Revision as of 00:25, 22 February 2010

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the/Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposals by Durova

Proposed principles

Responsibility of organizations

1) Editors who access Misplaced Pages through an organization's IP address and who edit Misplaced Pages articles which relate to that organization have a presumptive conflict of interest. Regardless of these editors' specific relationship to that organization or function within it, the organization itself bears a responsibility for appropriate use of its servers and equipment. If an organization fails to manage that responsibility, Misplaced Pages may address persistent violations of fundamental site policies through blocks or bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Misplaced Pages by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Misplaced Pages through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Support Tuckerj1976 (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Support. This has been recognized in previous cases, and is common sense.   Will Beback  talk  00:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Suggesting a few basic principles that will probably be relevant no matter how the case progresses. This one is an exact copy of Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS/Proposed_decision#Responsibility_of_organizations and Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Proposed_decision#Responsibility_of_organizations. Was originally proposed here in response to an argument that CU-confirmed edits from Church of Scientology Internet connections would not constitute conflict of interest if the editors were volunteers of the Church of Scientology rather than employees. Durova 20:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems reasonable to me as long as the organizations IP address is clearly identified and established. Has this been done? If so, what is it? I don't think that has been made clear yet. That would be an important step in developing and enforcing this proposed guideline.-- — Kbob • Talk • 07:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Already shown as an appropriate statement from the Scientology case. Applicable and relevant here to this case. Cirt (talk) 07:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Keithbob's question, this proposal is a principle rather than a finding of fact. The determination of fact is up to the people who have access to that information. Either way the principle is relevant as a statement of our standards and expectations. Durova 19:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Financial conflict of interest

2) Persons who receive financial compensation from an organization have a conflict of interest when they edit Misplaced Pages articles about that organization.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Misplaced Pages by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Misplaced Pages through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Support. It isn't necessary for someone to be paid specifically for editing. If they are paid by the organization then they have interests tied to that organization's existence and prosperity.   Will Beback  talk  00:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Support Tuckerj1976 (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Standard definition of financial conflict of interest. Supplements "Responsibility of organizations" proposal above for non-volunteer members of an organization. Covers paid employees and could extend to indirect compensation such as the staff of a contracted PR firm or paid freelancers; see here for a historic example where an individual rejected an offer of paid freelancing. The intention of this proposal is to mirror real world understanding of conflict of interest, thus minimizing the chances that misguided efforts would result in public embarrassment. In a nutshell: if an organization pays you and you edit Misplaced Pages articles about that organization, then you have a conflict of interest regardless of which computers or Internet connections you use. Durova 20:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agreed as stated above. Durova brings up some additional relevant details.-- — Kbob • Talk • 07:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a very good supplement and complementary hand-in-hand with "Responsibility of organizations", above. Cirt (talk) 07:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Personal beliefs

3) Personal adherence to a belief system does not in itself constitute a conflict of interest. Individual adherents of belief systems--large or small, old or new--are welcome to edit Misplaced Pages without fear of sanction when they abide by site policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Misplaced Pages by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Misplaced Pages through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Support. Mere beliefs do not create a conflict of interest. However advocacy is not allowed, whether by believers or dissenters.   Will Beback  talk  00:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Durova 20:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree -- — Kbob • Talk • 07:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. A very good distinction. Cirt (talk) 07:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed but not relevant to TM. See above ]

Conflict of interest

4) Misplaced Pages's conflict of interest guideline advises people to edit with caution in certain situations. In itself it is not a prohibition against editing, although Misplaced Pages's administrators and Arbitration Committee may weigh conflicts of interest if behavioral problems arise.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Misplaced Pages by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Misplaced Pages through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Support This is just a restatement of a long-standing guideline.   Will Beback  talk  00:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Durova 20:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree-- — Kbob • Talk • 07:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Especially appropriate in conjunction with "Responsibility of organizations" and "Financial conflict of interest", above. Cirt (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Cirt

Proposed principles

Purpose of Misplaced Pages

1) The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the encyclopedia to advance personal agendas – such as advocacy or propaganda and philosophical, ideological or religious dispute – or to publish or promote original research is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Misplaced Pages by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Misplaced Pages through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Support Tuckerj1976 (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Support I think this principle is important in this case.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, as applicable and relevant to this case. From Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Purpose_of_Wikipedia. Cirt (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a reasonable and uncontroversial application of a principle from a previous case. Durova 19:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Decorum

2) Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Misplaced Pages by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Misplaced Pages through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Support Tuckerj1976 (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Support. It's worth noting that the expectations include, but are not limited to, civility. In this case there have been repeated unsupported charges of misconduct, for example.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, as applicable and relevant to this case. From Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Decorum. Cirt (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the allegations surrounding this case appear to be considerably less extreme than the allegations surrounding the Scientology dispute, where one editor had used a sockpuppet account to make wholly unfounded accusations regarding controlled substances and prostitution. The current case could bear a little bit more time to see whether its misconduct allegations will actually be supported: one editor made strong assertions (but theoretically supportable allegations) at RFAR and then added she would be unavailable for evidence until today. So without prejudice as to the factuality of those assertions, as a principle this is reasonable. Perhaps modify with the caveat that WP:AGF defaults to good faith misunderstanding in non-extreme situations. Durova 19:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Single purpose accounts

3) Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Misplaced Pages by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Misplaced Pages through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Support. This case has both single purpose editors (both "pro" and "anti"), and even more "primary purpose editors", those who devote 50% or more of their edits to a topic. Both are allowable, but they need to edit neutrally.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, as applicable and relevant to this case. From Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Single_purpose_accounts. Cirt (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Reasonable at any arbitration where single purpose accounts are involved. Durova 20:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Multiple editors with a single voice

4) It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several editors from the same IP or corporate server are sockpuppets, meat puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Misplaced Pages. In such cases, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity. The Arbitration Committee may determine that editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of edits be treated as a single editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Misplaced Pages by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Misplaced Pages through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Support Per comments above and below Tuckerj1976 (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

'Support This is a key principle in this case. The POVs of the nine TM editors are indistinguishable, they edit the same articles to promote the same agenda, and they all use the same IP networks.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, as applicable and relevant to this case. From Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Multiple_editors_with_a_single_voice. Cirt (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually this originally came from the Starwood arbitration. A necessary functional solution to a difficult problem: without this it would become too difficult to remedy exploitive conduct at certain topics. Durova 20:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Use of accounts

5) Creating accounts ("sockpuppetry") or coordinating accounts ("meatpuppetry") to manipulate the consensus process; to create alliances to reinforce a particular point of view, to engage in factional or tactical voting; to create "ownership" of articles; to evade topic bans or blocks; or to otherwise game the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Misplaced Pages by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Misplaced Pages through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Fully support Tuckerj1976 (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Suport It's impossible to determine whether it is one person or several using a computer. Collusion between editors to promote a POV or exert ownership of a topic is harmful to the consensus model of Misplaced Pages editing.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, as applicable and relevant to this case. From Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Use_of_accounts. Cirt (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Supporting as a principle. Durova 20:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Feuds and quarrels

6) Editors who consistently find themselves in disputes with each other whenever they interact on Misplaced Pages, and who are unable to resolve their differences, should seek to minimize the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them. In extreme cases, they may be directed to do so.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Misplaced Pages by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Misplaced Pages through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Fully Support The article has grown far to "heated" and this principle must be applied Tuckerj1976 (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Support The same set of editors keeps getting into similar disputes with a succession of other editors.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, as applicable and relevant to this case. From Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Feuds_and_quarrels. Cirt (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

May I ask the specific relevance to this case? In Scientology there was one administrator who had followed a particular editor to multiple articles, etc. and had been through ten formal dispute resolution attempts with that editor (it was entirely one-sided; the editor had never followed the administrator). Shortly before the arbitration began that administrator showed up at AE, denigrating that same editor without disclosing the history. Combined with other evidence it added up to an obvious grudge. A crucial element is how that grudge carried across multiple subjects for several years. If the TM dispute is contained entirely within the scope of the TM subject, then AGF defaults to normal editorial differences. It would only be appropriate to include this principle if there is evidence of conflict outside the normal scope of shared topical interest. Durova 20:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, you have a very good point. I think this is just simply a very good thing to have as a more generalist principle. I leave it up to the judgment of the Arbitrators as far as inclusion in a final decision. Cirt (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

If the evidence takes a certain direction this could become very relevant. Will wait and see regarding that. Durova 20:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Transcedental Meditation organization and editors

1) Editors involved with articles regarding the Transcedental Meditation movement (TM) have been tied to IP ranges from Fairfield, Iowa and Maharishi Vedic City, Iowa, which is home to the Maharishi University of Management, who runs the TM movement. Many of the editors appear to be editing as single purpose accounts with likely meatpuppetry and possible sock puppetry occurring at articles within the topic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support SPI findings are incontrovertable. Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Fladrif (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Support. There's no question that these editors are using IPs based in Fairfield/MVC, a small community. TM practitioners and employees of the movement account for at least a quarter or more of its population. It is likely that these editors know each other personally and participate together in the daily group practice sessions. It is possible that they are friends, neighbors, colleagues, housemates, or even spouses of each other.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, from Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement#Statement_by_MuZemike and Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/TM editors/Archive. This could likely be changed to be more specific to the accounts and IP ranges involved. Cirt (talk) 07:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Uncomfortable about bundling two communities in Iowa with the Maharishi University itself. If an arbitration arose about the Princeton-Columbia college rivalry, would we encompass all of Princeton, New Jersey in a finding? All of New York City? Findings ought to be applicable to any comparable situation. This one needs refining. Durova 20:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, Fairfield and MVC are essentially one community due to their proximity. The total settlement is quite small (about 11,000), in the middle of a sparsely populated farm region. It's quite different from universities or movementets based in larger communities.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I will probably be posting another, more specific one, at some point soon. Cirt (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Within the scope of the privacy policy I'm wondering what's possible here. Back during the COFS arbitration one set of editors made specific claims about the Church of Scientology IT configuration. It would have strengthened their argument if they had provided a letter from the IT management to confirm what they were saying (several times I invited them to do so, but they ignored the suggestion--ultimately it appeared their claims were not very credible). A relevant question to this case is what the viable range of Internet connection options are for small midwestern communities. Some of the editor posts at RFAR and evidence imply that a single provider dominates nearly the entire market for the university plus two nearby communities, and assigns a narrow range of IP addresses randomly within that geographic area. I wonder how true that bears out. The local Chamber of Commerce should be able to provide basic information, and if the Maharishi University IT department is cooperative it might be possible to make better sense of things. Durova 21:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It has been noted that it is not the ip range of an area but the ip range of a specific internet service provider with clear links to the TM org (Lisco) This has been found not just by the sockpuppetry case that started these proceeding but by the involved editors themselves ], ]. It has also been noted by the "TM editors that Lisco provides free wireless access in the town of Fairfield ]. Thus any IP "ban" or restriction could be based on this service provider and in connection to TM article specifically. Such restrictions are already in place with existing service providers due to abuse of their highly dynamic IP address assigning. This could easily be imposed here in a manner such as I have suggested above ] Tuckerj1976 (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Per your input, Tuckerj1976, I have researched free LISCO WI-FI availability in Fairfield, Iowa. The local public library appears to be using a different service, which leaves three to five local coffee shops and restaurants. Am not aware of whether LISCO reassigns IP addresses randomly throughout that geographic area. Durova 22:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

(un-dent) Thank you Durova. That is surprising given the statements of claimed sockpuppets/Lisco users ]. Perhaps I am simply to believing and naive. It makes things a little more difficult . I think I should simply step-back and leave this WIKI itself. I thnk you may have more expertise than me in this area. Tuckerj1976 (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

According to the 2000 census the city of Fairfield, Iowa had a population of slightly under 10,000 people. It wasn't likely a community that size would have a very large number of public wi-fi locations and some of those would use other carriers. The assertion didn't pass the sniff test. A few Google searches and phone calls took care of the rest. Durova 00:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Scope of Transcendental Meditation movement topic ban

1A) Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Transcendental Meditation movement or practitioners of Transcendental Meditation movement, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Misplaced Pages process relating to those articles, including as examples but not limited to, articles for deletion, reliable sources noticeboard, administrators' noticeboard and so forth.

1B) Editors topic banned under this remedy may apply to have the topic ban lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Misplaced Pages and their ability to work constructively with other editors. The Committee will consider each request individually, but will look favorably on participation in the featured content process, including both production of any type of featured content, as well as constructive participation in featured content candidacies and reviews. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done no more frequently than every six months thereafter.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Misplaced Pages by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Misplaced Pages through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, as applicable and relevant to this case. From Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Scope_of_Scientology_topic_ban. Cirt (talk) 07:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Discretionary topic ban

2) Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, ban any editor from editing within the Transcendental Meditation movement topic. Prior to topic banning the editor, the administrator will leave a message on the editor's talk page, linking to this paragraph, warning the editor that a topic ban is contemplated and outlining the behaviours for which it is contemplated. If the editor fails to heed the warning, the editor may be topic banned, initially, for three months, then with additional topic bans increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

All topic bans and blocks arising out of this sanction are to be recorded at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement#Log of topic bans and blocks. Appeals of discretionary topic bans may be made to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Misplaced Pages by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Misplaced Pages through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, as applicable and relevant to this case. From Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Discretionary_topic_ban. Cirt (talk) 07:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Single purpose accounts with agendas

3) Any editor who, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Transcendental Meditation movement or practitioners of Transcendental Meditation movement and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda may be topic-banned for up to one year. Any editor topic banned under this sanction may be re-blocked at the expiry of a topic ban if they recommence editing in the topic having made few or no significant edits outside of it during the period of the topic ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Misplaced Pages by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Misplaced Pages through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, as applicable and relevant to this case. From Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Single_purpose_accounts_with_agendas. Cirt (talk) 07:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Account limitation

4) Any editor who is subject to remedies in this proceeding, or who wishes to edit from an open proxy, is restricted to a single current or future account to edit Transcendental Meditation movement-related topics and may not contribute to the topic as anonymous IP editors. They are to inform the Committee of the account they have selected, and must obtain the Committee's approval if they wish to begin using a different account. All other accounts showing the same editing patterns are to be blocked indefinitely.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Misplaced Pages by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Misplaced Pages through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, as applicable and relevant to this case. From Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Account_limitation. Cirt (talk) 07:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Editors instructed

5) Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to any Transcendental Meditation movement-related articles or discussions on any page is directed:

(A) To edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account, unless the user has previously sought and obtained permission from the Arbitration Committee to operate a legitimate second account;

(B) To edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration;

(C) To edit in accordance with all Misplaced Pages policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding; and

(D) To disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page.

Any uninvolved administrator may on his or her discretion apply the discretionary sanctions specified in Remedy "Discretionary topic ban" to any editor failing to comply with the spirit or letter of these instructions.

A note concerning these restrictions shall be placed on the talkpage of each of the affected articles. In case of any doubt concerning application or interpretation of these restrictions, the Arbitration Committee may be consulted for guidance.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Misplaced Pages by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Misplaced Pages through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Support fully and applicable to what has become "both sides" (pro and so called "anti" TM. While I really do believe that the "anti" camp are simply depicted so due to the enormous astroturfing that has taken place by the TM organization (and thus editors who have stayed with this article and argued so bravely against it should be applauded) there is always the possibilty that editors may arrive who really do have a negative POV against TM and will ignore any positive findings that might exist or arise. Tuckerj1976 (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, as applicable and relevant to this case. From Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Editors_instructed. Cirt (talk) 07:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should any user subject to a topic ban in this case violate that ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block. All blocks are to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement#Log of topic bans and blocks. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Misplaced Pages by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Misplaced Pages through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Support fully. Tuckerj1976 (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, as applicable and relevant to this case. From Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Enforcement_by_block. Cirt (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved administrators

2) For the purpose of imposing sanctions under the provisions of this case, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict and is not mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee decision in this case. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any disputes about whether an administrator is involved or not are to be referred to the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Misplaced Pages by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Misplaced Pages through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Support for reason stated above Tuckerj1976 (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, as applicable and relevant to this case. From Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Uninvolved_administrators. Cirt (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposals by Tuckerj1976

Edited: Moved here from incorrect section noted by User:Durova. I hope this is now correct.

Overview

So called "Extremist pro TM editors (where data and facts are highly manipulated to make it appear that TM is the answer to the worlds problems (Issues in diverse arenas as: health, wealth, politics, terrorism, crime, education, the paranormal, and world peace). These "extremists" will only accept any edit that places TM in a highly positive light and include (after a quick review by myself):

• TimidGuy (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ChemistryProf (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Littleolive oil (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Roseapple (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Bigweeboy (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Keithbob (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Luke Warmwater101 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

(There maybe more, I simply note the presence of the above as the most persistant on the main TM article (although the investigation that started this suggests others maybe sockpuppets of the above and indeed of each other)

There is also one Administrator that seems to have an unusually friendly relationship with the "extremist" pro TM lobby Dreadstar (However, this maybe incorrect and would require wiki admins to investigate, although already mentioned I believe by others)

Editors

Above users should be topic banned from any article related to TM or the TM movement. This would mean that they could continue to use their obviously detailed knowledge of WIKI editing in other areas of WIKI. Thus helping to benefit other articles with their obvious editorial skills while those concerned about their POV maybe able to breath easier. At the same time, this would diminish fears by some (and the editors conduct) that these editors are part of a large organization with clear social, political and educational agendas allowed to propagate those agendas here unrestricted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

SupportFladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Thank you for moving the proposals. These procedures can be confusing. Will give the evidence more time before commenting upon proposed remedies. Durova 20:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

IP addresses

It has been noted already that most of these editors live in the same area and seem to use the same service provider as the TM movement LISCO. We are aware that people using other service providers (perhaps due to highly dynamic IP addresses (such as certain mobile internet providers) have restrictions placed on them when editing wiki articles without a registered user id and indeed have to go through a check process while generating a new user account. It would not be difficult, given the findings here ] to do something similar with LISCO users. This would thus not restrict all users of these IP group completely from editing most WIKI articles

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. Banning all LISCo IP addresses from the TM-related articles, subject to specific exceptions on application to ArbCom, would impose no undue hardship on any Fairfield area editor.Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

IP addresses directly owned by any part of the TM movement

Any to IP address connected directly to the TM movement should not be allowed to edit any TM related articles)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

TM movement should not be allowed to edit based on religious or "spiritual" grounds

It has been noted by some editors that people from the TM movement should be allowed to edit TM articles based on religious or spiritual grounds and this leaves us in something of a difficulty. However, it must be noted that the TM movement itself claims that it IS NOT either a religion or a spirituality. Instead it claims the following:

What is Transcendental Meditation?

Transcendental Meditation is a simple technique which gives a unique quality of rest to mind and body. It allows stress and tiredness to be released in a natural way, resulting in greater energy, clarity and enjoyment of life. ]

Will it interfere with my existing beliefs?

No. Transcendental Meditation is a simple technique that aids relaxation, relieves stress and provides physical and mental energy. The practice does not conflict with any existing beliefs, religious or otherwise; yet at the same time people often find that regular meditation gives clarity and perspective to their highest aspirations. ]

Then is TM a spirituality? Again, the TM movement (at least publicly) says no ]

So what is TM? The organization clarifies itself with this statement:

(Transcendental Meditation) will enhance your religion. Millions of people of all religions -- including clergy of all religions -- practice Transcendental Meditation. They report that the technique, by increasing energy and intelligence and eliminating stress and fatigue, allows them to better follow the tenets of their religion. Transcendental Meditation is a technique, pure and simple. It involves no religion, belief, philosophy, or change in lifestyle. ]

If this is correct then using the argument that TM should be allowed to edit the article on religious or spiritual grounds most be a flawed and is indeed an unusable argument (we cannot claim that an organization is something it says it is not, except in the context of an article and then only using reliable sources) . On this basis it should, and can only, be treated in the same way that WIKI would look at any organization making medical, social political or educational claims (and especially those where an exchange of money takes place). Would WIKI allow a drug company (or its representatives) to edit its own wiki page where it appears manipulate clinical data to suggest that its newest drug will "cure cancer" even when mainstream science says it does not? Clearly it would not. Tuckerj1976 (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. The posture of this matter is not whether adherents to some religion can edit an article about their religion. It is whether an organization, whether one regards it as a commercial enterprise or otherwise, should be permitted to astroturf Misplaced Pages.Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Z

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: