Will Beback vs. the Transcendental Meditators Options

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Will's latest Holy War seems to be against the Transcendental Meditation movement. I don't know beans about Prem Rawat or TM, but I enjoy watching Will in action. Here he is accused of being part of a "POV Pushing Team" -- see him respond with his patented Moi?

[EricBarbour]

No one commented? Hm, i wonder if people are sick of talking about Will....
he is one predictable little man-boy.

The primary discussion is here. I just love it when Will makes little
smug pronouncements like.....

There is evidence of off-WP collusion.

Where's the evidence, asshole? Show us.

[Cla68]

No one commented? Hm, i wonder if people are sick of talking about Will....
he is one predictable little man-boy.

The primary discussion is here. I just love it when Will makes little
smug pronouncements like.....

There is evidence of off-WP collusion.

Where's the evidence, asshole? Show us.

From what I see on that evidence page, I would topic ban all of the "pro"-TM editors AND Will Beback. That would put Will at a disadvantage in trying to promote his POV in those articles, because he is an admin he would get in serious trouble if he tried to edit them using a sock. The pro-TM editors, however, can keep coming back again and again with socks since they don't have any formal authority in Wikipedia that they would stand to lose.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

From what I see on that evidence page, I would topic ban all of the "pro"-TM editors AND Will Beback. That would put Will at a disadvantage in trying to promote his POV in those articles, because he is an admin he would get in serious trouble if he tried to edit them using a sock. The pro-TM editors, however, can keep coming back again and again with socks since they don't have any formal authority in Wikipedia that they would stand to lose.

That seems fair, in an oddly asymmetrical way. However, Will has other options, such as meatpuppetry. That is, if his friends, like Georgewilliamherbert or Slim, have enough sheer anal-retentive stick-to-itiveness to go up against the meditators.

[NotARepublican55]

I don't know beans about Prem Rawat or TM.

All I know about Rrem Rawat is that a few years back, a former admin Jossi Fresco (a Prem Rawat disciple) was accused of using his authority to push a pro-Prem POV on his article. Jossi's now banned for sockpuppetry.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

The primary discussion is here. I just love it when Will makes little
smug pronouncements like.....

There is evidence of off-WP collusion.

He also accuses his opponents of tag-teaming, with no sense of irony.

He has an interesting theory of COI, which is that editors whose edits consistently reflect support for a controversial group have it, whereas editors whose edits consistently reflect opposition to the controversial group do not.

[Cla68]

The primary discussion is here. I just love it when Will makes little
smug pronouncements like.....

There is evidence of off-WP collusion.

He also accuses his opponents of tag-teaming, with no sense of irony.

He has an interesting theory of COI, which is that editors whose edits consistently reflect support for a controversial group have it, whereas editors whose edits consistently reflect opposition to the controversial group do not.

This is probably a discussion for a separate thread, but it seems that the NPOV policy makes the COI guideline moot. Either someone is complying with NPOV (at least, with the spirit of it) or they aren't.

[Trick cyclist]

He has an interesting theory of COI, which is that editors whose edits consistently reflect support for a controversial group have it, whereas editors whose edits consistently reflect opposition to the controversial group do not.

Not that Im supporting him or anything, of course not, but opposition to a group that all but a very small minority of people would disagree with is not evidence of COI in my book. To take two popular subjects round here would a strongly anti-pedophile or anti-bestiality editor be accused of COI by most editors here?

[CharlotteWebb]

Taught in a standardized, seven-step course over 4 days by certified teachers for ~1,500 USD in the United States, it involves the use of a sound or mantra and is practiced for 15–20 minutes twice per day, while sitting comfortably with closed eyes.

Ch-ching.

And to think, back home we call that a nap.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

He has an interesting theory of COI, which is that editors whose edits consistently reflect support for a controversial group have it, whereas editors whose edits consistently reflect opposition to the controversial group do not.

Not that Im supporting him or anything, of course not, but opposition to a group that all but a very small minority of people would disagree with is not evidence of COI in my book.

But then again, would support for such a group be evidence of COI, in your book?

[HRIP7]

Not that Im supporting him or anything, of course not, but opposition to a group that all but a very small minority of people would disagree with is not evidence of COI in my book. To take two popular subjects round here would a strongly anti-pedophile or anti-bestiality editor be accused of COI by most editors here?

This is probably a discussion for a separate thread, but it seems that the NPOV policy makes the COI guideline moot. Either someone is complying with NPOV (at least, with the spirit of it) or they aren't.

Good points. How about this DYK hook for this article?

Will's hook was subject to an unusual amount of discussion post-submission. Fladrif, also a party in the arbitration (on the anti-TM side, and not normally a presence on the DYK page), had okayed Will's hook, after which Materialscientist, a DYK regular, said,

I am keen to reconsider, but there are at least two issues (i) "Crime" and stabbings, in this context, imply something wide-scale and repeating - this is by far not the case (a sudden act by a single person) (ii) The hook sounds as an accusation to the university, which I don't see enough grounds for (iii) minor: a couple of refs are not formatted. Materialscientist (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The article too changed quite a lot in the days following the submission. Information added since includes that the kid had only been at the university for 2 months.

So what's your view? NPOV? Advocacy?

[Herschelkrustofsky]

That's a lovely example of Will at work. It's a good thing that he's so ineffably neutral, or WP would really be in trouble.

[Cla68]

That's a lovely example of Will at work. It's a good thing that he's so ineffably neutral, or WP would really be in trouble.

Did someone submit that as evidence in the ArbCom case? If they didn't, I will. Perhaps, however, it won't be necessary since most, if not all, of the Committee members read WR.

[HRIP7]

Did someone submit that as evidence in the ArbCom case? If they didn't, I will. Perhaps, however, it won't be necessary since most, if not all, of the Committee members read WR.

I did add it to the evidence page last night.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Did someone submit that as evidence in the ArbCom case? If they didn't, I will. Perhaps, however, it won't be necessary since most, if not all, of the Committee members read WR.

I did add it to the evidence page last night.

Oh, so you're Jayen466! I missed that somehow.

[Cla68]

Did someone submit that as evidence in the ArbCom case? If they didn't, I will. Perhaps, however, it won't be necessary since most, if not all, of the Committee members read WR.

I did add it to the evidence page last night.

Will, and I know you're reading this, Wikipedia should not be a place where you pursue a personal agenda against Lyndon LaRouche, these meditationists, or any other political or religious outfit you disapprove of. I know I supported you in your battle with Jossi at Prem Rawat, but that's because your editing was way more even-handed in that case (the "Millenium" article is excellent work) and Jossi was obviously out of control. Will, please choose a subject that you can edit neutrally and stick with it. Otherwise, perhaps another hobby would be more helpful for everyone.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

As he did with the LaRouche articles, WB has now constructed an enormous edifice of articles about TM and TM-related issues. He has taken care to highlight any event that might embarrass them, by making sure that a special article is created to draw attention to it.

Question: shouldn't all this be regarded as a violation of WP:POVFORK?

[Son of a Yeti]

Question: shouldn't all this be regarded as a violation of WP:POVFORK?

Generally, the whole Wikipedia process seems to be a violation of sanity.

As opposed to the definition of insanity by Albert Einstein.

[TungstenCarbide]

That's a lovely example of Will at work. It's a good thing that he's so ineffably neutral, or WP would really be in trouble.

i love you man

[Somey]

As he did with the LaRouche articles, WB has now constructed an enormous edifice of articles about TM and TM-related issues. He has taken care to highlight any event that might embarrass them, by making sure that a special article is created to draw attention to it.

It should probably be noted that this article (Maharishi University of Management stabbing (T-H-L-K-D)) was started well before this thread was started... it may be that Beback has expansion plans, but that one seems to be the only really obvious attack article in the category, at least by title.

FWIW, I've met some former Maharishi University student-cultists personally (Fairfield, IA isn't far from here), and without exception they had nothing but bad things to say about the experience. One thing the Maharishi people do is offer student visas to people in poorer countries as a means of getting their foot in the door for US citizenship. Then they make them sign away their rights to just about anything they might create, invent, write, or whatever during the course of their entire lives, after they've already arrived and settled in and have almost no alternative but to sign. And then they put them to work, basically - they have all sorts of little businesses run by "students," and the vast majority of the revenue goes back to the Maharishi, usually under the table. They even have their own currency, the "RAAM (T-H-L-K-D)," to help facilitate this. Things like this are common among nearly all eastern religious cults in the US, to some degree, but the Maharishi University folks are bigger and more skilled at it than most, if not all, of their competitors.

I guess this is just my way of saying that Beback's opposition to the Maharishi people is more righteous than his opposition to the Larouche people, which at times has been decidedly un-righteous (though I'm not at all happy with the way the Larouche people are treating Pres. Obama these days). I'll admit that I'm saying this mostly to reflect the obvious reflexive counter-criticism, but the fact remains, at least the Larouche people don't claim to be a "religion" or a "charity," and they don't make wacky/outlandish claims of miraculous health benefits that you get just by joining. I suppose they do try to impose control over their members to some extent, but they don't seem to want to do it from cradle to grave like some of these quasi-religious cults do.