User:Bigweeboy/tm-evidence

Uncivil Editors

Here are some examples of uncivil comments towards other editors on talk pages or edits to articles that have received no censure from BeBack:

Kala BeThere

Kala Bethere is guilty of repeated incivility.

“the utter disgust and contempt I have for, alleged, "omission by silence" editors” [1]

“Littleolive Oil……. I think you need to have a long, hard look in the mirror” [2]

“Littleolive, quick, go look in the mirror! Your nose, it's growing!” [3]

“Poor Littleolive Oil still is beating her ‘peer review’ dead horse if as if she didn't hear. If you've ever spent any time around TM True Believers, this exact same "peer review" card is a common one commonly dragged out, as is the ‘I didn't hear you" excuse’” [4]

“Sadly for your argument Little Olive Oil………. What are you trying to hide other than your admitted COI?” [5]

@Durova - Thanks for the IP analysis.

Fladrif

There are numerous uncivil comments from Fladrif directed towards me and other editors. I will not take the committee's time with a long list, a recent example with suffice where he calls me "clueless":

"The lawsuit by Hendel was dismissed BECAUSE TM and TM-Sidi were found to be a religion!!!!! TG- your comment is typical of the intellectual dishonesty you continually exhibit on these talkpages and in your edits. This is absolutly and completely outrageous! BwB, you I excused for your typical clueless. This material is going back in.Fladrif (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[6]

Conclusion

I am not a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. I am a neutral, independent editor who endeavors to followed Wiki guidelines and to be civil to other editors, while focusing on the content of the articles. Since I have no control over the Wiki activities of other editors, I request that my individual edits be judged on their own merits, and that my record is considered seperately and distinctly.

I welcome this arbitration and look forward to participating as much as I can given my current busy schedule.

My understanding is that the focus of the process is to determine if the named editors edit the TM related articles with a COI, and will not be focused on whether or not the TM technique is a religion, or TM-Sidhi related research is pseudoscience, or if the TM Movement is a cult, or if the Maharishi is a saint or scoundrel, all of which are irrelevant to my editing history. --BwB (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

@Hickory - Thanks for this articulate and compelling argument, outlining the anti-TM POV editing in the TM related articles. --BwB (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

REBUTTAL TO WILL'S FURTHER EVIDENCE

Will add in the next day or so. --BwB (talk) 11:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)