User:Will Beback/TM-Luke Warmwater101

__NOINDEX__

Luke Warmwater101 (Luke)


Luke has deleted sourced, negative material:

Luke has made unsourced POV edits:

Luke has added large amounts of material on fringe views based on MUM research:

Luke has reverted an effort to trim the length of the fringe material:

Luke has added a self-published source, a blog, and Wikipedia mirrors as sources:

Statistics
As of February 20, 2010:

Luke's ten most edited articles (three are TM-related):
 * 119 - TM-Sidhi_program
 * 60 - Little_Women
 * 33 - America's_Cutest_Puppies
 * 30 - Görmeli
 * 21 - Prakṛti
 * 21 - Amrapali_Institute_–_Lamachaur
 * 20 - Transcendental_Meditation
 * 15 - Hassan_Tayyab_Academy
 * 15 - Kaithal
 * 15 - Corazones_al_límite

Rebuttals
Luke asserts, with no evidence, that I belong to, or even lead, a team of anti-TM editors. He asserts that I have made "repeated use of what he calls ‘an anti TM blog’", but doesn't provide a single diff showing that I've ever linked to any blog, even on a talk page. I assume he means the TM-Free blog which hoists what it purports to be a leaked document explaining how to engage in tag team rebuttals to blogged criticisms of the TM movement, and I've only linked to it in this case and in the SPI/CU. I haven't seen anyone dispute it's credibility.

Luke complains that that I point to Olive and TG as POV editors while ignoring two other editors, and. Those editors have not been active on the TM articles in the past year, so they seem to be irrelevant to this case.

Luke says that I was unfair because I've complained about the use of a free magazine article written by a restaurant reviewer to make a contentious claim while I failed to similarly complain about an article written by a noted journalist published in a mainstream newspaper. I don't think the two are equivalent, and I'm surprised that he does.

Luke asserts that because I emailed Kala I must share his POV, ignoring the long and cordial correspondence I've had with TG.

Luke writes that "Naturally, a topic like TM will attract people with strong, opposing POVs." Yet none of the TM editors, including Luke, have ever acknowledged having a POV about this topic, and some have frequently stated that they are neutral editors, including Luke. On the other hand, he repeatedly calls me a POV editor, and seems to blame me for every edit made by a non-TM editor. So apparently the only people with strong POVs are those who disagree with Luke, who is perfectly neutral. I stand by my assertion that Luke made a non-neutral and unhelpful edit when he added, without any prior discussion, a large amount of material on an obscure paper not mentioned in any secondary source and which promoted fringe science. Reducing the size of the entire section devoted to that single paper required a lengthy talk page discussion, in which the TM editors never came to a consensus about even reducing its size.Talk:TM-Sidhi_program The movement has conducted at least 42 such studies on this exact topic, the Maharishi Effect, so giving each one that much weight, even the 140-word paragraph that it's been condensed to, would create a very long and unreadable article and there is no reason to give this particular study extra weight (or really, to even mention it beyond listing it as one of many).