User:Will Beback/TM-Keithbob

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Keithbob (Kbob)[edit]

POV editing[edit]

Kbob has made POV edits. [3][4]

Kbob has added important or exceptional claims with inadequate sources: [5][6][7]

Kbob has used obscure free magazines as sources for contentious claims at least twice: 1) [8] 2) [9][10][11][12] (In this case the magazine included a large advertisement for the local TM center.) [13] (large file)

Kbob has removed sourced (or easily sourced) negative material: [14][15][16][17]

Kbob has added unsourced or poorly sourced material: [18][19][20]

Kbob has incorrectly summarized positive material, exaggerating its importance: [21] (corrected [22]

Kbob has added {fact} tags to obvious or easily source non-controversial material: [23]

Kbob has made edits regarding Natural Stress Relief, a commercial competitor to TM.[24]

Kbob has added the names of non-notable people to notable person lists. [25]

Kbob has added material sourced to TM figures without including their affiliation: [26]

Kbob has added material that is not compliant with WP:MEDRS, in some cases simply copying entire abstracts: [27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34], etc.

Editing behavior[edit]

Kbob has said that he's a neutral editor.[35]

Kbob has accused non-TM editors of being a "tag team of POV editing".[36][37]

Personal interactions[edit]

Technique vs movement[edit]

Kbob has argued that the TM article should only discuss the TM technique and not the TM organization: [38][39]

Kbob has deleted sourced material on the basis of it being about the TM movement rather than the TM technique: [40]

Kbob has argued against creating an article on the TM movement which could hold the deleted text: [41][42][43]

Kbob has spammed references to the Maharishi's non-notable commentary on the Bhagavad-Gita: [44][45]


Kbob has repeatedly copied verbatim or slightly altered text from sources without placing it in quotation marks, even after he was called on it. Here he explains why that's wrong: [46]


As of February 20, 2010:

TM-related edits All edits Percentage
article 3918 7200 54%
talk 1628 2185 75%
total 5546 9385 59%

Kbob ranks among the most prolific editors ot TM-related articles:

Kbob has been a prolific contributor to talk pages:

Kbob's ten most edited articles (nine are TM-related):

  • 630 - Transcendental_Meditation
  • 355 - Maharishi_Vedic_Approach_to_Health
  • 275 - Maharishi_University_of_Management
  • 265 - Deepak_Chopra
  • 234 - Maharishi_Mahesh_Yogi
  • 230 - TM-Sidhi_program
  • 215 - John_Hagelin
  • 152 - Maharishi_Vedic_Education_Development_Corporation
  • 139 - Market_trend
  • 109 - Maharishi_Sthapatya_Veda


Kbob has mentioned my involvement with Prem Rawat. My chief error with that topic was getting drawn into edit wars, which I regret but I've avoided them ever since. He cites a complaint from an SPA in that case, but fails to note that the discussion ended successfully in a compromise agreed to by all.[67] That was a successful outcome.
Kbob has denied that there was edit warring over the Lynne McTaggart material, and says I've mischaracterized the matter. Here are the diffs for what look to me like a multi-editor revert exchange:
So there we have three TM editors making essentially four reverts. There are many examples of this kind of team editing in revert exchanges by the TM editors.
Kbob's accusation that I've engaged in "ownership" of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is inconsistent with reality. I've made only 29 edits to that article, while he alone has made 234. He and the other TM editors that are parties here have made 832 edits, on top of over 800 edits made by now-inactive TM accounts. Combined, the these TM editors have made over 1600 of the 2969 total edits to the article (53%). (The previous TM editors made a large percentage of edits as well). Given that level of editing, there's already a appearance of ownership. Combined with an even greater dominance of the talk pages it's apparent that there has been actual ownership of the TM articles by these TM editors.
For simplicity, I'll address issues abut the MUM stabbbing in a separate page, /TM-MUM stabbing.
Likewise for /Saga of Sexy Sadie
Kbob asserts that I edited the navigation template incorrectly, which is contradicted by his own compliments.Template talk:Transcendental Meditation movement Note also the long history of objections by TM editors to the existence of a Transcendental Meditation movement article.
Kbob complains that I've written, in my initial statement in this case, "The Transcendental Meditation movement is often considered a new religious movement, has been called a cult, and has been accused of promoting fringe theories and pseudoscience, including dubious medical treatments. It is an international movement with real estate valued at over $3.5 billion." All of these are factual assertions easily supported by numerous sources. The TM movement has been accused of all of these things. There are even worse things that it's called more rarely. In the context of this arbitration request and due to the allegations of team editing by movement members, I think it was appropriate to point out certain characterizations and facts about the movement.
Kbob says I've defended disruptive behavior when I pointed out to Dreadstar that he was misinterpreting a policy under which he was threatening to block a user. Dreadstar agreed he had been wrong.[68]
Kbob complains that I have communicated with editors by email. I have also corresponded with TimidGuy and Littleolive oil. However I have never met them or other editors in person, nor have I met any of the people covered in the TM articles. I doubt that all of the editors involved in this topic (TM or non-TM) can say that.
Kbob complains that I sought help in reviewing some of the dozens of studies of which TM editors had added long summaries, or even copied in an entire abstract. I confess that I'm not a trained scientist and weary quickly when reviewing statistical and medical studies. I asked for help at WT:MEDRS, and that's why several editors came over to review the studies. Those outside editors found that most of the material did not meet the sourcing standards.[69][70][71]
Kbob says I've coached other editors, but other TM editors have complained that I didn't coach them enough and overlooked too many editing problems. Curiously, the non-TM editors also complained that I wasn't doing enough about the TM editors.
User talk pages are exactly the right places to talk to editors about potential problems with their editing. See WP:TPG#User talk pages: "...the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user."
Kbob claims that I acted incorrectly for insisting that User:Tothwolf reply at COIN about a project he was a volunteer for, and whose article he was editing disruptively. I had no connection to the article but was just engaged as a disinterested editor/admin.
Kbob cites a user page thread as harassment.[72] The thread concerns his major contributions (including numerous studies that didn't meet WP:MEDRS) to MVAH, an article about commercial products and services. Some of the material he added made exceptional claims for the efficacy of the herbal preparations. In light of that I asked him to either reveal any COI or stop editing the article. Two days later he confirmed that he had no COI regarding any of the articles that he writes about, presumably including the one I was asking about, and I thanked him for clarifying the situation. I was not my intent to harass, and I don't think my tone was ever uncivil.
Kbob cites a similar request on the MVAH talk page in which I asked anyone with a conflict of interest to either disclose it or stop editing actively. Olive was the only TM editor to respond and she declined to answer whether she had any COI in regard to the products and services sold under the Maharishi label.
Kbob conflates COI discussions with the SPI discussion, in which different issues were relevant, such as being neighbors.
It's clear that ChemistryProf is in Fairfield and he calls himself a professor,[73] so the logical deduction is that he is a professor at MUM and thus a colleague of John Hagelin. ChemistryProf was engaged in a heated dispute over Hagelin's biography. I think it was legitimate to ask him to either disclose his connection to Hagelin or withdraw from the dispute. None of the Fairfield TM editors have acknowledged knowing any of the four faculty members about whom we have biographies.
Kbob says I insulted Bigweeboy when he complained to me about a comment by Kala Bethere. First, I don't know why Bwb complained to me about Kala. Second, I pointed out that Kala's criticism concerned member of the movement, "true believers", and that ownership of the TM topic had been a problem for a while as evidenced by previous complaints and noticeboard postings. Bwb asked for a further explanation and I asked him, through allegory, what the nature of his complaint was. I certainly didn't mean to compare being a "true believer" to being covered in mud in a bad way. I still don't see how Kala referring to "true believers" in a general way is excessively uncivil. Even so, I'd warned him about it before Bwb came back to my talk page to stir the pot more. [74]