise, and finding sources for slanders is no substitute for good judgment.

The Arbitration Committee faces a real dilemma: In keeping with the implications of Beback’s indictment, do you want to limit contributions to editors who are either ignorant or outright hostile? It’s the readers who would, sadly, pay the price. Or will editors with a certain amount of expertise be permitted to continue editing? The material needs to be presented in an accurate, factual and straightforward manner. In the concrete ways described above, the TM scientists, Maharishi University of Management, and the TM organization as a whole have, over an extended period of time, earned mainstream legitimacy. I think this should be reflected in the Wikipedia pages, and I hope the Arbitration Committee will take this into consideration.

I believe that the quality and objectivity of my edits speak for themselves. They are directed solely toward improving the value of the information we provide to Wikipedia’s users. In initiating this hearing, Beback appears to be seeking administrative license to dominate the TM-related articles by suppressing responsible, informed contributors and asserting his own opinion, unimpeded. My hope is that the Arbitration Committee will be cognizant of how this would undermine Wikipedia’s mission to provide a reliable reference. Hickorybark (talk) 19:38, 19 February 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 [145] you'll find them quite innocuous. User:Roseapple

Evidence presented by BigweeBoy

I have been busy with other things in the last few days and will post my evidence in the coming days. Thanks. --BwB (talk) 12:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Durova

Internet connectivity in Fairfield, Iowa

Above, Keithbob states "LISCO provides free wireless at many locations in Fairfield."[146] Tuckerj1976 also repeats "It has also been noted by the 'TM editors that Lisco provides free wireless access in the town of Fairfield'".[147]

According to the Fairfield Area Chamber of Commerce, the three major providers of Internet access for their community are Iowa Telecom, LISCO, and Mediacom.[148] The LISCO listing states "LISCO offers a variety of residential double- or triple-play packages and is adept at creating business telecommunications solutions to meet every need, including a virtual PBX service for a fraction of the cost of a stand-alone PBX system."[149] So LISCO itself does not provide free wireless, although its subscribers may. The local public library for Fairfield has a NaTel Internet connection.[150] The two local coffee shops[151] are the 2nd Street Cafe whose Wi-Fi is an unnamed independent provider,[152] and Cafe Paradiso, whose staff confirmed via telephone that they use LISCO.[153] Other free wireless connections are the Thai Deli (a LISCO subscriber)[154] and Burger King, whose staff confirmed via telephone that they use LISCO.[155] The remaining free wireless spots are Kentucky Fried Chicken (no information on their provider) and several hotels. So there are three locations in Fairfield outside Maharishi University where Fairfield residents can access free LISCO connections, perhaps as many as five.

It stands to reason that the editing traffic to Wikipedia on this topic from three to five coffee shops and restaurants may be less than from the university itself, since the Wikipedia article for Maharishi University of Management lists 47 faculty, 200 staff, and 1284 students.[156]

Unlogged IP editing to Jefferson County, Iowa topics

One question at this case is to what degree the unlogged IP edits to Transcendental Meditation topics are attributable to the general population of Fairfield, Iowa and neighboring communities. So I conducted a survey to test whether a substantial number of non-COI editors edit unlogged. One would expect that local IP editors unaffiliated with MUM who frequent the Fairfield wi-fi locations would also edit a range of articles about local geography, culture, and education.

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. An unspecified number of Jefferson County residents live outside cities in isolated houses and farms. Two of the communities in Jefferson County have substantial discussion of MUM in their articles: Fairfield and Maharishi Vedic City, Iowa (population 222). So to gauge the general level of LISCO IP editing this survey begins with the remaining six communities of Jefferson County.

Non-MUM communities in Jefferson County, Iowa

• Batavia:[157] population 500, 2 unlogged edits in entire article history--one from Finland in 2006[158] plus one vandalism edit[159] which was quickly reverted and blocked as an open proxy.[160]
• Coppock:[161] population 57, no unlogged edits in article history.
• Libertyville:[162] population 325, no unlogged edits in article history.
• Lockridge:[163] population 275, no unlogged edits in article history.
• Packwood:[164] population 223, 1 unlogged edit in article history from Iowa Telecom.[165]
• Pleasant Plain:[166] population 131, 1 unlogged edit in article history from a non-LISCO IP in Indiana.[167]

Other cultural and educational topics of local interest

• Fairfield Arts & Convention Center:[168] no unlogged edits in article history.
• Stephen Sondheim Center for the Performing Arts:[169] 6 unlogged edits in article history--December 2007 from Birmingham, England;[170] January 2008 from LISCO;[171] August 2008 from LISCO;[172] August 2008 from Pacific Bell in California;[173] April 2009 from Charter Communications in Minnesota;[174] July 2009 also from Charter Communications in Minnesota.[175]
• Indian Hills Community College (outside Jefferson County, nearest institution of higher education other than MUM):[176] 6 unlogged edits in article history, 1 from Mediacom (a competitor to LISCO);[177] 2 from the United Kingdom[178] originating from an IP now under long term block;[179] another Mediacom;[180] the Tennessee Board of Regents;[181] and a third Mediacom.[182]
• The high school(s) of Jefferson County, Iowa could not be surveyed because no article could be found for them.

Across 9 articles unrelated to TM and MUM, a total of only 2 edits originated from unlogged LISCO connections. Wikipedia appears to have received minimal unlogged edits from LISCO subscribers relating to this region except at articles that relate to TM. The article about Jefferson County itself was excluded from the survey due to a specific mention of MUM in a logged editor's edit summary. If included it would have a moderate effect on the results: 1 LISCO IP edited the page in January 2007.

This survey found no unlogged LISCO edits to non-TM articles about Jefferson County geography, culture, or education within the last 18 months.

About LISCO

LISCO is an internet service provider that serves southeastern Iowa.[183] 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.[184]

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. 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.

In 1991, as an associate news editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), I published a lengthy investigative report on the deceptive tactics the TM movement uses to promote its high-priced and unproven nostrums. I was given the assignment after JAMA's editors learned they had been tricked into publishing a deceptive TM promotional article written by Deepak Chopra (who was then the chief promoter of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's remedies) and two TM co-authors, Dr. Hari Sharma and B.D. Triguna (Skolnick, Andrew, "Maharishi Ayur-Veda: Guru's Marketing Scheme Promises World Eternal `Perfect Health," October 2, 1991, JAMA 266 (13): 1769–74). (For a report on Sharma's continued use of deception regarding his research: [153].)

Shortly after, the editor of "ScienceWriters: The Newsletter of the National Association of Science Writers" asked me to write an article on how the TM movement was able to infiltrate and bamboozle scientific institutions and publications to provide its pseudoscientific and occult claims the appearance of scientific credibility. (Skolnick, Andrew, Fall 1991, "The Maharhishi Caper: Or How to Hoodwink Top Medical Journals". ScienceWriters. [154].

In response, the TM movement filed a $194 million SLAPP suit [[185]] against me and JAMA's editor, Dr. George Lundberg. Although the suit failed to identify a single defamatory statement in my report and was quickly dismissed without prejudice, it achieved its desired effect: The AMA ceased reporting on TM affairs and it put heavy pressure on me to stop writing about TM.

The frivolous suit also gave TM spinmeisters the argument that I was NOT an objective reporter because I was a litigant with an axe to grind. They further deceived the public by telling Newsweek and other news media that they had prevailed in their libel suit, falsely claiming we had "settled for an undisclosed amount" of money [155]. There was no such settlement. Indeed, TM's threat of refiling that suit hung over the AMA's head as a means to keep the AMA and me quiet.

Much more recently, I had to go after TM's Ayurvedic operations in Germany after they published a counterfeit letter it claimed was sent by Ohio State University which they said showed I had lied about Dr. Hari Sharma. They removed the fraudulent letter from their web site after I obtained a statement from Ohio State University's Assistant Vice President for Research Communications that OSU never wrote such a letter.

I continue to watch in dismay as TM researchers and publicists continue to mislead and deceive editors, other researchers, and the public. In my opinion, the dispute being arbitrated here results from the ongoing efforts of the TM movement to infiltrate and deceive scientific and academic institutions.

I don't know which editor involved in this arbitration dispute is legitimate and which is not, but I do know that the TM movement has many writers, editors, and PR people working hard to bring about their guru's plan to bring "Heaven on Earth." I am not the least surprised some have dedicated themselves to editing out anything in Wikipedia that might hinder that plan.

To give an example of the absurd lengths the Transcendental Meditation's PR machine will go to promote Maharishi's world plan, here is one of my favorite news releases written by Dean Draznin, a tireless TM Purusha (monk) who was and may still be a chief PR person for the TM organization (he now has a PR firm in Fairfield, Iowa)[186]. In this news release, he claims a group of TM "Yogic Fliers" saved Texas from the terrible wrath of Hurricane Gilbert by bouncing on their butts to "enliven the unified field" and "increase coherence" throughout society and nature. I'm still looking for the news release reporting how a bunch of TM Yogic Fliers saved New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina. What Maharishi's army of "researchers" and flacks mostly do is look for "arrows" they can "draw bulls-eyes around," and then find a publication gullible or careless enough to publish their "scientific evidence."

There is an elephant in the room that some in this dispute don't want others to notice: Fairfield, Iowa is largely a one-company town and that company is the Transcendental Meditation movement, which owns and controls the university and scores of TM businesses and front groups. Hundreds of people in the Fairfield community are dedicated to convincing the world to buy TM services, products, and its dubious and often deceitful "scientific research."

My JAMA article concludes with a quote from Curtis Mailloux describing the "SIMS shuffle," a skill he said he learned while a member of the Student International Meditation Society, one of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's many front groups.

"I was taught to lie and to get around the pretty rules of the 'unenlightened' in order to get favorable reports into the media," says Mailloux. "We were taught how to exploit the reporters' gullibility and fascination with the exotic, especially what comes from the East. We thought we weren't doing anything wrong, because we were told it was often necessary to deceive the unenlightened to advance our guru's plan to save the world."

The question for this arbitration group is whether Wikipedia should be open to editors who dance the SIMS shuffle.--Askolnick (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Luke Warmwater101

Still working on this

Will post as soon as possible, thanks for your patience.

Evidence presented by TimidGuy

I have a conflict of interest and a point of view. I have always tried to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I have continued editing because no neutral editor has been present. I trust Arbcom to come to a good decision and am happy to accept whatever they decide. If I am banned I hope that someone will address the sorts of issues that I have been, some of which I've documented here. There's much more that I could present, but my time in Wikipedia is very limited because of my job. I generally limit my editing to whatever free time I have before 6:30 a.m. I may still present some evidence against Will.

Evidence against Doc James

Doc James deletes well sourced material and adds sources that aren't compliant. He deleted scores of studies from the TM article, including a 2006 study published by the AMA[187], because they are primary sources. I assumed good faith — that he wanted to establish a high standard of sourcing. But then he removed material sourced to medical textbook (considered by MEDRS to be a secondary source) [188] and at the same time he added a blog as a source.[189] Olive wrote on the talk page that the blog isn’t an acceptable source. [190] Will Beback says the blog should be removed.[191] I delete blog the following day and note in my edit summary that the material is sourced to a blog.[192] Doc reverts.[193]

Doc misrepresents sources. He added to the lead that James Randi says that the claimed science behind TM is "crackpot science."[194] But Randi's website 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."[195] He misrepresents the TM-related content in the relaxation training review which he added to the article. He writes “These conclusions were supported by a 2008 review which found equivalent effects from relaxation training and Transcendental Meditation.” 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.” [196] Doc writes that TM worsens hypertension and cites the ARRQ review, which says in the Results section of the abstract that TM reduces blood pressure. (He references a single small study on p. 166 that showed a slight elevation of blood pressure, whereas all the other studies and meta-analyses in the review either show no difference or a reduction compared to controls).[197] Not only did Doc add a blog as source, he misrepresented what it said. It talks about a single study, whereas Doc writes, “Some of the looked at in the review however did not contain a control group, were not published in peer review journals, and did not look at other potential factors like convential medicines.”[198]

Doc violates WP:LEAD by disallowing a summary of the science section. He insists that the lead only include a finding from the 2007 AHRQ review comparing TM with health education (which showed about the same effect).[199] He makes no mention of four other comparisons that found positive effects. He deletes from the lead mention of a meta-anlaysis of 9 studies that found that TM reduces blood pressure compared to health education and replaces it with a Cochrane review on anxiety that looked at a single study from 1980.[200] Also, the research section of the TM article includes many other reviews, but there is no indication of this in the lead. At the same time he prominently added to the lead that magician James Randi refers to the TM research as crackpot science.[201]

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 on this, that Doc and other editors won't allow to be added. The assessment of quality was based on the Jadad scale. The authors of the report, in their revised version published in JACM, 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. Such as here.[202] Here Kala removes all mention of the published, peer viewed version of 2007 AHRQ, including a quote in which the authors say that it can be argued that the Jadad scale may be unsuited for meditation research.[203] 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.[204]

Evidence against Fladrif

Fladrif 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....” [205] His source was a 1971 article in Time magazine about two studies by Herbert Benson of Harvard University and Keith Wallace, one of which was a questionnaire that showed a dramatic reduction in drug use among 1,862 drug users who had also tried TM for at least three months. In the article Benson simply acknowledges the limitations of the study and the limited conclusions that can be drawn, as any researcher would do and as the study itself likely did.[206] 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.” [207] 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.” Fladrif misrepresented a 2001 AHRQ review on Ayurveda. It specifically reviewed research related to diabetes. Fladrif misrepresents it as having reviewed all research on Ayurveda. He also misrepresents it by saying that the review included studies on Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health, but it did not.[208] There are many more such instances, but I haven't had time to document them.

Evidence against Kala Bethere

Kala removes secondary sources. He removed the revised version of the AHRQ report published in 2008 in the Journal of Complementary and Alternative Medicine.[209] He removed a 2009 research review in Pediatrics.[210] [211] He removed a 2003 research review published in 2003 in the Journal of Meditation and Meditation Research and in The Humanistic Psychologist, which is put out by the APA.[212] [213] Kala removed material sourced to a 2009 review in Harvard Review of Psychiatry, leaving in the critical material and removing the positive findings. In this edit he also removed a 2006 research review in Epilepsy & Behavior.[214]

Evidence against Tucker

Tucker showed up as a brand new Wikipedia editor on February 7 and within 10 hours of his arrival found his way to the Rational Skepticism Collaboration project for some canvassing.[215] He removed the 2003 review sourced to the Journal of Meditation and Meditation Research.[216] He removes it again even after it’s been pointed out by Will that the same review appeared in an APA journal.[217] TimidGuy (talk) 16:19, 22 February 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.