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

Purpose of the workshop: The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Behavior during a case may be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

 * Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

=Proposed final decision=

Encyclopedia
1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or an indiscriminate collection of information. DaveApter (talk) 10:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Neutral point of view
2) Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view: We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong. DaveApter (talk) 10:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Civility
3) Editors should treat each other with respect and civility: Editors should respect their fellow Wikipedians, even when they disagree. Editors should apply Wikipedia etiquette, and refrain from personal attacks. Editors should seek consensus, avoid edit wars, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Editors should act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others. If a conflict arises, editors should discuss it calmly on the nearest talk pages, and follow dispute resolution procedures. DaveApter (talk) 10:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Misleading statements to be avoided
4) The assertion of false or misleading statements is not only a disservice to readers, but is also damaging to the reputation of Wikipedia. DaveApter (talk) 10:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questionable sources to be avoided
5) Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. DaveApter (talk) 10:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:

Battleground
1) The Landmark Worldwide article was created as an attack piece and has been a recurrent battleground, as demonstrated in the first paragraph of my evidence. DaveApter (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Challenges
2) The challenges in creating a collaboratively crafted high quality encyclopedia article on this subject arise from four factors:
 * 1) The shortage of high-quality impartial factual sources of information on the subject (as indicated by  in his evidence).
 * 2) The editors who choose to contribute to the article have personal experiences, opinions or prejudices on the subject which are often polarised into strongly pro- or anti- viewpoints. Furthermore, editors often regard their own viewpoint as a neutral one, and thus are ready to accuse others who do not share it of violating WP:NPOV.
 * 3) Conversely, editors who do not have strong preconceived opinions on the subject are not strongly motivated to contribute; and when they do, they soon become bored or frustrated by the bickering and edit-warring, and abandon their involvement.
 * 4) A frequent confusion between assertions which are made as:
 * Statements of fact, or
 * Expressions of opinion, or
 * Expressions of preference in regard to definition or categorisation.

DaveApter (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Wider implications for Wikipedia
3) The specific challenges outlined above do not apply only to this article, or even just to organisations that have been labelled as 'New Religious Movements' or 'Cults'. They apply to a wide range of "Contemporary Social Phenomena", including for example:
 * Organisations described as part of the Human Potential Movement (which include clearly secular groups as well as religious and spiritual ones),
 * Political movements,
 * Pressure groups,
 * Environmental movements; and no doubt other categories. DaveApter (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Oppose - Because, as per the abstract of a 2010 Nova Religio article on Landmark, "Landmark in Israel," and I quote, "Human potential organizations such as Landmark are designated by sociologists as new religious movements...." I would however agree that the words philosophy, religion, and science, and several other words and terms containing those roots, are problematic in that those three roots have been and continue to be used in multiple dissonant ways and those variant usages inhibit the utility of the words themselves and terms related to them. John Carter (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * John, I'm not quite clear what it is that you are opposing here, or what point you are making with that quotation from the journal article:
 * Is this writer claiming that all Human potential organizations are designated by sociologists as NRMs, or just some of them?
 * If just some, is this an assertion that Landmark in particular is one of the ones that is so designated?
 * Is this a claim that all sociologists take this view, or just some of them? If some, what are the alternative views?
 * Are you claiming that this assertion an authoritative statement of fact, or is it an expression of the opinion of that particular writer, and in either case what is the supporting evidence? Thanks DaveApter (talk) 11:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment DaveApter is correct in that the findings related to this case, which as far as I' concerned pertains to a NRM, should be applicable to all topics in which there is an ideological/metaphysical dimension that is problematized when subjected to scrutiny by academics in associated fields of study. NRMs, in particular, are problematic insofar as they attempt to coopt metaphysical systems and recontextualize them in a manner that displaces them from the framework within which those systems have been hitherto scrutinized. It takes academia time to catch up with that, and in the meanwhile Wikipedia is swamped with editors associated with such movements engaged in what I'll refer to as "outreach editing".
 * Ideologies would be found more in association with political movements, metaphysicals doctrines with NRMs; however, both of those categories of topics are subject to advocacy and outreach editing on Wikipedia.
 * Outreach editing is not conformant with Wikipedia policy, but is difficult and time consuming to counter. Outreach editors are relentless and persistent, and capable of wearing out other editors over the long haul, resulting in degraded content on Wikipedia. Accordingly, any findings in this case that can be abstracted so as to provide a standard for use as a reference in related areas would be desirable.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 17:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Use of questionable sources
4) Astynax has argued vigorously and repeatedly for the use of questionable sources. For example he proposed the use of | caic.org.au - a clearly partisan and biased self-promotional website with poor editorial oversight - on the RS Noticeboard last year and on the Landmark talk page recently. DaveApter (talk) 11:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Guidelines needed for "Contemporary social phenomena"
1) Wikipedia should have a set of specific guidelines for articles on contemporary social phenomena. As a starting point, the guidelines relating to Biographies of Living Persons could be adopted. Living individuals who are publicly associated with organisations could be harmed if inaccurate or defamatory information is propagated concerning those organisations. DaveApter (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Nice idea, but there is no way in hell I can see it being workable, given the extremely nebulous nature of the term "contemporary social phenomena." Such a vague term could include pretty much everything in the broad fields of politics, musical styles, sports, mass media, and any number of other fields, depending on how it might be defined. I also don't see the clear evidence that would be sought to indicate that this is a separate problem from the problem of new religious movements, which basically already has guidelines for that topic, and which seems to be a field which includes the subject of this arbitration. While I am not particularly opposed to this idea in general, I don't see that there is any real evidence presented that it is either necessary or directly relevant to the topic of this arbitration. John Carter (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with John Carter. While it might at first seem like a good idea, it is very nebulous, and extends editing restrictions which are necessary when dealing with WP:BPL into virtually all articles.  It is not a reasonable proposal.   R mosler  | ●   22:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Policies must be respected
2) Astynax and Lithistman should be reminded to abide by the policies to assume good faith, to be civil, to avoid personal attacks, to refrain from edit warring, and to co-operate with the Dispute Resolution Procedures. DaveApter (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Discuss the edit, not the editor
1) In line with Assume_good_faith, when giving an edit summary or discussing on the talk page, editors should engage in a substantive discussion of the topic and the edits at hand, and neither cast aspersions on the motives of other editors, nor give as justification for an edit the supposed bad faith of another.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Controversial and contentious claims need solid sourcing
2) Controversial or contentious claims cannot be made using unreliable or primary sources, and such claims should reflect the consensus of reliable secondary sources (not giving any view undue weight).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Astynax is using this case to fight a content dispute
1) This case is ultimately a response to the result of an RFC which Astynax started, and the results of which Astynax did not agree with, and their attempts to classify Landmark as both a religion and a New Religious Movement. Astynax has never used any of the appropriate venues (dispute resolution, mediation, etc.) to make this case but instead took the argument to Arbcom under the guise of "editor behavior."


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Original Research
1) Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion
2) While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources
3) Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include:
 * surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
 * challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;
 * reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended;
 * claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Original Research
1) Editors have made extraordinary claims about Landmark (and other groups) without regard for consensus, while relying on sources that are not directly related to the topic of the article, and do not directly support the material being presented.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Selection of sources
2) Editors have relied heavily on Primary and Tertiary sources, while ignoring readily available mainstream Secondary sources. This source selection is intentionally designed to introduce a POV or bias into articles and lists.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Use of unreliable sources
3) Editors have repeatedly argued for the use of unreliable sources including aggregation websites, materials posted online in violation of copyright, blogs and similar websites, and student papers. These sources have been advanced in place of readily available mainstream secondary sources.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Editor conduct - Astynax
4) Editor Astynax has repeatedly made significant changes to articles including reverting removals, while only engaging on talk pages to continue to argue for a single point of view. When material added by Astynax is removed, (s)he reverts the removal while continuing to not work to seek consensus. In the realm of religion or cult articles, Astynax has not been here to build an encylopedia, but rather to advance an agenda.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Editor conduct - Lithistman and Zambelo
5) Editors Lithistman and Zambelo have edit warred, ignored consensus, been uncivil, and have regularly impeded development of this project. While not parties to this case, they have both participated in the case and their behaviour (including that of their previous accounts where known or declared) should be considered by the committee.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I'm sure you'd like it very much if I was added as a party to this case, as it might distract from your own bad behavior. I arrived as an uninvolved editor, with no stake at all in Landmark. I remain uninvolved, to the extent that the only thing I care about regarding the article is that it doesn't read like a pamphlet for Landmark, which it did when I first arrived--and which seems to be your preferred version. LHMask me a question 23:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Semi-walled garden
6) There exists a large number of articles in the new religious movement, cult, and human potential movement arena that were created by a small number of editors with the intent of supporting one another and advancing a point of view regarding Landmark and other human potential movements. These articles served to artificially inflate the relative significance of the point of view of the anti-cult community.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Astynax topic-banned
1) Astynax is indefinitely prohibited from editing, commenting on, or otherwise participating in any Wikipedia process related to articles about religious movements, cults, sectes, or human potential movements, broadly interpreted.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Absolute opposition (and I don't think that I have ever expressed such strong opposition before anywhere). Astynax is a very useful and knowledgeable editor in the broad field of NRMs and many of our articles to topics related to them would be much worse without his input. Also, honestly, I have to say that the evidence presented in support of this proposal is at least to my eyes far less than sufficient to merit such a broad and sweeping sanction. John Carter (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Lithistman banned
2) Lithistman is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This type of ludicrous "remedy" should lead to a serious WP:BOOMERANG. LHMask me a question 23:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Zambelo banned
3) Zambelo is banned from Wikipedia indefinitely.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Discretionary sanctions
4) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to human potential movements, cults, and new religious movements, broadly interpreted.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Enforcement of discretionary sanctions
1) Should any editor subject to a discretionary sanction under this decision violate the terms of the sanction, then further sanctions may be imposed as appropriate pursuant to the discretionary sanction remedy.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Enforcement of decision sanctions
2) Should any editor subject to a restriction under the terms of this decision violate the restriction, then the editor may be blocked for a period of up to one week by any uninvolved administrator. Subsequent blocks will escalate in duration, with a maximum block period of one year. As an alternative to blocking under this paragraph, the uninvolved administrator may impose a discretionary sanction, which shall be in addition to any sanction imposed in this decision.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Restoration of some deleted articles
1) These editors have participated in some destructive article deletions. There may be others, but those that have been brought up here which seem particularly destructive are Cult Awareness and Information Centre (a site regarding which I've run across frequent mentions and references in academic NRM publications), Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System (a television episode which is also mentioned in NRM material regarding est and Landmark), Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous (another television episode that is mentioned in the NRM lit with regard to Landmark's French operations), Scientology and Werner Erhard (I hadn't had an opportunity to read this prior to its deletion, but certainly Erhard's involvement with Scientology pro and con is notable and I have no idea whether the information contained therein is adequately covered in other articles as claimed during the Afd), Raffaella Di Marzio (I was rather shocked to see this was deleted, as well as the mischaracterization given that she is an "anti-cultist"—another instance of someone throwing out claims that are not carefully checked by the nominator or voters); Ian Haworth (I cannot tell whether the tagging for deletion on this was justified, but Haworth is certainly notable with many references to his career and any issue should have been fixed rather than deleted). I request that these articles be undeleted to allow content to be improved.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Topic ban
1) DaveApter, Tgeairn and Nwlaw63 have been intransigently editing articles related to Landmark Worldwide over several years, including opposing changes based upon reliable sources and pushing viewpoints that reflect advocacy put forward by Landmark Worldwide itself, its volunteers, its employees, its franchisees, its subsidiaries and other fans. They have repeatedly and insistently attempted to sway/discourage editors, often under the guise of consensus, to accept Landmark advocacy and ignore reliable, scholarly sources. The persistent IDHT behavior is inexplicable, and the claim of "cleaning up" the work of former editors sounds more like a rationalization brought up here, if not a witch-hunt (although this has been previously dredged up by DaveApter to threaten a couple of editors). The effect has been to discourage editors who have wished to edit (including myself) Landmark-related articles, rather than opt for bowing to these editors' insistence that all edits be "discussed" and approved by "consensus" at the stonewall that passes for a talk page, and/or upon noting the incremental reverts of previous edits that run contrary to the Landmark PoV. I ask that ArbCom topic ban DaveApter, Tgeairn and Nwlaw63 for any article related in any way to either Landmark Worldwide, in any of its iterations, or to religious movements. As much of their activity has consisted of harassment on talk pages, I also ask that they be banned from discussing in relation to these two subjects on talk pages.


 * I think strictly speaking we are now out of time for the Workshop phase, but I should point out that neither of those were threats; in fact John Carter acknowledged that my remark to him was not a threat and apologised for his over-hasty accusation that it was one: []. DaveApter (talk) 07:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Weak support for the idea in general, although I haven't myself reviewed all the evidence regarding each individual involved. Much of the independent reliably sourced material I have seen regarding Landmark indicates that it isn't all that significant to most people, but that its true "fans" or supporters can be reasonably described as almost fanatical, even to the point of the kind of religious fanaticism most often associated with some paramilitary groups or professional evangelists and their followers. This particular group, Landmark, doesn't apparently have as many fanatical supporters as some other such movements, but the sources and some of the behavior I have seen regarding this content indicates that there are enough to make developing the related content more than a little problematic. John Carter (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I support this as well. This would allow for "cooler heads" to actually move the article towards NPOV. LHMask me a question 18:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

's analysis of evidence presented by
Evidence presented by Astynax:
 * Astynax states that their "...first exposure to the situation related to Landmark/Forum/est/its other iterations dates back a year...".
 * This is inaccurate. There are edits from at least four years ago and participation in discussion about the situation over two years ago.


 * Astynax states that Tgeairn was "...essentially dormant..." and that they "...reactivate[d] to participate in disputing" following the addition of an advert tag.
 * It is accurate that I (Tgeairn) was not editing for a long period. I stopped editing after continuous frustration at seeing material that was removed or corrected here on the English project simply get moved to other projects and linked using Sisterlinks templates. (See here for the ANI discussion). I returned to editing the article when I saw the same material getting reinserted back into articles after its removal following long discussions in 2013.


 * Astynax states that Tgeairn "...arrived at [the article] List of new religious movements and dominated an Rfc asking for outside input to advocate an OR "consensus"".
 * This is inaccurate. Tgeairn was already participating in that list and had brought up several organizations where there were issues with inclusion. Tgeairn had already removed Landmark from the list as it was the only Human Potential Movement listed, and the inclusion was based on poor sourcing and contrary to our own articles on the subjects.


 * Astynax states that other named parties argued for narrow, original research inclusion criteria for that list.
 * This is inaccurate. Tgeairn argued for inclusion criteria that came directly from the most frequently cited sources and matched the subject article for the list.. This was an appropriate argument given our guidelines for selection criteria and list topics. Note also that Astynax then reinserted the disputed definition four times until ultimately the article was protected.


 * Astynax states that a small group of editors has "dominated" and are "thwarting the purpose of" Rfcs and Afds tangentially related to Landmark.
 * This is inaccurate. Tgeairn and several other non-party editors nominated a number of related articles for deletion in the past weeks, some of which were related to the Voyage Au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous television episode. The nominations were in the broad areas of movements/cults/religion. A wide variety of different editors have participated in those discussions, and the majority of the outcomes have been delete or merge. While some editors have been more commonly involved than others, the named editors have rarely all participated in the same discussion and there has been no instance where the discussion was dominated or thwarted by the participation of anyone named by Astynax.


 * Astynax states that the handling of the merge from Voyage Au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous to Landmark Worldwide is an example of editors dominating discussion.
 * This is inaccurate. performed the initial merge. Tgeairn followed with a series of edits to integrate the material into the article remove duplication. Tgeairn's edits were reverted. Several other editors (not named in this case) then re-edited to integrate the material and remove unsourced or poorly sourced passages. The editors involved in merging the material discussed their changes among themselves and with others at the article talk page throughout.


 * Astynax states that editors performed "wholesale blanking of referenced material".
 * This is inaccurate. The evidence provided shows the removal of 29 words of copy that were essentially duplicated elsewhere in the article. This is not wholesale blanking, although out of context the edit summary is not fully descriptive.


 * Astynax states that tagging of weasel words was inappropriate.
 * This appears to be appropriate use of the weasel words tag. The evidence provided shows a textbook example of weasel wording. It is unclear what Astynax is pointing to here.


 * Astynax states that other editors were "forum/admin shopping".
 * This is inaccurate and a complete mischaracterization. Every diff given in evidence is completely appropriate and demonstrates editors following our polices and guidelines for appropriate notification, publishing an RfC, or administrator requests at the appropriate noticeboard.


 * Astynax states that editors are "selectively dismissing, mischaracterizing or poisoning the well regarding solid sources on trumped up grounds".
 * Two of the diffs provided clearly show the reasoning and are talk page comments requesting input (ultimately that reasoning was supported by others who are not parties to this case at those same discussions). The other three diffs provided all have edit summaries that refer to ongoing or recent discussion at the talk page about those specific issues, and in all three cases other outside editors came to the same conclusions.


 * Astynax states that editors performed "incremental reversion of material that differs from the view that Landmark presents of itself"
 * This is inaccurate. The first two diffs have clear edit summaries that describe why the passage was removed. The third is a removal of material that is duplicated elsewhere in the article.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Response by Astynax
 * Re: accusation of misrepresenting my prior involvement: I had forgotten that I had commented in 2012 in response to a request for comment regarding an article merge. The Landmark article certainly wasn't on my radar. Tgeairn's other 2 diffs are pointing to the List of new religious movements article, and not to the Landmark article. Nor was I aware at that point of the situation with regard to Landmark PoV-pushing prior to the time I indicated, so my statement is correct.
 * Re: contention regarding Tgeairn's absence and reappearance: Tgeairn and the other "dormant" editors stopped editing when the 2013 Landmark/List of new religious movements discussions petered out. I find it compelling that Tgeairn and Nwlaw63 reappear only after DaveApter reemerged and seemed to be making no progress in getting the tag blanked. One editor popping up again, yeah, but all 3 at the same time + a couple of amens from Elmmapleoakpine and  who only pop up to support starts looking like something else.
 * Re: contention of involvement at List of new religious movements prior to when I indicated: Tgeairn had no prior history with List of new religious movements prior to blanking the Landmark/Forum/est entry there and initiating the discussion which led to an Rfc requesting outside comment. Nor was the material he blanked based upon poor sources. My statement is accurate.
 * Re: contention that arguments were not made for a narrow definition and that s/he was arguing based upon reliable sources: No, the argument being advanced to support the PoV was for a synthesized definition based upon cherry-picking from the references (e.g., by misrepresenting Chryssides who does not regard Landmark as a full-fledged religion, yet he does also state that it is regarded as a full-fledged religion by academic and other sources). The same rationalization was again dredged up recently.
 * Re: contention that the three named parties rarely show up at Afd and Rfc discussions/votes: In the instances I flagged, the parties do indeed show up.
 * Re: contention that merge of "Voyage au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous" was done cooperatively and correctly: The fact is that almost all of the material is gone, with what is left stuck at the bottom of a "Public reception" subsection. Since the article had previously contained references to "Voyage Au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous", only for that information to be incrementally blanked, I have no hope that even what little was inserted will long remain. Nor is it what readers would expect upon being redirected.
 * Re: contention that parties have not done wholesale blanking of referenced material: My statement stands.
 * Re: contention that tagging was appropriate in regard to weasel: I stand by the explanation I gave. When quoting a figure sourced only to a private LLC which makes no public disclosure, especially when third party sources give different figures, it is not weasel to qualify the figure by attributing it to the source (i.e., the primary source who made the claim) rather than using the encyclopedia's voice to endorse it as fact.
 * Re: contention that no forum or admin shopping occurred: As I observed in the case request, non-neutrally worded posts broadcast to multiple users is shopping, as is bringing up the same topic to multiple fora.
 * Re denial that sources have been mischaracterized: This has been persistently done. Rather than cluttering here, and in addition to the instances I cited in Evidence, I'll point to an example (originally posted to Talk:List of new religious movements, where Tgeairn misrepresented an entire series of sources) showing the spin on my user page at Landmark Forum sourcing.
 * Re: denial that incremental reversion to reinstate the advocacy occurred: My observation stands. The series of reverts through editing is a classic and compact example of an unfortunately common tactic. If the arbs want other examples, they are there in more convoluted form. &bull; Astynax talk 04:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

's analysis of 's evidence
I have already responded to the initial points on the evidence page, and these remarks refer to his supplementary | response in the paragraph headed '@DaveApter'.

I am unsure what point Astynax is trying to make with the 11 diffs in this section as most of them have nothing to do with me - or indeed with any of the parties to this dispute.


 * 1) Of the Talk page diffs #95 to #101, only one (#97) relates to a thread in which I am involved, and I cannot see the objection to the point I am making in that discussion. The other six do not even involve any of the parties to this case.
 * 2) #102 is a diff of me removing a pro-Erhard sentence from the Werner Erhard article, so it hardly supports the accusation that I am pro-Landmark or pro-Erhard POV-pushing! It took place as a result of this civil discussion with  on the talk page, which incidentally illustrates the fact that I am happy to debate with editors of differing viewpoints, and to concede the point when they have made a convincing case.
 * 3) #103 is a diff of my trimming down a verbose and slanted statement into a neutrally worded concise factual one.
 * 4) #104 I legitimately removed two redundant tags
 * 5) #105 is nothing to do with me.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

DaveApter's analysis of 's evidence
I cannot see the accuracy of his claim that he: "... was challenged at nearly every turn, particularly by DaveApter, and was eventually accused of being anti-Landmark,"
 * 1) In the article page, I reverted exactly two of his 33 edits. One was the removal of his 'Advert' tag on 25th August - four weeks after I had questioned its validity on the talk page. The other was the reversion of one of his large block insertions on 5th September during one of the bouts of edit warring by him and Astynax.
 * 2) On the talk page our interactions seem to me to comprise my attempting to discuss the article constructively and and his responding with aggression or condescension, eg, , , etc.
 * 3) I do not recall accusing him of being anti-Landmark (and if I did, I apologise) but if he can provide a diff it may help to refresh my memory.
 * You have, on multiple occasions, used that exact phrase to refer to those with whom you disagree. Here's just one example of your having done so. LHMask me a question 03:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That diff makes no mention of you (nor indeed was it personal to anybody); have you got one that does? DaveApter (talk) 10:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that's an "interesting" interpretation of it. You were replying directly to me there, and only the most obtuse interpretation could possibly conclude that you weren't implying I was "anti-Landmark." You have consistently attempted to paint those whose opinions differed from yours as biased. LHMask me a question 19:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, now I understand: in your world it's fine for you to repeatedly describe me as a "pro-Landmark POV pusher" and to assert that I have a COI, but it's not ok for me to make an essentially factual statement that you jump to conclusion is a reference to you. The post you referenced is a compound statement with three parts, all of them accurate:
 * I do not have a COI in regard to Landmark (see below for more detail on that);
 * I have on a number of occasions been accused of having one;
 * Most (not all) of the accusers have been editors who have a clear anti-Landmark bias.
 * I did not make any statement at all on the question of whether or not you have a bias or what it might be, and nor is that a logical consequence of what I did write. However since you bring it up, of course you have a bias! So do I. So does everyone. It is a feature of the way our brains work, and a characteristic of being human. The difference is that I have the honesty and frankness to declare my bias, whereas you put forward the conceit that you do not have one. It's a lot harder to write from a neutral point of view if one doesn't start out declaring what one's own point of view is, and acknowledging that it is just a point of view, rather than the way things actually are.

And, since you raise the subject, it seems perfectly clear (to me) that I meet none of the criteria of having a conflict of interest: I am not being employed by Landmark, or engaged as a consultant, or rewarded for promoting them, or being offered a commission for finding customers for them. And I never have been. I'm not even currently one of their customers. I haven't even taken any or their courses for years. And I do have an opinion on the subject, and I've been open about what that is. DaveApter (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

's analysis of evidence presented by
Regarding Astynax's assertions under the heading 'Activity at the List of new religious movements article', I am responding here because those assertions involve the content dispute which appears to be at the heart of this case. I apologize in advance possibly delving too deeply into content based discussions; I am doing this because Astynax has made these content based arguments at length in this evidence section and the link to their user page contained therein.

The first thing to note is that Asynax mischaracterizes the closure of the RFC which was found to exclude Landmark from the List of New Religious Movements article, (and which RFC Astynax began). What the closure specifically states is that "the arguments to exclude [Landmark from the list] are stronger than the arguments to include, based on the understanding of inclusion criteria and the reading of the sources by those participating. I'd suggest editors continue the discussion about inclusion criteria, with no prejudice to re-opening this discussion, once there is a consensus agreement of refined criteria and what sources are most reliable to judge same."

Astynax later put in a new, vaguely defined definition of a New Religious Movement into the List of New Religious Movements article, without consensus, and is now arguing that this insertion of this definition, allows them to buck the closure of the RFC (see more below). Later, on the talk page, I gave six definitions of New Religious Movements from the leading scholars in the field; Astynax has ignored this and continued to make assertions based on the vague definition they added previously.

Regarding the list of sources Astynax put on their user page to continue to argue for Landmark as a new religious movement, almost every source actually mentions est/the Forum, which predate the existence of Landmark as a company, almost every source simply gives a name on a list in passing rather than making any assertion that Landmark is religious, and almost every source there does not cite any primary source research regarding Landmark.

Why Landmark is on some of these NRM lists without significant assertions of its actual religiosity is explained by one of the leading scholars in the field who puts Landmark on such a list, Chryssides, who says: "...it is doubtful whether [Landmark and other organizations] should be accorded full status as religious organizations. Although I have argued that not all the organizations within this chapter should count as religions, the examples I have studied are nonetheless useful...they all certainly possess an important spiritual dimension, and provide useful studies for determining where the edges of religion lie."

In other words, Chryssides and some other scholars include human potential movements like Landmark on NRM lists because they provide "useful studies" and have some association with spirituality, not because they are overtly religions or religious.

This discussion is relevant to the case, because Astynax, asserting a definition of New Religious Movements that does not require overt religiosity, then uses these sources that put Landmark on these lists to make edits asserting that Landmark is a religion and/or religious (and against the consensus of the RFC which Astynax began).

This shell game seems like clear synthesis - using a definition of an NRM that doesn't require overt religiosity to claim something is an NRM, and then use the claim of it being an NRM to assert that it's actually religious.

Apologies again for the long, content-related arguments.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * As I've noted time and again, the quote from Chryssides does not say that Landmark is not religious or a NRM, merely that he entertains doubts that it and certain others "should be accorded full status as religious organizations" — reading into that statement by one scholar to deny that Landmark is classed as a NRM is a good example of the syntheses which have been used to push the Landmark advocacy position disclaiming any relationship to religion. I have done nothing more than reiterate that scholars of New Religion and NRMs are who should be the ones who determine what are NRMs; not editors here synthesizing a narrow definition to suit an agenda, particularly as scholars have repeatedly stated that the definition of a NRM (as with the definition of "religion" itself) is broadly construed. It feels odd to be accused of synthesis in this for pointing to what the scholarly lit says and by editors who have undertaken and promoted synthesis. &bull; Astynax talk 07:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Relationship between est and Landmark has been correctly described
There is no justification for Astynax's accusation that the connection between Landmark, est and Werner Erhard has been suppressed or misrepresented in the article. On the contrary the connection has been stated clearly and accurately in both the lead and the 'History' section for years.

It is not factually accurate to state that Landmark and est are identical. 'est' refers both to a training seminar and to the company that offered it. The est training was discontinued in 1984 and replaced by 'The Forum', a product with significantly different structure and methodology.[]

As regards the company, the issue is even more clear-cut: Landmark is a distinct legal entity which was formed in 1991, and has a different ownership and management from either est or WEA. It bought the intellectual property rights to The Forum, and developed it to create 'The Landmark Forum', which has been further evolved in the subsequent 23 years.[], []

(Perhaps this is getting too involved in content issues rather than policy and behaviour, but it does seem to be at the heart of the disagreement which provoked this case). DaveApter (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * If one read the article at the point at which the was applied, the only relationship between Erhard and Landmark offered in the text was a vague purchase of some sort of intellectual rights. Absolutely nothing hinting at the hugely controversial history, reasons for the odd transaction, etc. The article reflected, and to some extent continues to reflect, exactly the view that Landmark itself has promoted in distancing itself at every turn from its origins in Erhard and est. This oddly selective version is far from how reliable secondary and tertiary references, even those with favorable views of Landmark, portray Landmark's history.  &bull; Astynax talk 07:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * When the advert tag was applied the lead said
 * "The company started with the purchase of intellectual property rights developed by Werner Erhard, creator of the est training."
 * The history section said
 * "Landmark Worldwide LLC was founded in January 1991 by several of the presenters of a training program known as "The Forum".[5] Landmark purchased the intellectual property rights to The Forum from Werner Erhard and Associates and used that as the basis for its foundation course named "The Landmark Forum", which has been further updated over the years."
 * Astynax's edit here: [] merely added editorialising, spin and loaded language to an adequate and accurate statement. DaveApter (talk) 09:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others: