Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide

Comment by Scalhotrod

 * Comment - assuming that you are referring to this RfC, I would not refer to it as "ridiculous", but it seems clear that you have an understanding of the situation that a casual observer or disinterested editor would not have an easy time comprehending or even getting the gist of it.
 * That said, I'll openly state that I have edited the article as well as have taken several Landmark courses. Do I believe that it is a religious organization of any type, not at all. But, do I know people who treat it as such, you bet your "no feeling left from sitting for so long by Sunday of the Forum weekend" rear that I do. There are people who regard Tony Robbins' instruction with "religious devotion", but that doesn't make him a priest either. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ??? 02:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by AnonNep
This is one of the strangest articles I've encountered on WP in terms of WP:NPOV and WP:RS interpretation. I suggested an RFC on 27 Aug after the placement of an 'advert' tag caused reverts and talk page chatter, with the reasoning 'new, uninvolved editors, to look through things with fresh eyes, and give their point on view'. Some discussion does continue on the talk page, other editors have contributed, so I'm not sure if its at an Arbcom stage but the same issues seem to keep circling around, again and again. AnonNep (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Lithistman
My history at this article (and related ones) is short. The first edit I made was on 26 July, to add a "promo" tag to the article, given my concerns that it read something like a press release for the company. My second edit was one month later, to switch that tag to an NPOV, after discussion on the talkpage convinced me that it wasn't so much a promotional issue as it was an issue with a slanted POV. Since that time, I've observed well-sourced information reverted en masse out of the article, causing serious NPOV issues with the article. At some point, DaveApter started a ridiculous "RFC", that was in no way neutrally-worded, and was seemingly designed only to gin up support for his own view, and opposition to those who were trying to bring balance to the article. Things have sort of "escalated" from there, and thus we arrive here. LHMask me a question 15:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * One further note: has now started an utterly frivolous ANI about me, mainly stemming from my description of the experience I've had in editing the Landmark article. He claims all sorts of personal attacks by me, none of which are true. Since interacting with him on the Landmark article, he has threatened to block me, left multiple complaining messages on my talkpage, and just generally caused me to feel harassed. Today, I finally asked him to refrain from posting to my talkpage, and thus far, he has complied with that request. I hope that continues, as at this point, I just wish I'd never stumbled across this stupid article, as well as the long-term editors associated with it. LHMask me a question 22:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Previously Uninvolved User:Robert McClenon

 * One of the RFCs cited by the filing party as evidence of previous efforts to resolve the problem is still in progress. The filing party hasn't cited any reason why the RFC shouldn't be allowed to run its course (such as personal attacks or disruptive editing in the RFC itself).  Is the filing party complaining that there is something wrong with the RFC itself, or that the RFC is some sort of misconduct?
 * This is a contentious article, but it doesn't seem to rise to the level of needing discretionary sanctions, which would be the most likely result of arbitration.
 * The filing party appears to think that a cabal of three or four editors is trying to assert ownership of the article and to impose a POV on the article. If an article has only a few active editors, three or four editors may be consensus rather than a cabal.
 * In the unlikely case that the ArbCom accepts this case, the filing party should look out for the incoming boomerang.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush
I edited the article recently, cleaning out a fair amount of fluff, promo and puffery. At that time I did notice that one frequent contributor regarding the subject - DaveApter - says that he has been a satisfied customer of the organisation. I'm not suggesting that DaveApter added that fluff etc but any neutral editor would have removed it pronto, not left it lying around. I don't know much at all about the subject matter but I noticed a lot of debates on the talk page over a prolonged period and they did seem often to have come down to two polarised groups, both claiming to be operating according to policy but, quite clearly given my removals, not doing so. It doesn't look like the material that I removed has been reinstated. Maybe it got drowned in the noise. - Sitush (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Zambelo
During the past week a number of articles connected to Landmark in one way or another, and more particularly to the voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous article (which was also nominated for deletion)

I raised this issue here and asked why the following articles were being nominated for deletion, or being tagged as not passing notability (I had raised this here earlier, and Tgeairn had responded)

Articles connected to Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous:


 * Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous - proposed deletion by Drmies
 * Jean-Pierre Jougla (participant)- flagged for notability by Randykitty
 * Jean-Marie Abgrall (participant, anti-cultist)- flagged by Randykitty
 * Jean-Pierre Brard (participant)- flagged by BayShrimp
 * Christian Lujan (participant) - proposed deletion by Drmies
 * Mona Vasquez (participant)- proposed deletion by Tgeairn
 * Catherine Picard (anti-cultist, politician, head of UNADFI, commentator) - flagged by Tgeairn

Other:
 * 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

On top of these flaggings, large changes were made to several of the articles - for instance the Michael Langone article was gutted because it looked like a "resumé" even before notability could be established, or discussed.

Is there a pattern here?

Meanwhile, the editors who voted for deleting the article on the Landmark-critical documentary Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous are:
 * Nwlaw63
 * DaveApter
 * Tgeairn
 * Randykitty
 * Drmies

Zambelo ; talk 15:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The tally is in! Two weeks later, of the articles nominated, only 5 remain, and only because I have worked hard adding new references. And yet time after time, each time, the articles are targeted by the same editors, Tgeairn, Randykitty and Drmies, who will propose deletion of the article, and together, ensure that it is deleted, bypassing due process, and not allowing any sort of attempt at saving the articles by researching new references. Zambelo ; talk 11:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Response to TParis's topic-ban
I find it amusing, and a little disquieting that I should be topic banned after opposing the deletion of Voyage au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous after the editors attempting to delete it did everything in their power to get me banned - well, I guess they've succeeded. After the whole Voyage au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous deletion situation, a number of articles relating to the documentary, and critical of Landmark were targeted for deletion, by the same editors who voted to delete the article in the first place (see above) - Tgeairn, Drmies, and Randykitty, who essentially went around tag-teaming articles that either concerned Landmark, the documentary, or which more generally concerned the anti-cult movement. For two weeks, these editors have bypassed due process by teaming up and nominating these articles for deletion, and again to get me banned when I attempted to save them by researching new references. Whether there is a concerted effort to push a POV is questionable, but that these editors acted inappropriately, and actively worked to bypass the normal deletion process is plain to see. Forum shopping, bypassing the deletion process, and ensuring that editors who oppose their proposed deletions get banned - this is not behaviour becoming of productive editors of wikipedia - and as mentionned above, there is improper admin behaviour at play here as well. Zambelo ; talk 07:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman
Let's see:
 * 1) An area historically associated with ideological battle.
 * 2) A group of editors working together to frustrate consensus.
 * 3) Prior history of sock puppetry in the area.
 * 4) Serious damage to article quality.
 * 5) Complex dispute requiring deep investigation; poorly suited to quick analysis by the uninvolved.

Accept because sending this back with an admonishment to "use other consensus-based processes" clearly isn't going to work, but a case probably will. Having administrated in this area in the past, I can assure you that the community will have problems dealing with hard-core, agenda driven editors trying to spin a niche topic. Jehochman Talk 12:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Mediation would be a poor idea. That process doesn't work with agenda driven editors utilizing sock puppet accounts.  ArbCom should investigate to weed out any bad faith accounts.  If after that there is any remaining dispute, mediation might be viable, but I feel the odds of that being the case are very low. Jehochman Talk 08:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies
I'll be short, for now. The Landmark "stuff" is troubling. I'm not sure I'd have tagged this version as an advertisement--I think that scrapping all the "content" stuff would go a long way toward neutralization. I think in general these articles suffer from adversarialitis: those who appear to be "for" the club and those who are clearly against are too far apart. There is something of a walled garden here, and those who have read Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous and the AFD will realize from this edit just to which extent wikilinking was used to establish credibility/notability. The "flagged" and nominated articles linked above by, that's a normal part of the process. I'll speak for Articles for deletion/Christian Lujan, since I nominated that one: community consensus is clearly headed towards deletion; I've not looked at all the other ones, and until I have, I can't really judge whether ArbCom is the way to go. But if it turns out that the Voyage article is kept, which is a possibility, and if a group of editors manages to keep clearly unrelated content in that article (see this edit), where I self-reverted immediately to prevent accusations of disruption), then I think we do have a problem. I'm glad a broader audience is looking at these articles. And for clarity's sake: this is not forum shopping, pace the filer's claim. An editor asks me for my opinion--what's the problem? If I need someone's opinion I'll go ask for it: nothing wrong with that, and there is no way that CANVASS forbids that type of message. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * On this very page Lithistman sees fit to accuse me of starting "frivolous" threads about me after they accused me of POV editing and admin abuse in an unrelated matter, and refused to back this up in the appropriate forum, which is ANI. For the record, I don't care much for their slander here or elsewhere (see their talk page--"Drmies forum-shopped until he found a forum to get me blocked. Mission accomplished, Drmies. I'm gone."), but it should be pointed out that I simply can't be one of the "long-term" editors associated with this "stupid article", since my first edit to this article was 13 September, months after they started on it. Lithistman claims to be retired now; for this article, that is not a bad thing. Drmies (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * To Zambelo's remark about a "pattern"--there is indeed a pattern here. A slew of articles (a walled garden of sorts) was created years ago, many in 2008. Some of these were valid, some were not, and some of the latter seem to have been created to add credibility to others. Some of the BLPs Zambelo listed are otherwise non-notable people who were given articles possibly with the intention to be allow more bluelinks in other articles (such as the "documentary" article). You know, because you can see this, who created some of these articles, and while I am not willing to criticize that editor more than they already are, it is true that some of those articles simply do not pass the GNG. That editor, for better or for worse, is still paying the price for edits in the larger anti-cult area, and on the one hand it is still causing them personal distress, with which I sympathize, but on the other hand we still have some fallout here from that business. I assume that's what is pointing at; I don't know, since I don't believe I was involved in that business (was ArbCom?) and I don't know who all was on which side. I do believe it predates the involvement of most of the editors here. The Nouvel Observateur edit I pointed at above fits in that pattern, as does Template:Est and The Forum in popular culture. Feel free to check the history: I went through all those articles a few days ago and removed a few that were really undue additions--note that I didn't nominate the template for deletion, and my edits there are open to scrutiny, of course. This walled garden is not totally walled, but in my opinion there are articles and templates whose very effect is to strengthen other articles. Another prime example is Landmark Education litigation, an article with maybe three reliable, secondary sources; another is Ney v. Landmark Education Corporation and Werner Erhard, nominated for deletion here (and properly speedily kept, I suppose), but also properly gutted here and in other edits--the same "ubiquitous" background that was found in the documentary article. How that article is still a GA is not clear to me. Now, I don't have a COI in this, no hate for any editors, no involvement with the organization, no nothing. In fact, I was the one that placed the COI tag on the Landmark article since I was (and still am) concerned with DaveApter's edits. And I have no problem with edits like this, which seem properly verified and fair to me--but the overload on sourcing there strikes me as tendentious--in that version, starting at note 40. So, if all of this adds up to something ArbCom should look at, that's fine with me. I don't know what can come out of it, but I am not a bit worried about my edits, although the slanderous remarks about COI and clique-editing are offensive to me. True, Randykitty and I go back a long way, but usually we converge on BLP and scholarly matters--I may have asked him to look at an academic's article or some publications (like the French magazines that previewed the documentary) related to this matter; if that's what got Randy into this mess, I'm sorry. DaveApter, I don't know him from Adam. Tgeairn, I think we have run into each other, but I have no relationship of any significance with them: they asked me last year to look at List of new religious movements, and I advised them to start an RfC--I never edited the article or its talkpage, and haven't to my knowledge interacted with them until 11 September of this year. So there's no there there. If anything, this request has become a place where a few disgruntled editors have found a possible avenue to smear my character, but I trust that ArbCom can see right through that. Drmies (talk) 05:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter
There are two serious fundamental issues at play here. One, as has been indicated above, is the long-standing problem of POV pushing on all sides in many areas within the field broadly described as new religious movements. The other is the comparative lack of really useful independent reliable sources on this particular topic, as opposed to previous iterations of Erhard Seminars Training and other names with which this most recent name change has distanced the extant group from and the rather serious problem of POV pushing possibly including possible COI issues regarding this particular topic. This happens fairly often in issues related to NRMs, particularly when money is involved in some way, the group's supporters have some sort of possible financial or public reputation goals other than improving the encyclopedia which can drive their involvement, and the group itself exercises some degree of effective control over what material is made available for use in independent reliable sources. User:Jayen466 drafted some basic guidelines regarding NRMs some time ago which are useful but probably insufficient for all the issues involved here. I think it would be perhaps best for the community if this case were accepted by ArbCom so that the problems which seem to be rather widespread in this area can perhaps receive wider attention from the community and maybe clearer indicators of what is and is not acceptable in related content. John Carter (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Response to arbitrators
Implementing DS in this case might be sufficient, but I regret to say that the lack of really substantive independent RS on this topic that I at least have been able to find at date is probably the biggest impediment to article development. John Carter (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Ubikwit (uninvolved)
In light of some of the parallels with the scenario at articles related to the Soka Gakkai, I'd like to see the case accepted. Some of the issues discussed above are endemic to articles dealing with religion/quasi-religion-related topics that involve organizations engaged in proselytizing/outreach campaigns.-- Ubikwit  ????/?? 03:41, 14:28 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by IZAK (uninvolved)
Agree with the concerns of User. However the problem is emphatically NOT related to only "new religious movements" or to any other type/s of movements alone, because it can and does occur when ANY topic is dominated by one group of editors who ignore core WP:NPOV. While WP should maintain its openness to WP:EXPERT editors that have WP:COMPETENCE and always needs to pay attention to Expert retention, after all who else wants to work hard on some tough-to-understand topics, yet that should not mean that WP's fundamental policies should go by the wayside. The core issue and problem here, relates to and falls under the name of "movement cases". In past times I had initiated an ArbCom case, see Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement, against similar twisting of WP by the Chabad movement that resulted in very limited warnings, still standing, to the offending parties. This is a very complex task as each "movement" rears its head and it takes time to identify and deal with the problem. The main issues tend to be how to deal with and overcome WP:OWNERSHIP, WP:EDITWARRING, WP:LINKFARMING, WP:NOTFACEBOOK, and maintaining WP:NPOV and key WP:NOTCENSORED! something that "true believers" are ultimately incapable of. The following is a list of ArbCom cases relating to similar "movement cases" as far as I know, that should be looked at very carefully as requisite background in resolving the current matter under discussion, alphabetically:


 * 1) Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying (2008)
 * 2) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement (2010)
 * 3) Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche (2004)
 * 4) Requests for arbitration/Scientology (2008/9/12/13)
 * 5) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement (2013/14)
 * 6) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement (2010/11)

Hoping for a peaceful resolution. Thank you. Most sincerely, IZAK (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Jayen466
The piece mentioned by John Carter above can be found at WP:NRMMOS. Andreas JN 466 21:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Notification of Action by uninvolved TParis

 * This is to inform the Arbitration committee that I have closed a thread on WP:ANI related to this topic with a topic ban for User:Zambelo from any new religious movement article and any article related to indoctrination. This action, of course, includes an exemption for Arbitration.--v/r - TP 03:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Noting, for the record:
My only participation in this case will be the statement and brief comments I initially left, which are now copied above. I have no desire to be further involved, and will only consider providing further evidence if Astynax is sanctioned in any way. As a previously uninvolved editor, my view is that Astynax has tried valiantly to move this article to a NPOV, though he's been stymied at every turn. Any attempt to sanction him for his work on this article will force me to participate in this case, which I have no interest in doing otherwise. LHMask me a question 00:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Clarification request: Landmark Worldwide/R6 Additional eyes invited (January 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  DaveApter (talk) at 18:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark_Worldwide#Additional_eyes_invited
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark_Worldwide#Additional_eyes_invited

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Carter&diff=prev&oldid=641760040 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Legacypac&diff=prev&oldid=641760122 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Theobald_Tiger&diff=prev&oldid=641760207 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Astynax&diff=prev&oldid=641760269 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATgeairn&diff=641760350&oldid=641334183 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANwlaw63&diff=641760604&oldid=641476238

Statement by DaveApter
The recent Arbcom case closed with the remedy:

6) The Arbitration Committee urges that editors having no prior editing history on Landmark Worldwide and no strong views on the underlying controversy review and edit this article, helping to ensure that our policies governing neutral point of view and reliable sources are followed.

Recent activity on the talk page of that article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Landmark_Worldwide#To_move_forward.3F et seq - purports to be in furtherance of this remedy, but appears to me to be at odds with it.


 * states (correctly) that he is previously uninvolved with editing this page, although his comments do not appear to be compatible with having  no strong views on the underlying controversy.
 * has edited extensively on the Dutch wikipedia site Landmark Worldwide article from a strongly negative POV. And in fact was recently indefinitely banned from that site for edit warring and personal attacks. His appeal against the ban was declined here: https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overleg_gebruiker:Theobald_Tiger&direction=next&oldid=42788930
 * has made various edits on the Landmark article and talk page and elsewhere over the years and made it clear that he has strongly held personal opinions or prejudices on the topic.

Threaded discussions
My apologies that I hadn't realised that threaded discussions were not permitted here. This is my first experience of Arbitration. No offence intended. It's fairly late here in my timezone and I'll clean up anything necessary tomorrow. DaveApter (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Moved from Theobald Tiger section
 * My sincere apologies if you are not the "Theobald Tiger" here : https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Worldwide&diff=42765220&oldid=42735552 or the one sanctioned in the above link. But you will appreciate my confusion, given the identical name and the similar interest. DaveApter (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Now I'm really perplexed - given that TT now admits that he is the "same editor", how can it be that he "has never edited with a negative POV on Dutch Wikipedia" or that "my statements are outright lies..." etc? DaveApter (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Moved from Gaijin42 section
 * OK. my apologies if I got some details wrong ( I don't speak Dutch either), but the main point remains: this is not in any sense an "uninvolved editor". DaveApter (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Response to
My intention in raising the matter here was to check whether the Arbitrators feel (as I do) that immediately after the closing of the case, one of the remedies had been flagrantly flouted. Since it's a clarification of whether the remedies are being observed rather than a clarification of the ruling itself, maybe this is the wrong place to bring the query, perhaps it should have been at Enforcement? If so I apologise.

My substantive point is this: rather than uninvolved neutral editors coming in to improve the article (which I would welcome, and have repeatedly tried to encourage over the past few years by RfCs, posts on various noticeboards etc.), a cluster of contributors descended who are clearly operating from the viewpoint that more negative material should be incorporated.


 * 1) Regarding, it is entirely clear that he has extensively edited the Landmark article at the Dutch Wikipedia, and that he has done so from a negative viewpoint. The issue of why he was blocked and for how long is not the main issue (and again I apologise if I made some invalid assumptions), but surely my concern is understandable when a blocked editor with that history turns up here?
 * 2) Regarding, someone who writes "What is significant is that many people call Landmark a cult" hardly seeems to be demonstrating that they have  no strong views on the underlying controversy!
 * 3) Regarding, their viewpoint has been made abundantly clear.
 * 4) Regarding, I can only leave it for others to judge in the light of his consistent comments around the subject over many years whether it is plausible to take seriously his claim to be a neutral and impartial commentator.

Finally regarding John's accusations and insinuations against me, I should point out that over the past seven years I have made an average of eight edits per year on the Landmark article. Also that although accused in the recent Arbitration case, no findings of fact against me were made on any of the evidence submitted, and no sanctions proposed. John has not produced evidence to support the serious allegations he has made against me, of to justify his incessant hounding of me over the past few months or the repeated personal attacks.

As regards, what I am suggesting as a remedy, I really don't know what to suggest. Maybe the 'future Discretionary Sanctions' will have to be applied already? DaveApter (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarification Accepted
Regarding the matter I originally raised here, I fully accept the views expressed below by the Arbitrators, especially as most clearly stated by GorillaWarfare. I appreciate that no action is called for and I trust that it is understood that I raised the concerns I had in Good Faith. However matters seem to be spiralling out of control, as I discuss in the next subsection. DaveApter (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Continued personal attacks and harassment of myself by John Carter
As you will be aware from John's comments below, I made a request at ANI for an interaction ban between John and myself as he has been hounding me on a more or less daily basis since making a totally spurious accusation against me on the talk page of the Proposed Decision on 21st November. The request was closed almost immediately with the comment that 'this matter is being dealt with by the Arbitration Committee'. A large sample of diffs is included in my submission at ANI, which I will not repeat here.

Every time I issue a statement to clarify the position, John or his collaborators demand a different form of words and I have lost patience with responding to them.

The latest attack is on the Landmark Worldwide Talk Page, where John says
 * "You have also, repeatedly, pointedly refused to address the issues of whether you are related to individuals who are or have been employees. It is also, of course, possible that, given your habit of rigorous definition, you might be a contracter assigned to Landmark, but not employed by them directly, or perhaps in some way some sort of shareholder, particularly if you were an employee under an early version of the organization."

None of this is true; there is not a shred of evidence to support it; and in fact I have already dealt with most of those points previously.

If any responses to John's accusations are required from me, please let me know what they are and I will provide them. DaveApter (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Response to Drmies
I can only apologise for any distress I have caused to Theodore Tiger due to my over-hasty extrapolation from a limited grasp of the situation at the Dutch Wikipedia. No malice was intended. Drmies is correct that I don't know my way round this Arbcom thing. This is my first experience of it, and I have found the past three months extremely stressful. Added to that, I have been on the receiving end of a whole barrage of personal attacks and unwarranted accusations throughout the whole period. Added to which the situation at the Landmark article seems to have got worse rather than better since the closing of the Case.

For the avoidance of doubt, I dispute that "my COI is a matter of record". But I don't think this page is the venue for pursuing this further. On the contrary I have made my position clear that my perspective is one of a former - broadly satisfied - customer of Landmark who did several of their courses some years ago. Would we say that an iPad owner had a COI in editing the Apple Inc page? DaveApter (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter
First, I am rather amused that DaveApter of all people has the gall to say anyone else has strong opinions, when he himself has clear and obvious ties to the group which he refuses to actually directly indicate. In fact, I think it far from unreasonable to say that his attempts to get the content related to this topic to reflect favorably upon a employee-owned group whose non-public records he has demonstrated he has access to raises very serious questions whether it is even remotely reasonable to think that his actions are not driven by his own strong and obvious interests and opinions in this matter. FWIW, I don't actually know (or care) much about Landmark and its various iterations, and have no particular opinions about it, although I acknowledge having a remarkably low opinion of DaveApter as an individual for his own edit history regarding this topic. Also, honestly, I have to wonder what exactly is being asked here. I don't see anything in particular which indicates exactly what sort of clarification or amendment is being sought. Also, FWIW, a review of the arbitration case itself will indicate I proposed a merge at that time, so my doing so now shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. The fact that this clearly biased individual believes his clearly biased opinion is grounds for filing this request seems to me a likely WP:BOOMERANG scenario when one person with clear ties to the group doesn't like the actions being taken by others. I would love to see NYB comment here as well, if he sees this, because it will be noted that I left a message on his talk page asking him to become involved, as per the "comment" committee I proposed, and named several other people whom I have in fact all contacted regarding this, although not all have replied yet or necessarily replied in the affirmative. John Carter (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * First, should realize he should still edit in his own section. My own personal request for amendment based on what I see here is that, maybe, discretionary sanctions be authorized and implemented based on the conduct of DaveApter in this request, and that he be the first person to receive sanctions based on his conduct here. John Carter (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Request to arbitrators: I think it might be possible for you to all to institute discretionary sanctions on the topic as per Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide, as this is the appropriate place for such a request to be made and I believe the obviously inappropriate use of this page, and seemingly self-admitted misrepresentation of facts by the filing party, are very possibly grounds for sanctions against him, or, at least, an indicator that such sanctions might be called for in general. Yes, even after only a few weeks since the arbitration case itself was closed. I am however unsure whether a request to that effect would have to be filed separately, or whether, coming so quickly after the arbitration was closed, it would have any significant chance of being implemented. John Carter (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Question to arbitrators: Would it not be possible to think that this request itself is a form of misconduct, maybe sufficient for imposition of discretionary sanctions by motion? John Carter (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is worth noting that User:Theobald Tiger has announced his resignation from wikipedia because of the personal attacks levelled against him by above, which Apter himself has basically acknowledged were incompetently raised, based on his misinterpretation of comments in a language he can't read. The jumping to irrational and dishonest conclusions about the actions and motivations of others which he has displayed, along with his disregard for actually bothering to see whether his attacks had any basis in reality, raise very serious concerns. These unfounded, irrational personal attacks which have cost us an editor here, coupled with his other behavior, including his refusal to acknowledge how he has access to non-public information of a group he is so clearly so closely tied to or the specific nature of his relationship to the group in question, raise to me very serious questions whether the time has come to institute discretionary sanctions, and also to consider specifically discretionary sanctions on the editor who has engaged in these dishonest, incompetent, acts and personal attacks, DaveApter. John Carter (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Ongoing abusive misconduct by DaveApter
In addition to his own self-declared incompetent, unfounded personal attacks against Theobald Tiger, mentioned above, DaveApter has recently seen fit to subject me to sanctions because I note his ongoing refusal to ever come clear regarding what seem obvious unresolved issues regarding his possible personal COI at WP:ANI. He seems to ridiculously believe that he has an absolute right to continue to engage in behavior in violation of WP:IDHT about these matters, and on that basis I have to believe that there are both serious grounds for imposition of discretionary sanctions in general on this topic, and on DaveApter, for his ongoing misconduct, in particular. John Carter (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Theobald Tiger
I have never contributed with a negative POV on the Dutch Wikipedia. I have never had any involvement - pro or contra - with Landmark, its predecessors or its activities. I am not indefinitely banned from the Dutch wikipedia. There is no such thing as my "appeal against the ban" which would have been "declined". DaveApters statements with respect to me are a mixture of outright lies, ill-informed gossip, irrelevant speculation, malevolent ad hominems. Theobald Tiger (talk) 18:46, 19:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Re to DaveApter
 * I am the same editor, but all the same: nothing you have said is true. Theobald Tiger (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Your perplexity is presumably due to your biased position, and it is in all likelihood deepened by your extremely poor command of Dutch. Theobald Tiger (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Moved from Gaijin42 section
 * Gaijin42's statement is completely accurate. I regrettably lost my temper when a Dutch admin additionally blocked the talk page of an excellent Dutch editor who defended himself against an (undeserved) block, because - in my view - the Dutch admin community in large part is unable to appreciate widely used forms of literary expression. I do not see how this can be relevant to the issue at stake. My contributions to the Landmark article are not negative at all: I have added a nuanced and well-sourced section on the topic of Landmark's supposed religiosity; I have added a sentence describing the influence of est on the development of coaching, I have changed some statements in the article that were clearly wrong, and I did some general editing. All of my contributions have been favourable to the article's content and wording. On the talkpage I have objected to an editor with a clear COI. Theobald Tiger (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The block was completely unrelated. The block request you will find here. The appeals are also on that page. And here are the corresponding talk page discussions. Drmies' input would of course be appreciated. Theobald Tiger (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The indef block was a very strange move of the blocking admin. He started to negotiate with me what to do after I lost my temper, and I replied sarcastically: give me an indef ban, that would please the editor who gave an embittered comment a few minutes ago. And then I got to my surprise an indef ban without precedent and without justification. I had called somebody a near idiot, what I should not have done, but it was - of course not entirely without reason. It caused a lot of turmoil and eventually there was an editor who asked for a reevaluation and there was an admin who cancelled the block. The whole issue turned out to be a storm in a teacup, and it is in any case not relevant here, I think. But if required, or if it will be helpfull, I will make things clear. Theobald Tiger (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not prepared to defend myself against malevolent lies any longer. Goodbye to all of you. Theobald Tiger (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Legacypac
My entire experience with Landmark was attending a single introductory meeting some years ago. Never heard of them before that. At the time I did some quick checking on the org, decided their seminars were not for me, and never worried about it again. My involvement on the article talk page so far has been to suggest we include criticism/characterization of the group as a cult/new religion etc where right now there are only denials included (and how we can neutrally do that) and to discuss structure of the article and merging in related articles. I've made just two article edits so far - add a merge tag and adjust a wikilink.

While it is unclear what the question or proposal is, it is clear the editor who dragged us all here did not get the point of the Arb ruling, is guarding the article, and is now trying to scare away or force away anyone who wants to edit. I request for this absolute abuse of process and false allegations this editor be topic banned from Landmark Worldwide and all related articles for 1 month so that other editors can get on to fixing the article without being bitten by the guard dog. Legacypac (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

In response to DaveApter's further attack: Please read the whole post at the link he provided. Clearly the person with strong views and an agenda is DaveApter. If he is not topic banned under this Request, it will not be long before the community has enough of this behaviour and sends him to the penalty box. Legacypac (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I second John Carter's question about this being an abuse of process- and ask further if this is not the right forum to seek remedy, please suggest one. The only bias editor in this discussion is DaveApter. I'm thinking COI noticeboard next. Legacypac (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So far no one has been willing to make significant edits, perhaps because all suggestions are shot down and all sources not to their liking are immediately dismissed as unreliable. Then we are dragged here. Happy to use other processes to deal with this RfCs, ANi, 3RR, DNR etc. Just let us know. Legacypac (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Gaijin42
For those that don't want speak dutch, or don't want to wade through google Translate, Theobald was blocked for 3 days. The block was appealed (by someone else?) but was procedurally declined because there is apparently a policy in place that does not allow for Dutch ArbCom review of blocks of 3 or less days. The block was subsequently lifted early by another admin there. He was not indeffed, and is not currently blocked, but is marked as retired there. He edited on the Landmark article there, but I did not look to see if there was any POV issues, but based on how widely the block was misrepresented, I doubt it. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Re to DaveApter
 * They are either outright lies, or you very seriously misinterpreted the evidence on the dutch wiki to the point where your entire statement should be thrown out. See my review above on his "indef ban" Gaijin42 (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you don't speak dutch, and made mistakes of this caliber on basic verifiable facts, how did you determine that his edits written in a language you do not know were from a "strongly negative POV" or were in any way inappropriate? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Re to Theobald Tiger
 * I was unable to find the discussion that led to the original block. If you could link to it, that would be helpful to clear the rest of this up. But you could also just summarize to say if the block was in any way related to Landmark on the Dutch wiki, or was completely unrelated. Also or other Dutch speakers might be helpful in clarifying what happened there. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

That does seem to show you requesting (and receiving) an indef. Was the "3 day" issue only applicable to the other editor? Since it was a self requested block, that still is quite the misrepresentation from the OP. but at this point someone who actually speaks Dutch will have to evaluate. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris
Look guys, just go ahead and authorize DS on this topic. Maybe then uninvolved editors would be willing to come in and help out. As it is, you're asking folks to come in and sort through the house while it's still on fire, before the firemen have been called in. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Josq
I'm nl:user:Josq on the Dutch Wikipedia, someone asked me to give a clarification over here. I see that people have risen doubt about the neutral involvement of Theobald Tiger (TT) in this case. I'm the administrator being responsible for the block of TT which was discussed above. Additionally, I have been approached by a certain nl:user:The best you can get! (Tbycg) with regard to the article nl:Landmark Worldwide. I'm however not at all familiar with the procedures on this Wikipedia version.

With regard to the block of TT: I think this incident is totally unconnected to the Landmark case. Some weeks ago I was confronted with a block request against TT because of a personal attack on an unrelated talk page. I asked TT to bring up a solution, and he responded ironically that he should be blocked indefinitely. Trying to "disarm" his irony, I blocked him indefinitely indeed, leaving the message that the block could be lifted as soon as he wanted. After a few days the block was lifted by a colleague, an action I could agree with.

With regard to the neutrality of TT in the Landmark case: TT got involved into the Dutch Landmark article after Tbycg edited the article extensively and after Tbycg was (partly) reverted by other users repeatedly. TT did some redaction work, making several paragraphs more concise, removing some information and external links that could be interpreted as propaganda, and added some information including (scientific) sources. Meanwhile, Tbycg kept editing the article, and in many cases his edits were partly or entirely reverted by several users, including TT. Tbycg also had started to ask the attention of many people on several talk pages, and he got strongly negative responses from most people. Also TT has been very critical towards him.

My conclusion is that TT has done his best to describe Landmark neutrally, based on reliable sources. I think on the Dutch Wikipedia there is also a reasonable consensus that the contributions of Tbycg were for a large part undesirable and that he is too involved to be a neutral writer concerning this organization. TT has acted according to this consensus, and he has gone a step further than the other criticasters - most of them only took part in discussions and/or reverted the edits of Tbycg, but TT really has tried to improve the article, conform the standards of Wikipedia. Josq (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by CaAl
(I usually don't contribute the arbitration matters on this Wikipedia, feel free to move my contribution to a more appropriate place.) As a bureaucrat on the Dutch Wikipedia, I can support TT's words: his block had nothing to do with Landmark (as a matter of fact, TT did some good efforts in removing POV from the Dutch version of the article), and other users would have received a one-day-ban for losing their temper in this way. The blocking moderator decided to ask TT how long he should block, and TT (still in the heat of the moment) responded with indefinite. It has been stated shortly after the block that TT can be unblocked if he so desires. That the indefinite block would appear to users on other wiki's not fluent in Dutch as a serious, permanent block, was an unforseen consequence and does not reflect reality. CaAl (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies
I was alerted by, and in hindsight I understand why someone--I forgot who--emailed me or pinged me--I forgot what--about poor Theobald, with whom I've had minor interaction over the years (see my talk page archive). Anywayz, John asked me to look at the article talk page, which I did, and pointed me to the ANI, which in turn led me here. Just a few comments, if I may. a. I don't see precisely what is being asked here, but I'll have some good faith and say that DaveApter doesn't really know what to do with this ArbCom stuff, how to read it, how to navigate it. If that's the case he's in good company. b. Dave's COI is a matter of record, but ArbCom did not decide, unless I missed something, that it renders him incapable of editing neutrally. c. As an administrator, I will not allow Dave to be abused or smeared: see an edit (well, a series of three) I made to Talk:Landmark Worldwide. d. I looked into the Theobald matter on the Dutch wiki, being fully prepared to see a totally negative editor there, and found nothing of substance to the allegations: three significant edits Theobald made there are, , and , and the Dutch Wikipedians should be happy to have (had) such an editor who, with a good command of language, inserts neutral and well-verified content. Their block was indeed lifted, by nl:Gebruiker:Wikiklaas (thank you Klaas), though Theobald seems to have left the joint anyway. I do not see how that block or its lifting has any bearing on any of this at all and,, as an administrator I will not allow you to cast aspersions on his character (I'm assuming both are penis bearers, at least while they're signed in). Discretionary sanctions or not, I have no problem with blocking you for personal attacks or laying the smack down and banning you from the topic/getting you banned from the topic via AN. Thank you all, and have a great day! Drmies (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by The best you can get!
Hello, I am nl:user:The best you can get!. I am responding here to the above mentioned comments of Josq, as I consider some is not accurate. My intention is to add reliable sources and information to the article. I would like to have a content based discussion about this controversial subject. Some of the statements or claims in the article occur to me as untrue: and contentious claims must be supported by reliable sources. Theobald Tiger (TT, who is seen as a ordinairy good person) completely ignored my requests and called me a POV-pusher and made personal attacks to me. It looks like people feel offended by my questions. TT has not been neutral, so I do not understand why Josq is defending TT and putting me down. People might not like to have a content based article, but what is wrong with asking for reliable sources and discussions? Why is Josq in his comments above so negative about my contributions? --The best you can get! (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Beeblebrox

 * My comment at the time was "While I do not disagree with the sentiment here, I don't think this sort of thing is actually a remedy that does anything. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)"


 * I don't think remedies like this are helpful and would encourage the new committee to avoid them in future. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ignocrates
Imo, this motion needs to be reconsidered. The Landmark case was closed with no action taken because there were no FoFs to support remedies against the parties. That's why discretionary sanctions were pushed into the future. If DS are being reconsidered, there must be some new disruptive behavior to merit the sanctions. But any admin monitoring the article could have stepped in to curb that disruptive behavior with a block. So, why are there no blocks? And if there is no blockable behavior, what is the factual basis for implementing discretionary sanctions now? With all respect to and, the problem was caused by accepting the case in the first place based on unpersuasive evidence, not by a failure to implement discretionary sanctions. Ignocrates (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).


 * I've moved everyone's comments to their own section, please feel free to reorganise how I've placed it in your section just make sure it's clear what you were replying to. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Landmark Worldwide/R6 Additional eyes invited: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Okay, just what are we being asked to clarify or amend here? We can ask people to go help on an article, er can't force anyone; nor can we control who takes an interest and shows up.  So, what, exactly, are you requesting we do here?  Courcelles 18:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I admit, I thought the decision to postpone DS on this topic was a rather strange one likely to waste more time later (but I wasn't an arbitrator at the time). But that's the only step I could see us taking at this time, and that would need evidence of people actually misbehaving, and not just "the wrong people" showing up. Courcelles 17:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I do, in fact, think we should just go ahead and authorise DS properly. Every dispute is going to come back here, for 15 people to deliberate, when a lot of it really belongs at AE, except there is nothing to enforce. The initial decision was just plain faulty here, and it isn't getting better on its own.  Courcelles 08:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * What did or did not happen on the Dutch Wikipedia, and why it did or did not happen, is completely outside the jurisdiction of both this committee and the English Wikipedia community as a whole. Discussion of it here is therefore pointless - please could the clerks hat or remove any further bickering on the subject. Instead, please could people clearly express what they want ArbCom to do here, and why whatever that is cannot be done by normal processes? Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is clear that this is not going to go away on its own, and that this open request is hampering the community's ability to sort it out. I'm wary of just slapping discretionary sanctions on everything, but here it does seem that people think it will help so I think that, per Courcelles, this is probably the best solution for now. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If the party bringing this here (DaveApter) doesn't know what to suggest as a remedy, there's nothing for us to act on. This seems to be a general complaint that the wrong people are editing the article and that our desire for new editors hasn't resulted in new uninvolved editors arriving to edit it. But that's beyond our control. Dougweller (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * to clarify, I decline. Dougweller (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to see evidence from the English Wikipedia of wrongdoing before imposing DS -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  09:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The remedy encouraged uninvolved editors to participate, but it did not prohibit involved editors or those with strong opinions from doing so. I don't see what action is needed here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Per GW. I'm not inclined to act upon an encouragement. NativeForeigner Talk 20:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The committee that heard the whole case decided that DS weren't at the time necessary. As that time was only a couple of weeks ago, I'm not persuaded that anything has changed. If, a few months down the line, there is clear and convincing evidence that the dispute cannot be resolved by any other means then by all means authorise DS then. In the meantime, Decline request  Roger Davies  talk 13:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree we can't really act upon an "encouraged" remedy. That is what it says, an encouragement, not a mandate or prohibition. I do, however, believe it's time to authorize DS for the area, so in the interest of moving this along, I'll be proposing a motion to do so. It may be that some people need to be reined in or removed from the area, but I believe that is better determined at AE. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * . I agree, this is what needs to happen.  At least to subject it to an up-or-down vote. Courcelles 19:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Motion (Landmark Worldwide discretionary sanctions)
Enacted - Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Courcelles 23:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) per my comments above. Thryduulf (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes, but only to overcome inertia, this will be the fourth topic added to DS in three weeks.   Roger Davies  talk 12:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) I don't ike this. I don't like it at all. --In actu (Guerillero) &#124;  My Talk  23:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 6)   DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 7)  Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Per Roger Davies. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) L Faraone  14:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain

Landmark worldwide (February 2022)

 * Original discussion

Enacted - GeneralNotability (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Landmark worldwide Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Support
 * 1) No sanctions since 2015. To the extent that this is still needed it may need to be more about new religious movements but that would likely need to be its own case/request. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 17:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Izno (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Primefac (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) Cabayi (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) BDD (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 9) Beeblebrox (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 10)  CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 11) WormTT(talk) 13:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Discussion by arbitrators

Landmark worldwide Community discussion

 * I recall mentioning the existence of these Discretionary Sanctions as a historical note in one AFD; however there was no disruption that could justify the use of DS there. The lack of any other interest is a sign this can be rescinded. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 16:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)