Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide/Evidence

Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. You must submit evidence in your own section. Editors who change other users' evidence may be blocked without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the committee by e-mail or on the talk page. The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored. General discussion of the case may be opened on the |talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable. Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page. Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Scope of the issue
Beginning in or around 2006, a large number of articles were created on various groups and individuals in the areas of religion, cult, and human potential movements (see this for a small set). The net effect of these articles and their subsequent development by a small number of editors was to create a significantly one-sided view of these organisations and to establish an appearance of notability for the “anti-cult” views espoused by those individuals. In 2011, ArbCom found that one of the primary creators and editors of this group of articles did, against policy, place "undue negative weight in topics on new religious movements and political BLPs" and follow poor sourcing practices. The editor was topic-banned and desysopped as a remedy for that behaviour. The affected articles were left in their current state and in many cases little or no content or sourcing have been improved until the past few months. This left thousands of edits in place for years that took  Having been introduced to the issues with these articles as a result of housekeeping actions and an eventual RfC on the inclusion of Landmark in a list, I began a systematic cleanup of the articles including tagging for sources, removal of clear POV content, and tagging or beginning AfD discussions for notability. In the process of that work, a number of problematic editor behaviours came to light.

Editors have blindly reverted or pasted copy into articles without regard for content
,, , and others have repeatedly reverted and confounded attempts to improve articles and have them consistent with policy. An obvious example of their disregard for the article content is the habit of pasting into articles and in the process producing duplicate paragraphs, sources, or sections. Even while acknowledging that there was a discussion taking place (and generally not participating in that discussion).

Editors lack understanding of primary, secondary and tertiary sources
Somewhat as a result of the existing poor sourcing practices in these articles, and somewhat due to the editors’ own apparent lack of understanding, lists and articles have been built almost entirely dependent on a few tertiary sources. For instance, this looks like a wealth of sources, where in reality it is a wall of the same few sources being quoted over and over again by each other and in the majority of cases are encyclopedias, dictionaries, reference lists, bibliographies, etc. Additionally, editors have repeatedly inappropriately used primary sources where no secondary sources exist to provide context. Again, these practices have had the net result of systemic bias in the affected articles. The sources in use have been treated as more reliable than quality secondary sources on the same subject matter, and have been used to advance an agenda.

Editors have argued or fought for content rather than participating in discussion
For example, an RfC in 2013 closed with an outcome that indicated removing Landmark from the List of new religious movements. Astynax immediately reverted that removal with the edit summary. After having it made clear that consensus in an RfC is in fact consensus, Astynax continued editing the Landmark main article to include religious characteristics and calling Landmark a New Religious Movement at that article. Following extensive back and forth editing, the majority of that material was. In September 2014, that same content again and fought for its preservation (despite numerous errors and duplicated passages). While editors were reverting in an attempt to include that material, began an RfC on the content and behaviour. Astynax, Lithistman, and Zambelo all actively refused to participate in the RfC – while continuing to revert the questioned content into the article.

Editors have refused to participate in consensus building
In addition to the above issues, the recent article activity and requests for outside opinion have brought a number of experienced editors and administrators to the group of articles. As was seen in the case request statements for this case, the clear consensus of these additional editors (and in the cases of policy questions and behaviour, uninvolved administrators) is that these articles lack neutrality, are poorly sourced, often stretch notability, and are generally used as subtle and even outright attacks on people and organisations throughout. In the last 45 days, a number of articles have been deleted at Afd and other mechanisms. Those that remain have had a number of experienced editors performing cleanup and attempting to remove the bias. Throughout this process, Astynax, Zambelo, and others have argued and made accusations of COI, NPOV, canvasing, forum-shopping, etc. They have not participated in attempting to improve the articles.

General editor behaviour and mentality
I expect that others will comment on the multiple ANI, AN3, etc. threads that the major editors of these articles have been the subject of over their editing careers. Any review of their edit summaries alone is likely to make it clear that there is a battleground mentality present. If the committee requests specific diffs, I will provide them - however I am concerned that a simple selection would not present a complete view and that others would accuse cherry-picking. Given the long and large editing history of many of the editors here, the majority of their work is excellent. It has been in this semi-walled garden that tempers, good faith, and behaviour have suffered.

Landmark article was created as an attack piece, and has been a battleground
At the outset, the page was created and substantially edited from anonymous IP accounts and was blatantly biased, and devoid of refs or citations as this version from 31st March 2004 illustrates.

After various initiatives to evolve to a more neutral and sourced article, a number of editors made concerted attempts from time to time to turn it back into an attack piece; eg:
 * dozens of edits such as - eventually sanctioned at ANI here.
 * / / hundreds of edits such as  this. As noted above Cirt was topic banned and de-sysopped by Arbcom in 2011 for addmitted NPOV and BLP violations and misrepresentation of sources.
 * dozens of edits, eg.
 * dozens of edits eg.

The editors moving towards an article more critical of Landmark and those moving towards one more favourable each claim to be upholding neutrality, and accuse the others of attempting to create a soapbox.

Some editors use tag team edit warring to preserve their version
For example, these recent sequences involving and   and.

Some editors refuse to assume good faith and are impolite
There have been repeated remarks impugning the motives and good faith of other editors, and accusations that all who do not share their point of view are involved in some sort of conspiracy.
 * eg, , ,.
 * eg, ,
 * eg, ,.

Some editors refuse to engage with the Dispute resolution procedures
In September 2013, there was lengthy discussion in [this RfC], and the result was a consensus that Landmark was not to be included in the list of New Religious Movements. In point of fact it is not 'religious' and not a 'movement', and furthermore it was concluded that the few passing comments about it (without referring to any research or investigation) in the academic literature did not justify this categorisation. Nonetheless, inserted a [whole section into the Landmark article] and even a [paragraph in the lead]. A number of uninvolved editors suggested on the talk page that this was undue weight, but Astynax ignored them.

When I put up this RfC, ignored it and  responded with this insulting comment.

Accusations by Astynax in his evidence below
I dispute that the evidence provided is indicative of inappropriate behaviour on my part.

I leave it to the arbitrators to comb through the diffs and come to their own conclusions, but I would like to make these general comments:

The suggestion that I am a "reactivated dormant account": This is ridiculous, as a glance at my contribs will show. I may not be hugely active, but I have made about 400 edits in the past year - almost all substantial contributions to worthwhile articles on completely unrelated topics.

Re canvassing - I think these relate to my notification of the RfC; I notified all of the wikipedians who had participated in the previous RfC, or had been active on the article or discussion (regardless of whether they agreed or disagreed with me) and also posted a note on the NPOV noticeboard. I thought (and still think) this is in accordance with appropriate notification, although Astynax may have cherry-picked the examples to generate the impression that I chose sympathetic editors.

Re "wholesale blanking of sourced material" - any instances of this were after explanations of my analysis on the Talk page, and generally after consensus having been reached. Usually it was not in dispute that the material was "sourced", but rather whether the sources passed muster to justify the edits, and whether these edits represented undue weight.

Re "forum/admin shopping - in my judgement, all the instances cited that relate to me are entirely normal and innocent cases of asking for advice or an outside opinion, without any underhand motive of any kind.

Re "poisoning the well" and "original research" - I reject the suggestion that my participation in the discussions has been in any way improper. This example that he gave to illustrate my supposed "pushing OR and synthesis" seems to me to be a perfectly legitimate interaction that goes to the heart of the content dispute. They are claiming that there is a significant public debate about whether Landmark is in some sense "religious", and I am asking them to justify this claim because I see no sign of it. I am not disputing that Landmark has been mentioned here and there in various books primarily dealing with NRMs, but I have not had a satisfactory answer to the points I made here:.

Suggestion by that I am part of a "team to bypass due process at AfDs", and similar accusations from Astynax
The fact is that I !voted delete on precisely two of the presumably 27+ deletion discussions that Zambelo alludes to.

Astynax has linked to two more AfDs that I proposed and two more that I voted on over the past several years. So what? I have also voted on numerous other AfDs (and proposed several others) on completely unrelated topics during this time.

The question of whether or not I have a conflict of interest in relation to Landmark
I would welcome clarification on this accusation, and will abide by the decision of the Committee on this point. The fact that I have had the candour to state my viewpoint on the company on my user page has been used on several occasions to suggest that I have a COI. I should have thought that I had made it crystal clear that nothing amounting to an "interest" applies, any more than the fact that I have at times owned Apple computers and been generally impressed with them should restrict my capacity to edit the Apple article responsibly. I am more concerned about this allegation than I have been in the past, because now it has been made (in several locations) by, who is clearly non-partisan in this issue, and whose behaviour and judgement I generally respect.

Accusations of attempts to exert ownership over the Landmark article
The facts are: I have made 29 edits to the article over the past three years; plus one made in error and self-reverted. (about 6% of the total in that time, and a small percentage of my activity on Wikipedia).

Astynax has made 18 edits in a recent 6 week period (27 August - 3 October 2014).

Lithistman has made 32 edits in the same 6 week period.

Furthermore, in general I proposed any edits I intended to make on the Talk Page first, and proceeded after time to achieve consensus. About half of my edits over the last three years were reverts of changes made that in my judgement were clear violations of Wikipedia policies and/or had not been discussed on the talk page and/or went against a clear consensus on the talk page

Evidence presented by Zambelo
Zambelo has now been blocked as a sockpuppet of an indefinitely-blocked editor. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I can only speak of certain actions here, since my interactions with certain editors detailed below started with my argument to keep the Landmark-critical article Voyage au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous, an article that had previously seen and survived two AFDs. I immediately saw the COI - despite many secondary sources being provided in support of the subject's notability, the editors refused to change their vote, insisting that it was non-notable, despite evidence to the contrary. This behaviour of selectively rejecting valid sources, and teaming up to force consensus continued long after the AFD was closed, and the article was merged (to opposition from the same editors) into Landmark Worldwide.

Problematic Editing Behaviours
It's funny that Tgeairn should mention problematic editor behaviours.

Improper deletions: bypassing due process
After the AFD discussion for the Voyage au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous in which editors Tgeairn,  Drmies, DaveApter, Nwlaw63 and Randykitty sought to delete the article, and the article was kept and merged in Landmark Worldwide, these users collaborated together to vindictively remove a number of associated articles - (I made note of this in the original filing here)

Over 2+ weeks, these editors destructively removed over 20 New Religious Movement - related articles. They did so by bypassing due process normally reserved for the deletion of articles, by teaming up for the AFD process. One editor would nominate an article for deletion, and the other 2-3 would quickly jump in and vote for deletion, citing a lack of sources. Even though I repeatedly found reliable secondary sources, it wasn't enough to save the articles from deletion, because there was never any outside commentary, and the only attempt to save the articles in question stemmed from my efforts to provide valid secondary sources (thereby answering the concerns raised by the AFD)

By teaming together, these editors knowingly bypassed the due deletion process.

The first articles to be 'nominated' were all in relation to the Voyage au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous article, about a Landmark-critical documentary that aired in France. These included:


 * Jean-Pierre Jougla
 * Jean-Marie Abgrall
 * Jean-Pierre Brard
 * Christian Lujan
 * Mona Vasquez
 * Catherine Picard

...all of which were participants in the documentary.

Quickly the number of articles 'nominated' escalated to include fringe movements critical of landmark


 * Ian Haworth (anti-cultist) - Proposed deletion by Tgeairn
 * William V. Chambers (anti-cultist, psychologist)- Proposed deletion by Tgeairn
 * Raffaella Di Marzio - (anti-cultist, psychologist) flagged by Tgeairn
 * Michael Langone (anti-cultist) - flagged by Tgeairn
 * Mark Sirkin (psychologist)- flagged by Tgeairn
 * Cult Awareness and Information Centre (sued by Landmark) flagged by Tgeairn
 * Jan Groenveld (anti-cultist sued by landmark) - flagged by Tgeairn
 * (and many more)

Each time these same editors collaborated to ensure the improper deletion of these articles - despite secondary sources being provided.

Since I was the only editor interested in preserving these articles from deletion, these same editors reported me to the BLP notice board claiming that I was violating BLP policies, which ultimately resulted in a topic ban for me. Never were any of these concerns discussed outside the BLP noticeboard, and never were any of the sourcing issues relating to the now deleted articles discussed on their respective talk pages.

Baiting
Meanwhile, while Tgeairn points out above that Smeelgova/smee/Cirt was topic banned, he (and to a lesser extent Drmies) have continually posted NRM-related discussions to that user's talk page -, , , , , , , , , ,.

Other concerns
As noted by other editors, and as noted by Tgeairn, other behaviour involves NPOV editing - while I and others attempt to constructively edit articles (including but not limited to Landmark Worldwide, Tgeairn et al. have demonstrated time and time again that they have no interest in 1) Collaborating to improve an article 2) Discuss solutions 3) Wait for consensus 4) Wait for outside commentary or 5) Discuss any of the issues without first attempting to delete the content they are unhappy with.

Wether this stems from a COI concerning Landmark is immaterial here - what should be concerning to other editors is the fact that these editors 1) clearly have a POV in this matter 2) Are working in concert to achieve this POV 3) Will bypass normal procedures to achieve this POV, this includes skipping discussion and jumping to deletions, and false claims against anyone challenging their POV or deletion tactics 4) ... 5) Baiting.

These editors will claim that there is POV from the named editors here, however the history of their edits tell another story: over 20 article deletions in a fortnight - multiple attempts to remove/minimize merged content from Voyage au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous by the same editors who sought to have it deleted - in combination to their POV edits to the Landmark Worldwide article.

Zambelo ; talk 06:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Andy the Grump
I filed an ANI against Andy the Grump, for threatening behaviour and ongoing inability to assume good faith. His comment below continues this trend. He now seeks to discredit me by fabricating some connection to a banned editor. Classy. Zambelo ; talk 06:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I rest my case - Andythegrump clearly has nothing to add in this matter, except to personally attack me. Zambelo ; talk 19:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by AndyTheGrump
I've not been directly involved with the Landmark Worldwide issue, and have no comment to make concerning that particular article. I would however like to point out that there is very strong circumstantial evidence that one of the participants here, Zambelo, is in fact the sockpuppet of banned User:Sfacets and that the Landmark article is one of the astonishingly many articles that they have both edited. As this interaction report and the related sockpuppet investigation  show, Zambelo and Sfacets (and/or Sfacets sock User:Couchbeing) not only share an interest in cults, new religious movements and similar topics, but have also both edited such obscure unrelated subjects as Bohemia (musician), Pune and Hillsong Church. Zambelo's response when these 'coincidences' were pointed out (see the SPI) can only be described as stretching credulity beyond what might be considered reasonable, in my opinion. Regardless of what else is decided as a result of this arbitration, I think the committee should consider whether the evidence is strong enough to block Zambelo for sockpuppetry. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Since Zambelo has chosen to raise the ANI thread here, it would seem appropriate to quote the closing statement; "There is certainly consensus that Zambelo's editing has been disruptive in the topic area of new religious movements and articles related to indoctrination... " The ANI thread ended with Zambelo being topic-banned, and nobody but Zambelo seeing any evidence of 'threats' from me. And as for me "fabricating some connection" to Sfacets, Zambelo has already asserted that there is a connection - that the reason his edit pattern matched Sfacets so closely was that Zambelo "[had] a look at that user's edit history". Even without this, the connection is self-evident, and I very much doubt that ArbCom would take seriously a claim that a new contributor would select a banned former contributors edit history as an almost-exclusive focus for editing. At least, not unless the objective was to give a deliberate appearance of sockpuppetry - though that of course would in of itself seem grounds for blocking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Astynax
My first exposure to the situation related to Landmark/Forum/est/its other iterations dates back a year to editors pushing the Landmark Education (as it called itself at that time) viewpoint at List of new religious movements (see below). Landmark itself is something that I do not find a compelling subject, though I do object to advocacy being pushed into articles under whatever guise. If editors can push disregard for encyclopedically summarizing eminent, scholarly sources in favor of WP:OR and corporate PoV, then I don't know what we are doing here.

Activity at the Landmark Worldwide article

 * Landmark article as it appeared when it was tagged for being promotional in July 2014

The exclusion of material that mentions the religous aspects of Landmark, or other material in conflict with the image Landmark itself projects, is longstanding (see here and here, 2 out of many such edits over the years). The same editors have also previously resisted proposals to merge the the articles on Erhard Seminars Training, Werner Erhard and Associates and other iterations of this company into the History section of the Landmark article, again reflective of Landmark's own advocacy position of distancing itself from Erhard and est, despite that these are usually treated together in tertiary sources.

An tag was posted on 26 July 2014, whereupon essentially dormant editors (negligible editing outside periods when Landmark-related issues were last active) reactivate to participate in disputing: on 31 July 2014, on 5 September 2014, on 26 August 2014.

Activity at the List of new religious movements article
The same group of topic-involved editors (Tgeairn, DaveApter, Nwlaw63, with amens from Jasonfward, Elmmapleoakpine) arrived at List of new religious movements and dominated an Rfc asking for outside input to advocate an OR "consensus" that aligns with Landmark's promotional position that Landmark is not considered religious. To anyone who has taken even a cursory glance through the literature in the fields that deal with New Religious Movements (NRM), the position that Landmark is not considered an NRM is a bizzare mischaracterization. To illustrate, I have assembled some lengthy quotes from scholars writing in various fields at User:Astynax/Landmark Forum as a NRM (new religious movement). There are certainly many more scholarly inclusions of Landmark/Forum/est than these few examples, it being one of a group of frequently cited NRMs.

The editor who closed the Rfc suggested that Landmark could be included if the criteria for inclusion on the list was clarified. This was done based on cited reliable sources, although to date, Landmark remains off this list, simply because of the certainty that the same editors will return to object to reinserting it, as their subsequent behavior at Landmark Education illustrates. Although scholarly sources flagging groups as members of a list is surely the only sound criteria for inclusion, it was instead argued by parties to this case that a novel, synthetically narrow, WP:OR definition of NRMs be crafted which, unsurprisingly, would concomitantly exclude Landmark from being listed.

A look at these editors' participation elsewhere
These involved editors have dominated Rfcs and Afds tangentially related to Landmark, thwarting the purpose of garnering comments from outside editors. Note that the same editors (Tgeairn, DaveApter, Nwlaw63, Jasonfward, Elmmapleoakpine) have repeatedly popped up to support the Landmark advocacy line in comments in Landmark-related requests. Although the arbs may choose to explore the marginally related issue with Zambelo either here or somewhere else, the recent incident concerning Voyage au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous episode of Pièces à Conviction does bring up an illustration of Afd-ing articles touching on Landmark. Wikipedia hosts articles on every episode of Star Trek and I Love Lucy with arguably less coverage in academic or reliable sources. Moreover, the Afd closed with a note to merge. Since then, nearly all of the material has disappeared with readers redirected to a few minimally informative lines mixed with other material. Other articles have also been deleted with majority input by the same group of editors (examples include ).

Behavior
These links are representative, but not a comprehensive list... This is an overview based primarily upon my own limited interaction with the named editors. I have no idea of how much further the scope of the PoV editing, blanking and article deletion may have progressed elsewhere on Wikipedia. &bull; Astynax talk 23:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * wholesale blanking of referenced material
 * by Nwlaw63, by DaveApter, by Tgeairn
 * misuse of tagging
 * Nwlaw63 labeled the use of qualifiers as WP:WEASEL for a private LLC's claim not attributed to secondary or tertiary references. This despite the fact that discrepencies between secondary and tertiary figures disagreed with Landmark's claims had been previously noted and discussed, and that he himself had already posted regarding variances in these figures.
 * forum/admin shopping
 * diffs:
 * canvasing
 * diffs:
 * pushing OR and syntheses
 * diff:
 * selectively dismissing, mischaracterizing or poisoning the well regarding solid sources on trumped up grounds
 * (in reality, Lockwood holds a PhD, and the article was printed in a reputable, peer-reviewed academic journal)
 * (sources under discussion were secondary and tertiary, not primary as alleged)
 * (edit summary that citations did not support the statement is false)
 * (edit summary characterization that sources were unreliable is false)
 * (mischaracterization that eminent scholarly sources are inadequate)
 * incremental reversion of material that differs from the view that Landmark presents of itself:
 * offering this example from this, to this, to this only because the ploy of limiting citations and then later removing the supported statements and remaining reference so blatantly occurred on the same day. Long-term incremental reversions have happened, but are more difficult to illustrate with diffs, although the removal of solidly referenced material may also be detected over time:
 * referenced material in the article in 2007 compared to today
 * referenced material in the article in 2008 compared to today
 * referenced material in the article in 2009 compared to today
 * referenced material in the article in 2010 compared to today
 * referenced material in the article in 2011 compared to today

@Tgeairn
The characterization that his efforts have been focused upon addressing PoV in a series of articles by one or two former editors is not borne out by his linking to "(see this for a small set)" – none of which seem to be the focus of his activity, let alone at List of new religious movements or Landmark Worldwide, neither of which was created by those former editors.

As to my point regarding a Rfc stacked by involved PoV-pushers, such a "consensus" cannot override the community-wide consensus that articles summarize all significant points of view in scholarly and reliable sources. Nor did the Rfc itself establish any such consensus that Landmark could not be included on the list, but only that there were questions as to whether Landmark should be included based upon the list criteria at that time. Disallowing reliable, scholarly sources to make that determination is antithetical to the encyclopedia's purposes.

For all the touted dedication to "improving articles", the behavior seems to rather illustrate a penchant in other work to summarily dismiss (including deleting blocks of text with the rationale that some sources are iffy, yet deleting perfectly sound citations in the process), then destructively delete both information and articles with cited references, rather than any effort to improve articles by addressing PoV, provide or improve citations, etc. That's an easy road to pad contributions, but the value of blanking information and articles toward improving the encyclopedia is debatable. Although I have not fully explored their participation in Afding, in at least some cases part of the rationale had to do with removing expired links to references, apparently with no or little effort to relocate the cited and relevant material (as it didn't take me long to find a new url for at least one blanked reference). Nor have I, as Tgeairn specifically alleged, participated in any of the Afd's he has flagged. Neither have have I made allegations of CoI, canvassing or forum-shopping outside of this case. &bull; Astynax talk 18:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@DaveApter
While many articles back in 2004 were not referenced, that does not necessarily mean that it was either created as an "attack piece" or that material was not based in references. More to the point is that other editors have frequently commented over subsequent years regarding pushing the Landmark PoV, including some not personally viewing it as overtly religious but who have bridled at the pushing of the Landmark PoV Their concerns and contributions have been dismissed and reverted. DaveApter's blanking and intransigent talk page PoV-pushing has also extended to other Landmark-related articles. and to unilateral removal of the article from WikiProject Religion &bull; Astynax talk 18:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Nwlaw63
The main focus of Nwlaw63's editing, aside from deletion of articles has been at Landmark Education, where s/he has a history of deleting large blocks of referenced text, with no attempt to address only the problematic portions, provide references or improve citations. This did not begin this year or last. As to the allegation that I inserted a block of text based upon unreliable sources, this is untrue (as a look at the link will show), nor is the contention that Nwlaw63's blanking was based upon my repeating text that was already in the article (I had removed the single repeated sentence prior to his blanking). &bull; Astynax talk 19:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@additions by Nwlaw63
Nwlaw63's blanking has included multiple statements sourced to more than one reference. Rather than providing better references, qualifying statements that may come from sources with a certain perspective, or removing only the legitimately questionable statements, s/he has removed entire blocks that disagree with Landmark's PoV. That is precisely the destructive behavior I have described as "wholesale blanking". Edit summaries sometimes disguise what s/he has done (such as here where the 2001 publication is a decade since est became Landmark). In the case of removing Larson almost 5 years ago, who should be reliable for what some of the fringe anti-cult say, it was under the subheading "Characterization as a religious movement" and thus a legitimate, brief counterpoint to Landmark claims of not being associated with religion and that people of various religious outlooks do not view Landmark as religious. Nor have I quoted Larson here (or anywhere else that I can recall), as Nwlaw63 alleges. More troubling is that the remainder of that section, cited to scholarly sources, was incrementally purged. As to the blanking of the sentence regarding the Japanese view of Landmark, s/he could have tagged the sentence for better sourcing, amended the language, or simply first discussed (as the Landmark PoV-pushers have repeatedly demanded of other editors). Finally, the ABC news story does indeed involve an issue with Landmark, i.e., that of employers pressuring employees to attend the seminars. This has been a notable ongoing issue and such material has been excised from the article on specious grounds such as being "a lawsuit to which Landmark was not even a party". &bull; Astynax talk 18:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for showing where a quote on this page likely originated from Larson. I've never attempted to promote that quote as a citation in any article, and nonetheless, there are plenty of unassailably reliable references, some of which I've already provided elsewhere, that show that the Landmark Forum is indeed regarded and treated as a continuation of est and as a NRM. If the arbs need further citations, I will be happy to provide them. Landmark and est are usually dealt with as directly related in a continuum, regardless of Landmark's PR efforts at distancing itself from est. &bull; Astynax talk 21:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@John Carter
Part of the problem has been the intransigent insistence on separating the Forum from est, from the WE&A, from Landmark Education (and from the variety of other names under which the program has operated over the years). Most works deal with them together as a historical continuum, and only a few pick out Landmark as a unique and isolated subject. This is illustrated by a few of the quotes I've referenced, as well as in other sources for which citations can be provided. As one writer put it: "Erhard did what many New Age millionaires have done when they found themselves in similar situations: he altered his tactics, changed his organization's name, and started over." Landmark/est/WE&A/Forum/etc. has burned through a host of identities and subsidiary iterations since the mid 1970s, and it is unreasonable to expect scholars, or an encyclopedia, to treat these whack-a-mole identities as separate subjects. It is unfortunate that efforts have thus far failed to merge the Erhard Seminars Training, Werner Erhard and Associates and perhaps other forked iterations into a history section at Landmark Worldwide, where they belong. &bull; Astynax talk 19:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Astynax appears to be using the Arbcom process as a vehicle for fighting a content dispute
Astynax is doing this under the guise of pointing out supposed “policy violations”, which simply don’t exist.

For instance, Astynax asserts that in this edit I falsely claimed that there was an issue involved unreliable sources – as can be seen, the edit I reverted included a statement that Landmark is similar to a terrorist group, a claim attributed to this anonymous message board.

In another instance, Astynax gives a paragraph to my supposed ‘misuse’ of the weasel words tag. Use of the word ‘claims’ is specifically discussed in the weasel words policy. For sales figures reported by a privately held company (or any piece of information, for that matter), we should either give it, or not give it – we shouldn’t give it with weasel word qualifications.

Then there’s this matter of supposedly ‘blanking sourced material’. As discussed previously, this edit by Astynax repeated an entire paragraph already in the article, used this unreliable source to source contentious claims in the article lead, made multiple use of primary sources to support other contentious claims, used many sources to make claims the sources didn't fully support, and applied  undue weight to make lengthy, dubious claims that a self-help seminar is actually a religious movement.

In the end, uninvolved admins and other editors removed the bulk of that edit, citing all the policy problems I mentioned above.

I could go on, but it would involve getting deeper into content issues than is appropriate here – suffice it to say that every single of one of these phantom "policy violations" is at the worst simply an edit that Astynax disagrees with.

I work to remove unsourced, poorly sourced, or biased content
I’ve participated in countless Afds during my time on the project, with an enormous concern for making sure that anything on the project must be reliably sourced and given weight to in proportion to those sources.

Of all the Afds I’ve participated in this year, 2 or 3 were in this field - two were poorly sourced attack pieces, created by a now topic banned editor with an obvious agenda, and which many editors agreed were inappropriate for Wikipedia.

Astynax seems to have an issue with the removal of content not supported by reliable sources
I noticed that Astynax posted more diffs that seem to support the inclusion of material in articles when it isn't supported by reliable sources or isn't relevant to the article at hand.

In one, Astynax has a problem with me removing material sourced to a televangelist/exorcist/demonologist (Bob Larsen). In another, Astynax again seems to have issue with my edit removing material that compared Landmark to a terrorist group, sourced to some kind of anonymous message board (again, here). That same edit also had material making controversial claims with primary sources. In another, Astynax apparently objects to me removing or shortening material regarding a lawsuit to which Landmark was not even a party, and in another there is an apparent objection to the removal of material which had a source that referred to est/the forum, not Landmark.

In support of the dubious claim that Landmark and the est training are the same thing, I notice Astynax is now quoting the previously mentioned televangelist/exorcist (Larson) on the evidence page. I am concerned that Astynax doesn't actually look at the reliability of a source, or consider sources in their proper context - what the source is and isn't saying.

More on Astynax's Sloppiness with Sources and Claims
Astynax has responded to the above saying in part "Nor have I quoted Larson here (or anywhere else that I can recall)". In fact, Astynax's quote from Larson is directly below this claim, which begins "Erhard did what many New Age millionaires have done..." which can be seen in Larson's book here. Astynax also seems to be defending the use of Larson as a source. The argument seems to be that if a controversial claim is made with the use of an unreliable source, that removing the material is "blanking".

Astynax also has issue with noting that a source to a claim about Landmark doesn't discuss Landmark, somehow arguing that the source being from 2001 means something, when all the source does is discuss events before Landmark existed.

Earlier, Astynax continued to insist that they didn't put a repeated paragraph into the article, when in fact they and another editor did so repeatedly, even after I pointed it out, and well after the time I removed it - as shown in the duplication of the Badt quote here.

Lack of academic sources on Landmark Worldwide
Part of the problem related to this topic is a question which could be reasonably argued as being more of a content than behavior issue. Having gone through some of the databanks available to me, I find ProQuest has a total of 9 academic journal articles related to Landmark directly in some way and some 38 other articles, FirstSearch returns a total of 2 books on the topic since the Erhard Seminars Training stage of the development of the training, and JSTOR returns only 7 articles discussing this topic directly. I am in the process of checking other databanks as well, but do not see a lot of reason for optimism. This raises questions regarding how the training offered by Landmark should be described, as the number of really good sources relating Landmark and est training and comparing them is rather little. I offer no answers here, other than to say that so far as I can see at this time the concerns expressed by an arbitrator regarding the poor quality of the article may be in some way related to legitimate, possibly unanswered, questions as to how to deal with such problematic content. John Carter (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Lithistman
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

The article was a hot mess at the end of July
This diff is where I made my initial edit to the article, after having seen some story about it on the news. I read the article, and couldn't believe how terrible it was. At that point, I thought it read like some kind of advertorial, and placed that tag. I researched the subject a bit deeper, and found that Landmark is actually fairly controversial--lots of lawsuits, founded from some earlier controversial beginnings, and that type of thing. Yet, the only mentions of any of that were buried in odd places, and worded so obliquely as to have almost no meaning. Long story short, I tried to clean up the article some, was challenged at nearly every turn, particularly by DaveApter, and was eventually accused of being anti-Landmark, even though I'd never even hear of the company prior to all this. But, I digress. The main evidence I wanted to present here was regarding the state of the article when I first placed that tag, and then current state of the article, which is much better, though I'm not confident it will stay that way, unless Arbcom forces the issue by addressing the current problems regarding removal of well-sourced material critical of Landmark. LHMask me a question 15:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Brief note regarding the reason the article was such a mess
It should be noted that the editors now attacking Astynax's credibility were a large part of the problem regarding the state of the article when I placed the initial tag back in July. LHMask me a question 18:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.