Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dreadstar (talk | contribs) at 23:37, 14 July 2010 (rv). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Original list from RFARB evidence page

This was the original list from the evidence page, and contains duplicates from the larger list in the section following this one: User:Dreadstar/FDIFFS#Fladrif_abusive_edits

1. “..either TG is a pathological liar or utterly incapable of reading technical material. Usually, I apply ] to these kinds of dilemmas..” (more attacks in the full post)

   After being warned by an admin that calling another editor a “pathological liar” was inappropriate, Fladrif changed it to “serial deciever” instead:

   “..either TG is a pathological liar serial deciever or utterly incapable of reading technical material. Usually, I apply ] to these kinds of dilemmas, but I don't think you're stupid.”

2. “KeithBob, unlike some of the other editors here, about whose native intelligence I have serious questions (Yes, I'm serious, and no, I'm not naming names), you have never struck me as a stupid person. ... I have no patience for this deliberate obtuseness on your part”
3. “The arguments that you are making are so utterly absurd that it is impossible to believe that you, an intelligent person, is acutally serious”
4. “Olive simply announces that she won't agree to anything and promises an edit war if anyone crosses her. What's next - holding her breath til she turns blue and passes out?”
5. “TimidGuy and Olive,“ ”… the intellectual dishonesty being displayed here by the two of you is just staggering.”
6. “And, threatening to hold your breath until you turn blue - yet again - doesn't make your argument any more convincing.”
7. “Your intellectual dishonesty is beyond the pale.”
8. "...is frustrating to any non-TM-true-believer because it is virtually impossible to deal rationally with such an unthinking, uncritical and mindless approach."
9. “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.”
10. “..is very clear from comments like CP's above, and his overwrought emotional outbursts over the Hagelin article, that he is incapable of coping with how this encyclopedia operates when it collides with his Weltanschauung”
11. “KBob, though it is nice to see that this time you actually bothered to read the source material before editing, which your edit summaries make clear that you apparently felt was totally unnecessary before rewriting this paragraph last time through. Bad form, and a bad habit you make a point of repeating. It is a recurring bad joke with these TM-related articles for the Fairfield contingent to insist on turning these article into unreadable quotefarms, in the apparent belief that no-one is capable of accurately summarizing what is written on the page. And why did this take you six edits? Other than artificially upping one's editcount,which you are doing with admirable gusto what is the purpose of consuming all this bandwidth?”
12. “KBob, you seem to be operating under the same delusion that plagued ChemistryProfessor..”
13. “There is considerable and transparent sophistry going on here…”
14. “one of the kool-aid drinking pro-TM true believer editors over the past week has almost 70 edits to the page, none of them based on any discussion or concensus,” “…asserting ownership over the article, all to push the POV of the TM Organization. That would be you, KBob.“
15. “Any admin, like WillBeback, who contradicts any article of faith of the TM true believers will soon be accused of bias and ignored by them.”
16. “I will not fall for the tired scam of the TM Cabal here..” “.. you don't get to delete reliably sourced material just because it doesn't square with the marketing plan of the TM Org. And, what is it with the lack of attention span of all you TM editors that you have to keep making new headers and breaking up the discussion? Stop it already!”
17. “Every single word in this post is absolute nonsense….And, there is plenty of concensus outside the TM Cabal to take a meataxe to this article. Now, aren't you late for a bunnyhopping session”
18. "..would expect no less from TimidGuy. Avoid the issue? Check. Ad hominem attacks? Check. Try to change the subject? Check. Obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate? Check. Check. Check. Conform his editing behavior to the unequivocal direction of three different admistrators at COIN? No way."
19. "TG, your self-serving posturing completely misrepresents your highly disruptive editing as the 76.76 sockpuppet, the POV and MEDRS violations proven in the diffs that were provided and documented, and your dissembling and stonewalling over being a sockpuppet"
20. "You've deliberately changed the meaning of the sentence, and you know it."
21. "KBob, your intellectual dishonesty on this is simply staggering. You have deliberately changed the meaning of the sentence, for the purpose, judging from your comments above, to assert the POV, supported by no source whatsoever."
22. "I've cautioned you before, TG, that if you're going to simply make something up, try to make something up which can't be falsified in about 30 seconds using Google."
23. "Your language is grossly misleading, and it does not require much of a stretch of imagination to conclude that it is deliberately so."
24. "Your inconsistent and contradictory positions make me question whether this argument is being pressed out of principle or mere expediency."
25. "Perhaps you missed my point, but I am perfectly willing to apply ] rather than accuse you or anyone else of bad faith or having a COI on the matter." ("Hanlon's Razor, just another way of calling the editor "stupid".)

• Even in this RFARB, he cannot be civil: “KBob is quite correct. I do not suffer fools gladly.” and seems proud of it: ,

Fladrif abusive edits

• This is not a complete list, it was tiring and disheartening to read through so many abusive comments.

1. “You cannot mispresent findings of a study just because your employer doesn't like the conclusions. You cannot insert your own original research into articles to advance the positions of your employer” threats
2. “Par for the course. First, TimidGuy and Olive engaged in a tag-team edit war to revert ANY mention of this study in the article. After that ultimately failed, we have seen a concerted and continual effort, led by TimidGuy, to completely mispresent and misrepresent it findings. This is simply a tiresome continuation of that very disturbing pattern of editing. When is CheckUser going to finish up on the Sockpuppet/Meatpuppet Noticeboard?”
3. it's not rubbish. It is absolutely and irrefutably true, your feigned outrage notwithstanding/ If you want diffs proving it, just go to ], and type "olive" in the "Search Archives" Box. As I was saying, when will CheckUser get done on the Meat/Sock page? I was under the impression that these things don't usually take this long to process."
4. (Valid point for Lede: words in mouth or foot in mouth?) Olive- I'm so sorry. And puzzled. But enlighten me. Which part of did I misunderstand Those are your words, aren't they? You put them in your own mouth, not me."
5. “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."
6. “Don't waste other editors' time and valuable bandwidth by editing without bothering to read the sources, and by playing sophomoric word games"
7. “Good point. The removal is easily explained. ] and ] would be a start. I could continue.... By the way, what's taking CheckUser so long?"
8. “Again, TG, you misrepresent sources policies and positions to serve your own end and that of your employer on these pages. One is not required to cpntinue to assume good faith once that has been proven to be unwarranted, as it has been by you."
9. “I'll reserve judgment on that until I see what TG has in mind - assuming of course, that he isn't topic banned in fairly short order"
10. "I'm wondering if this particularly odd rationalization from the nice folks in beautiful downtown Fairfield has anything to do with how little MUM pays its faculty. Just a theory, but a darned good one."
11. "This gets down to what originally piqued my interest in these articles. TimidGuy completely misrepresentation the findings of these studies. It is a repeated pattern that I first noticed with the Ospina Bond metaanalysis, and that gets repeated again and again. If something unfavorable or unflattering to the TM movement manages to find its way into these articles, and he is unsuccessful in getting it deleted entirely, he reinterprets the results, cherry picking a sentence or phrase here and there if he can, so that black becomes white, up becomes down, and a criticism becomes a compliment. It is not an isolated incident here and there; it is a consistent and disruptive pattern of behavior. I'll not go to what I think is motivating this blatant twisting of the source material. But, no rational, reasonable, impartial person reasonably conversant with the English language could in good faith and with a straght face claim that these studies say what TG claims they say."
12. “Yet Hickorybark argues (apparently with a straight face) that this is an "acknowledgement that the evidence was striking"."
13. "It looks suspiciously like the first step in yet another round of the repeated ] by TM Org affiliated editors that has plagued these articles for years."
14. "Repeating the same baseless arguments over and over doesn't make them any more valid or persuasive. This incessant ] is tiresome, obstructionist, disruptive and a waste of everyone's time and energy."
15. "The posturing that is going on here is utterly absurd. No, you don't get to decide in advance what an article is going to be about. You don't own these articles. Not individually. Not collectively."
16. "is very clear from comments like CP's above, and his overwrought emotional outbursts over the Hagelin article, that he is incapable of coping with how this encyclopedia operates when it collides with his Weltanschauung. Go start you own encyclopedia with whatever rules suit you. But here, you don't own the articles."
17. "There is considerable and transparent sophistry going on here in trying to divorce TM the technique from the manner in which it is practiced and the organizations or the people teaching it."
18. "Do not attempt to mischaracterize what you wrote or what you did. You summarily deleted material, eliminating references and text. You rewrote sections not to accuarately reflect the sources, but to mischaracterize them and misrepresent both the sources and the statements therein. I utterly reject these self-serving self-justifications and the ridiculous assertion that a bunch of editors gathered around their computers at MUM in between Yogic Flying sessions can create a consensus that overrides the policies and guidelines of Misplaced Pages."
19. "The claim that this article is about the techique is utterly bogus. The article says practically nothing about the tecnique, and any time anyone tries to add anyting about the technique itself, the TM-Org affiliated editors have a fit of apoplexy. Anything that the TM Org considers the least bit controversial or uncomfortable gets deleted from this article, shuffled off to some other article, and ultimately attacked there on bogus claims of weight and neutrality. This has to come to a stop. It has gone on too long without someone stepping in and actually enforcing Misplaced Pages policies including in particular the conflict of interest policies that this group of editors, all with direct finiancial ties to the TM org, are convinced just don't apply to them. The pattern of edits, acting in concert, are disruptive, and have made these articles horrible mish-mashes of self-serving self-promotions. I am not the least bit embarassed to say that the process needs to be commenced to ban TM Org employees from editing these articles."
20. "Since the editors with ties to the TM Org have succeeded over the years in pushing those aspects of TM off the pages of this article, insisting that this article needs to be about the "technique" only,(while simultaneously insisting that nothing that is not straight off the pages of "official" publications about the technique must be deleted) that doesn't leave much to say about TM in the late 70's onward, does it?"
21. "It's tiring to have to reread again and again the repetition of these nonsensical talking points. If, like TimidGuy, you're getting this stuff by running it past MUM's legal counsel, I feel sorry for the quality of legal representation that MUM must be getting."
22. "The TM-Org affilated editors systematically refuse to agree on any text that attempts to summarize anything anybody writes, and so they insist that the only way to "accurately" reflect the source material is to quote it. And, then, suprise!, a few months later, when they hope that everyone has conveniently noticed that the only reason the quotes are in there is because of their own obstreperousness, and that they inserted the quotes themselves, they complain that there are too many quotes, it gives the quoted material excessive weight, and it needs to all come out. It happens again and again and again. TimidGuy is far and away the worst offender in this regard, with Olive close behind."
23. "To accede to the argument that this article is about the TM techinique and nothing else is to buy into the TM Org's marketing plan. TM is the "gateway drug" to the whole panoply of woo-woo that the TM Org sells. You can't separate the TM technique from the TM organization that sells it."
24. "Odd. The way I see things, just one of the kool-aid drinking pro-TM true believer editors over the past week has almost 70 edits to the page, none of them based on any discussion or concensus, striking reliably-sourced material, adding unsourced or self-published material, and asserting ownership over the article, all to push the POV of the TM Organization. That would be you, KBob. Look in the mirror before you make these kinds of absurd accusations. Consensus does not mean that any one of, or even the group of avowedly pro-TM editors, many of whom have direct financial ties to MUM or other branches of the TM Org, nor the new or anonymous editors with Fairfield IP addresses who suddenly show up whenever "your" article is being threatened with a dose of accuracy and balance, get veto power over the content. And the passive-agressive threats made by you and olive about how you're being "outed" or how the other editors are being mean to you are completely out of bounds."
25. "Any admin, like WillBeback, who contradicts any article of faith of the TM true believers will soon be accused of bias and ignored by them"
26. "I've yet to see a single editor not a member of the TM Cabal agree with you on this"
27. "I will not fall for the tired scam of the TM Cabal here "we can't put anything in until everybody agrees". This is accurate, reliably sourced material. You don't have veto power over the content of the article and you don't get to delete reliably sourced material just because it doesn't square with the marketing plan of the TM Org. And, what is it with the lack of attention span of all you TM editors that you have to keep making new headers and breaking up the discussion? Stop it already! "
28. "The summary deletion of reliably-sourced material because they don't like it is a long-standing pattern of the TM Cabal here, is a gross violation of COI and POV and I won't sit by and just take it. You don't own the article, and you don't have veto power over the content."
29. "Pay attention and quit crying over versions of the article that have long been superseded. And I might ask, 76.76 etc... what exactly is your connection to MUM and the rest of the TM Org there in beautiful downtown Fairfield from whence you're posting? Single purpose editors. Love 'em"
30. "Who? You, KBob and 76.76 from beautiful downtown Fairfield? That's three. Or maybe two, because I haven't decided whether 76.76 is a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet or both, and I'm not sure whether he/she/it counts at all. Woon and I don't think a separate article is warranted, but wer'e sure in favor of cutting down this section to a paragraph or two, so I suspect we can deal with our disappointment over there being a new article on TM research."
31. "Oh wait, I forgot Luke. And now BWB. I suppose that uncreated and LFE will weigh in soon to express their horror. I kinda think that all of you put together really only adds up to one vote as far as I;m concerned"
32. "Every single word in this post is absolute nonsense….And, there is plenty of concensus outside the TM Cabal to take a meataxe to this article. Now, aren't you late for a bunnyhopping session?"
33. "The argument that the authors could have just made them up is absurd on its face. The accuracy of this information has been confirmed by multiple sources. If you're going to make an argument that you expect to be taken seriously, make a serious argument that has at least some remote basis in reality"
34. "And while you're at it, go read what you're actually supposed to do when you come across a dead link instead of deleting the material."
35. "can only assume that this is your idea of a joke, right? You really expect to be taken seriously that the book isn't about TM and isn't a reliable source?"
36. "You're being obstinate about this for no apparent reason."
37. "To suggest, as you do, that maybe this isn't MMY, and maybe this isnt bout TM is the grossest violation of OR I've seen on this page in quite a while, and I've seen some pretty gross violations of OR used to try to justify taking out stuff the TM Cabal doesn't want in the article."
38. "What makes you think I missed it? Did you bother to read what I wrote? Did you bother to look up the reference? This isn't rocket science. What is it that you don't understand here?"
39. "KeithBob, unlike some of the other editors here, about whose native intelligence I have serious questions (Yes, I'm serious, and no, I'm not naming names), you have never struck me as a stupid person. When the insertion of this material was first discussed, the specific quotes were highlighted by me in the discussion, which you can find right here on the talk page and its archives. These are short articles, and the relevant passages are obvious. If you didn't bother to read the sources in the first place, then there is no legitimate basis to claim that the text you deleted misrepresented those sources, is there. I have no patience for this deliberate obtuseness on your part, and I'm certainly not going to indulge it."
40. "The arguments that you are making are so utterly absurd that it is impossible to believe that you, an intelligent person, is acutally serious."
41. "There is a double-standard being applied here by the editors with ties to the TM_Org when it comes to ]."
42. "Given that the current language was something that, IIFC, KBob wrote after you, he and other editors with ties to the TM Org were unhappy with the prior language which cited this NYTimes article, and after a whole new section on "TM vs Rest", which was the "rebuttal" to Holmes, was welded into this article, I cannot assume, in light of the evidence to the contrary, that you are making this argument in good faith"
43. "I'm shocked that the MUM crowd here is against including content, whether in this article or in a separate article on the TM Org/Movement/Whatever that describes, all in one place, the full panoply of things that the TM true believers actually believe and do. You'd think that they'd be thrilled that people could read about the opportunity to become celibate TM "monks" and "nuns", or to change your destiny by buying indulgences - I mean Yagyas performed by Vedic Pandits to avert the negative influences of planetary alignment or to atone for your sins - I mean past wrong actions or to accomplish your desires. Or how for a mere million bucks, you too can be a Raja in the Global Country of World Peace. Shocked! Round up the usual suspects
44. "And, threatening to hold your breath until you turn blue - yet again - doesn't make your argument any more convincing."
45. "The knee-jerk reaction of some of the editors here that a single word from someone who doesn't hew to the official approved TM talking points means that the whole article is out of balance, and rebuttal from a TM spokesman is required is frustrating to any non-TM-true-believer because it is virtually impossible to deal rationally with such an unthinking, uncritical and mindless approach."
46. "Any time anyone has tried to include any of it, it gets excised by a group of editors with direct ties to the TM organization, acting in concert. No neutral or disinterested editory is likely to have the time or inclination to deal with such a group, dedicated to pushing their POV on this and related articles."
47. "It was pushed by the MUM faculty editors here, and the distinction between the "TM technique" and the "TM orgainization" is taken straight from the MUM style book per one of TimidGuy's posts here. … There is a pattern here that anything the TM organization is uncomfortable with is resisted to the last breath of the TM-related editors, and then - if that fails - gets sliced off and hidden in a different article. The article should be about both the technique and the organization that teaches it, including all reliably-sourced information pro, con, and neutral."
48. "Olive simply announces that she won't agree to anything and promises an edit war if anyone crosses her. What's next - holding her breath til she turns blue and passes out? If that isn't reason for her to be blocked, I don't know what is."
49. "TimidGuy and Olive - I realize that one is required by Misplaced Pages to assume good faith on the part of editors, and that it is considered bad form to accuse other editors of bad faith. But, the intellectual dishonesty being displayed here by the two of you is just staggering."
50. "Your intellectual dishonesty is beyond the pale. You have no legitimate objections to this portion of the article as written, and your arguments and "concerns" are entirely specious. It's telling that you admit that truth isn't an issue with you. You simply don't want there to be an accurate description of the holding of the court anywhere in this article. The same could be said for the vast majority of your edits to other portions of the article."
51. "Olive - this is total BS. And, so are your most recent edits and your comments above in the prior section. If you had any intellectual integrity whatsoever - and your actions of the past couple of days confirm that you don't, so I know I'm wasting my time - you would concur I'm taking this up again with WillBeBack and the COI Noticeboard, because you are clearly incapable of understanding plain English or conforming your behavior to the standard expected at Misplaced Pages."
52. "I'll add my 2 cents to this discussion. My observation over the course of many months, is that olive is scrupulously consistent in her opinion toward noticeboards. She values them highly when the uninvolved editors agree with her, in which case they are to be regarded as definitive authority on the subject matter of the dispute bringing an immediate end to all further discussion or dissent, but when the uninvolved editors do not agree with her, the noticeboards are irrelevant and any input is to be ignored with impunity and without consequence, and the matter at issue is to be regarded as open and unresolved, subject to further discussion at other fora. I have discerned no variation whatsoever in her approach, and she is to be commended for her unwavering consistency."