User:Will Beback/TM-Multiple editors with a single voice

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Who's who: It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several editors from the same geographic area are sockpuppets, meat puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity. Editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of disruptive edits may be treated as a single editor. -Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Starwood


Editing

The TM editors have never reverted each other's work, to the best of my knowledge, nor significantly reversed their editing. Their consistent agreement and unified approach to editing has been disruptive to the project because it has included deleting well-sourced material.

Technique vs movement

One of the most extensive cases of working together against other editors involved that I've called the "technique vs. movement" issue. Basically, the TM editors enforced their view that the TM article only cover the technique and any material which wasn't about the technique should be deleted, even if the sources were referring simply to "TM". Then, they uniformly objected to an article on the movement to hold that material.

Talk page assertions

Assertions that the consensus does not allow material in the article about the movement:

  • Olive repeatedly stated that a consensus had already been established where editors agreed to limit the TM article to the technique only and excluding material on the organization, although she never pointed to the origin of this purported consensus.[1][2][3][4][5][6]
  • Kbob and ChemistryProf have argued that the TM article should only discuss the TM technique and not the TM organization: [7][8][9][10]
  • TimidGuy has argued that Wikipedia must follow the trademark holder's definition of Transcendental Meditation: [11](evidence of same user:[12][13]) [14][15][16] He has argued that the TM article should only discuss the TM technique and not the TM organization:[17][18][19][20][21][22] He has proposed getting an opinion from the MUM legal council, and implied we would have to follow that legal advice.[23]

Deletions

Deletions of sourced material on the basis of it being about the TM movement rather than the TM technique:

Opposing alternative article

TM editors arguing against creating an article on the TM movement which could hold the deleted text

"Sexy Sadie"

In this issue, editors have repeatedly agreed with each other to delete from the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi article references to an accusatory song written by a disillusioned John Lennon immediately after leaving the Maharishi's ashram. It is a very well-known incident, and the song is on one of the most popular albums of all time. See User:Will Beback/Saga of Sexy Sadie for the details.


Agreement

Almost every recent talk page includes examples of the TM editors agreeing with each other. They (virtually) never disagree on anything significant.

While agreement can be expressed many ways, they "have to agree" quite often.

  • I have to agree with TG. [..] .(olive (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)) [38]
  • I have to agree with Kbob that, if there is some doubt or confusion as to how the amount of money saved from lower crime rates was computed, that section can easily be removed, it is not fundamental to the study. [..] -Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 05:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[39]
  • Have to agree with Olive on this one. [..] --BwB (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[40]
  • I have to agree with Olive on the point "that we don't add information to an article because we have a source for it." [..] BwB (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[41]
  • I have to agree with the IP on this. [..] .(olive (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2009 [42]
  • I have to agree with Olive that we should apply the WP:MEDRS to each study individually and discuss here to see if it merits inclusion - no blanket application of a created standard. --BwB (talk) 10:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[43]
  • Have to agree with olive here. [..] -BwB (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[44]
  • I have to agree with Luke. [..] Kbob • Talk • 02:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC) [45]
  • I have to agree with TG that there is an implied suggestion that TM whatever that is, is a religion. [..] (olive 21:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC))[46]
  • I have to agree with TG on both points. [..] (olive (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC))[47]
  • I have to agree with Ronz, Olive, and Uncreated -- that the sentence reads like a non sequitur. TimidGuy (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[48]
  • I'm afraid I have to agree with TG. [..] (olive (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC))[49]
  • Hi 7th, I appreciate your contributions to this article but would have to agree with LO that since there is already an separate article on the TM-Sidhi program (Yogic Flying) it does not seem appropriate that we have duplicate info here. [..] Kbob (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[50]

That's a list I compiled a while ago. A few more recent examples:

  • Thanks for providing the list TG. I agree with you that the references form GGN and the press releases are weak and could be removed, or replaced with stronger ref if they exist. --BwB (talk) 12:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC) [51]
  • Timid, you have a way with words, and I agree: it is just not logical to think that wikipedia would have inferred that the comments of a journalist unfamiliar with a topic and unlikely to ever visit it again are more reliable and worthier of publication than a reputable peer reviewed journal who published a study after rigorous review. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I would tend to agree with TG that this journal is more reputable in terms of opinion than Randi ... (olive (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)) [52]
  • I would agree with Kbob. Invincible Defense is relatively removed from TM-Sidhis since it is only one subset of the Maharishi Effect, and if noted at all should only be given a line or two in the Maharishi Effect Section.(olive (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC))[53]
  • I agree with Kbob's point, ... --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC) [54]
  • Yes, Luke I agree that the Park section is ... --BwB (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC) [55]
  • Yes, I agree that the DC course is ... --BwB (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree. [..] -Uncreated (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with Olive on this one... --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Disagree

  • I have read the entire discussion carefully and I cannot agree with Fladrif. [..] --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Will, I disagree with your definition of... -Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Varieties of views among non-TM editors

I have often agreed with the TM editors, or brokered compromises between the "pro" and "anti" sides.

I've posted messages on 7thdr's talk page regarding his behavior: [56] [57] [58]

I've posted messages on Fladrif's talk page about his behavior or content editing: [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65]

I've proposed or supported removing poor sources used for negative material. [66]

I've supported the inclusion of TM-movement points of view [67]

Recently, I edited the article to make potentially embarrassing material less prominent, in opposition to Fladrif. [68][69] (discussed here: Talk:Transcendental_Meditation/Archive_29#Lansky scroll to "Supplemental techniques").

I've written neutral, well-sourced, uncontroversial material on the leadership and other aspects of the movement. Tony Nader, Bevan Morris, List of TM practitioners, and have expanded existing articles, like Natural Law Party (United States). In the past six months I've significantly improved the encyclopedia's quality and coverage of this topic. The TM editors have praised my work or thanked me on many occasions.

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User:Will_Beback/TM-Multiple_editors_with_a_single_voice"