Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal/Evidence

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.

Will Beback
Will Beback has made many valid contributions to Wikipedia. However his behavior, at topics such as Scientology, Prem Rawat, Lyndon LaRouche and Transcendental Meditation, is troubling. A variety of editors on these topics have accused him of ownership, intimidation, disruption, disregard for noticeboards; obstruction, sabotage and truth twisting. He has also followed TimidGuy (and me) to non-TM topics, that he has never edited before, and modified edits. 

WillBeback says “complaints” about TimidGuy “were ignored” at the 6 COIN investigations (2006 to 2009) and he (WillBeback) shows little regard for the SPI and Arbcom COI findings of 2010. He has requested personal information of editors, published alleged information, used COI allegations in content disputes and attempted to circumvent normal dispute resolution procedures by contacting SueGardner and reporting the results of an alleged ‘off-Wiki investigation’  to Jimbo Wales and other editors.

Outing

 * WillBeback: "three or four...on the MUM faculty...another is a teacher at MSAE"
 * Risker: "I've redacted a significant amount of personal information that you have inserted"
 * WillBeback: "COI disclosure in this matter does not include your RL name?"
 * FredBauder: "I've suppressed the edits you made which explicitly link…the person you believe is editing with a COI"
 * Will Beback says: TimidGuy is "public relations officer" "public writer" "paid advocate"
 * WillBeback posting real life names

"COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute"

 * May 2011 @TMM: "failing to disclose any personal or professional connections"
 * June 2011 @RSN: "Despite prompting, none of the editors have admitted or denied a COI"
 * June 2011 @TMS: "either disclose that fact or refrain from participating"
 * 7/5/11 @Off2RioRob "Editors who refuse to admit their COI... give Wikipedia a bad name"
 * 8/16/111 @TMS: "If anyone here is personally acquainted with the authors of this study then it'd be appropriate to say so."
 * 8/31/11 2:33UTC 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 6:13UTC @ Keithbob:  "you're adding a lot of evidence...related to COI."
 * 9/12/11 7:02UTC WillBeback emails Keithbob saying he is going to submit evidence about Keithbob's COI to ArbCom
 * 9/12/11 20:47UTC @Keithbob: "give complete and honest answers to the same three [employment] questions that user:NuclearWarfare has" [asked TimidGuy]
 * November 2011 @DRN  "Keithbob has not replied to my question of whether he is willing to have his COI disclosed"

Warnings

 * 8/12/09 TimidGuy: "this is harassment and exactly what COI policy says to avoid"
 * 3/3/10 Durova: "Continuing to ask after it's clear that a person will not answer might even get perceived as badgering"
 * 7/15/10 TimidGuy: "don't ever again try to constrain which articles I edit"
 * June 2011 Littleoliveoil: "your attempts to deliberately malign another editor by citing false information on a NoticeBoard"
 * 6/24/11 Keithbob: Formal Warning
 * 7/6/11 AaronBrenneman: "you're going too far [re:COI]"
 * 11/13/11 Keithbob: "chronic use [of] unsubstantiated accusations of conflict of interest on a talk page or noticeboard"

Response to Cardamon
You say: "TimidGuy, Littleolive oil and Keithbob, was found to have edited using overlapping IPs" (citing a two year old diff) and "this remains true". But in fact, Timid Guy has obtained a static IP (see workshop) and I have moved and don't use LISCO anymore.

Edit Totals for WillBeback and TimidGuy 6/6/10 thru 12/31/11
PS--Keithbob's edit totals for the same time period and 20 TM articles listed above: 690 edits and 353 talk page entries.

DocJames

 * Attempted Outing: "affiliation with MUM", "TimidGuy... who[se] lively-hood and identity depend on TM" , "public relations department of the TM movement" , "editors who work for MUM" , "TimidGuy works for MUM" , "Littleolive/TimidGuy ...teach at MUM" "DocJames has failed to provide any diffs that support his attempted outing statements"

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.
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * (note that any effort to summarize this material was generally attacked as original research, and, when substantiated, attacked as a "quote farm")
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * &mdash;Kww(talk) 02:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Numerous COIN Proceedings
1) TimidGuy's editing behavior on articles relating to Transcendental Meditation has been the subject of numerous discussions at WP:COIN.
 * 1) Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 2
 * 2) Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_5
 * 3) Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_5
 * 4) Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_11
 * 5) Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 30
 * 6) Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 35
 * 7) Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 40

Admission of a Conflict of Interest
2) TimidGuy has repeatedly acknowledged that he has a conflict of interest on articles related to TM.

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.

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.

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 at the SPI that led to the TM Arbcom, before finally admitting it.

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...etc including legal threats against editors post-ArbCom.

Administrative Enforcement following TM ArbCom
7) Following the TM Arbcom, TimidGuy was first issued a formal warning for violation of the TM Arbcom 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." 

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 (ii) following a RFC, TimidGuy refused to acknowledge or follow the consensus of uninvolved editors, arguing they were uninformed and had been misled ; reverted consensus versions of the article reached per the RFC ; misrepresented reliable sources ; and removed references to reliable sources , 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

Evidence presented by Cla68
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.  An outside editor studied the history between Will and Olive- his conclusion.
 * Cirt RfC- Olive has presented some diffs in her evidence section of Will attacking other editors in the Cirt RfC. Here is a full list of the relevant diffs:
 * Starts a section called "Jayen's sex life" and announces that he will, "Review the behavior of Jayen466, Cla466, and the other supporters of cults and new religious movements who've been involved in this"
 * Will then begins a series of accusations against several editors, questioning their religious beliefs and motivations. He continues even after other editors tell him his comments are inappropriate:
 * Cirt had previously supported administrative actions against TimidGuy, Littleolive oil, and Edith Sirius Lee


 * Lyndon LaRouche- Me and Will disagreed on some content in the Lyndon LaRouche topic area. Will tried to use an innovative tactic to get me banned from the topic, documented, in full, here.  Please note the prevailing opinion on Will's behavior among the respondents. Edit wars to preserve pejorative section headings in LaRouche article.
 * Edit warring in TM topic-.
 * Jayen466- Criticizes editor's change to a TM article, which was based on comments by uninvolved editor and arbitrator, then complains about it in other forum and threatens to edit war.
 * Scott MacDonald- Tries to get Scott MacDonald removed from acting as an enforcement admin in the Scientology probation.
 * Coatracking, BATTLEGROUND, and forum-shopping- Taken to NOR and NPOV noticeboards. NPOV discussion resulted in warning for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, which Will refuses to heed.  Then, warned for forum-shopping.  Threatens edit-war against noticeboard consensus.
 * Threats of COI investigation- Threatens editor, falsely stating that WP:COI requires the editor to stop editing the articles in question.

TimidGuy has repeatedly misrepresented or removed high quality sources negative to TM

 * Before ArbCom
 * Feb 13,2009 Removed AHRQ
 * Feb 13, 2009 Removed AHRQ review again
 * Feb 13, 2009 Misrepresented the result of the AHRQ claiming the opposite of what it says
 * Feb 13, 2009 Added a poor quality source attempting to refute the AHRQ


 * Since ArbCom
 * June 3rd 2010 Added a bunch of primary research before the meta analysis
 * July 31st 2010 I moved highest quality research first
 * 5 min later LittleOlive reverted
 * July 31 TG added incorrect conclusion reffed to the AHRQ
 * July 31 again
 * Aug 6th Removed statements negative to TM
 * Aug 6th Removed supporting refs.
 * Aug 8th after consensus was obtain at a RfC TG attempts to water down conclusions
 * Aug 25, 2011 Attempt to refute high quality conclusions with low quality evidence (unreffed in this case )

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 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"

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.

Will Beback
In the Cirt RFC/U Will Beback engaged in persistent, accusatory, interrogation-style questioning and comments in attempts to connect editors to their real life information while  often claiming editors had a COI. (Timid Guy made one comment on the RfC/U Cirt project page, a simple endorsement. Olive made three.)

Pertinent threads:

Sample of troubling diffs:, , , , , , , ,

Jmh649 (Doc James)
Will Beback is not the only Administrator who has attempted to “poison the well” against TimidGuy in content disputes. Doc James has actively made accusations of COI as well, for example:

Violations of COI which forbids conflict of interest "as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute." 

Arbitrators correct James definition of COI here:

He makes another accusation of COI here despite the arbitrator's comments. And again at the WP: MEDRS Notice Board. Atama replied to my concerns, here, while James replied to my warning this way.

Response to Fladrif
Most of Fladrif's evidence was already considered during the TM arbitration case, and there were no findings against me. Regarding the allegation that this comment is a legal threat, it was not intended to be a legal threat of any kind. I was simply trying to point out the very different nature of a criticisms of methodology and an allegation of fraud. One is common and part of the scientific process, and the other involves very serious actionable consequences for a scientist.

AE #1 -- Fladrif falsely accuses me of making an edit I didn't make. At AE Sandstein said he didn't see a violation.

AE #2 -- I felt that Doc James had violated NPOV and had misrepresented sources. My edits and talk page comments addressed his edits. (Some of this is discussed in the Workshop.)This resulted in my being restricted and banned. The ban was for talk page comments "patently without merit," though the banning admins (Future Perfect at Sunrise and Cirt) gave no diffs.

I don't see any violations in the diffs that Fladrif gives post topic ban, except for this one, which violates MEDRS. But the back story is this: I have argued against using popular media as sources in medical/science research topics, but Will Beback has argued for their use. An uninvolved editor urged removal of popular media sources, consensus was achieved, and these sources were removed a day later. But 17 minutes after their removal, Will Beback rescued the sentence sourced to The Guardian and put it in a different article. Knowing that Will Beback wouldn't agree to the removal of The Guardian, I put in the NY Times sentence to give another point of view. Doc James deleted the NY Times sentence, faulting me for violation of MEDRS, but left intact The Guardian sentence immediately preceding it.

Response to Doc James
I posted a response to these claims in the workshop. To summarize, I contend that my edits accurately represented the sources, that my deletion of negative material was because that material wasn't in the sources, and that the sources I've used comply with Wikipedia guidelines. The discussion also questions Doc James's own editing.

Evidence against Will Beback
Will Beback is oddly obsessed with having me banned. Not only did he circumvent the usual Wikipedia processes by going directly to Jimmy Wales, the evidence he emailed to Jimmy and the committee contained falsehoods, misrepresentations, and even complete fabrication. I documented six examples. I showed that in several instances he had been alerted to the inaccuracies of his assertions, yet repeated them in his evidence. I suggested that his tendency to twist the truth is an indication of a battleground mentality.

This battleground mentality can be seen in his posted evidence, which again tends to twist things:


 * His suggestion that I communicated with Keithbob regarding a plan to alter a webpage is imagined. (I can document this for the committee, if necessary.)


 * He uses this diff to make it sound like I was canvassing, but the RSN issue had nothing to do with TM. As a regular participant at RSN, I was inviting comment from another regular who's an attorney and who has given much thought to this area of sourcing.


 * For this diff he bizarrely claims that I said that Skolnick shouldn't edit because of COI. Skolnick removed nformation sourced to a book published by an academic press and replaced it with information sourced to his personal website. I objected to that.


 * He says I made common cause with Cla, who Will Beback says has a vendetta. Again an example of his battleground mentality. Cla was kind to tell NW that his several questions requesting personal information were inappropriate, and I thanked him.


 * Will Beback faults me for citing a bibliography posted on researcher David Orme-Johnson's website that lists the several hundred peer-reviewed studies, yet he himself cited a personal essay in a student medical journal that incorrectly said that most of the research wasn't peer reviewed.


 * Regarding this diff, he speculates that I was involved in publication of the yearbooks and bulletin at MUM in the 1970s. It's not clear why he feels it's appropriate to reveal alleged personal information, but again, this is imagined.

Widespread evidence of battleground mentality:

TimidGuy has promoted a pro-TM POV
Since coming to Wikipedia TimidGuy has consistently edited with a pro-TM POV.

That behavior has continued since the 2010 RFAR. I have reviewed all of his edits between 2010-06-04 and 2011-09-06. At "User:Will Beback/TimidGuy appeal" I have listed over 186 of them which helped advance a POV. Many of these edits concern medical claims and many concern issues which fall under WP:FRINGE.

There are dozens of examples of him adding positive material or making it more prominent, or arguing for its inclusion.

There are dozens more instances of him arguing against the inclusion of negative or critical material, or of watering it down.

One of his POV-pushing techniques is to add or subtract attributions, credentials, or other info, sometimes presenting positive info with no attribution while heavily attributing critical material.

Specific issues
TimidGuy has a copy of a 1993 docket form, a primary source, in a lawsuit involving living people regarding medical treatments sold by the TM movement. He has added information from it repeatedly for over four years. The issue seems to be to characterize the outcome of the lawsuit. Talk:Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health.
 * Court order

Strongly advocated for using a self-published website, including for assertions which are outside of the person's field of expertise, to rebut criticisms found in reliable sources.
 * David Orme-Johnson

Suggested that an editor with a COI should not edit
He has argued that user:Askolnick, a TM critic who edits under his real name, should not edit due to a COI.

Communicates with other Wikipedia editors
Communicates off-Wiki with other editors. Keithbob added material citing an MUM webpage that did not yet contain the cited information, and TimidGuy defended to edit by explaining that the webmaster hadn't added it yet. It indicates that he and Keithbob were both privy to the plan to alter the webpage.

Posted personal information
Posted significant amounts of personally identifying material on-Wiki which he has never removed. That includes his address, his formal job title, his salary, his favorite books, his favorite activity, his computer, and his sports-related injury. In real life, he has written publicly about many of these same topics.

Battleground behavior
Made common cause with Cla68, an editor who has a long-standing vendetta against me which he has pursued on and off-Wiki.

Solicited input from outside editors who already agree with his position.

Participated in bloc voting with like-minded editors.

Sourcing
Offered a publication in which he may have a role as negative proof for disputed a fact. He has also cited another source in which he is involved.

Undisputed central allegation
In his private evidence, TimidGuy does not dispute the central allegation which led to his banning by Jimmy Wales. He disputed a number of trivial issues which have no bearing on the main issue.

Overlapping IPs
A group of editors, which included TimidGuy, Littleolive oil and Keithbob, was found to have edited using overlapping IPs.

This remains true, even if none of these editors were actual sock-puppets.

Edits
If I have made no mistakes, the following table shows how many edits of TimidGuy, Littelolive oil and Keithbob have made in some TM-related articles and pages, as of when I post this. Not all TM-related pages are included, so the percentages of edits in TM-related subjects will be underestimated.

So, more than half of TimidGuy’s edits are in TM-related articles. Littleolive oil and Keithbob probably have less than half of their edits in TM related  subjects.

Littleolive oil has a COI
Evidence will be has been e-mailed to arbcom. Cardamon (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2012 (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.