Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide/Proposed decision

PD update
Just to keep people in the loop, the ETA for the PD will probably be closer to the end of this weekend. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 03:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying that - I had been assuming that you would not make a start on this one until the Gender Gap case reached a conclusion. I hope that this one will not be so troublesome! On a point of procedure, does the Committee have the discretion to sanction editors who are not named parties in the case, or are they explicitly restricted to ones that are? Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 11:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * When I wrote the above I hadn't noticed your datestamp David, and I assumed that 'end of the weekend' meant 23rd, but logically it would have referred to 16th? Presumably the on-going search for a close on GGTF is still holding things up?


 * Since this PD may be being prepared at the moment, may I ask if may be formally added as a party at this stage? The evidence presented clearly establishes a prima facie case for him to answer, and it seems only fair that the Committee should have the opportunity to express an opinion on that one way or the other. Thank you. DaveApter (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The only prima facie case established against me is that I showed up as an uninvolved editor (having only just then learned of the existence of Landmark), placed a tag, and tried to work on moving the article towards NPOV. Your attempts to smear me as some kind of anti-Landmark POV pusher have not worked, nor should they be in any way rewarded. LHMask me a question 15:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * To update; yes, we're being a bit delayed by the other cases, a bit because I'm afraid real-life activities meant I didn't get to fully read all the evidence until later than I'd like, and also just because more complicated cases naturally take more time and require more arb attention. In regards to procedures: the Committee does not sanction editors who are not named parties in cases, and at this point it is too late to add new parties as the time for evidence has closed. We'll keep you updated when the PD is imminent. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that. If this is not possible at this stage then so be it. This is my first experience of Arbitration and I wasn't clear what the deadlines are for adding parties, or the procedure for requesting it, or whose responsibility it is to make such a request. I couldn't find any reference to these on the Arbitration Policy and Guidelines pages (If I missed something, I'd be grateful for being pointed to it). I had assumed that  would be de facto considered to be a party to the case since there are clear allegations on the Evidence page (with plenty of supporting diffs and examples) that he has been edit warring, failing to assume good faith, making personal attacks and shown disrespect for the Dispute Resolution Procedures. Clearly from the proposed remedies on the workshop page, I wasn't alone in making this assumption. DaveApter (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You really need to stop flinging around accusations, DaveApter. LHMask me a question 15:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I should add that I did ask for to be included in my initial response to the request for Arbitration, but this seems to have been ignored or overlooked. DaveApter (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps they saw your request and just (accurately) judged that I wasn't the locus of the problems at the article. LHMask me a question 13:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * David, can you clarify your statement that it was/is too late to add additional parties? I know that this thread started well after the Evidence phase closed; however: DaveApter did request that LHM be added to the case during the Request phase, LHM did in fact add evidence during that phase (as any editor is allowed to do), LHM is and has clearly been aware of this case since the beginning, and arbitrators may "add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case)" during the Proposed decision phase. --Tgeairn (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What's to "clarify"? He was very clear in what he wrote. I know you want me sitebanned, but it's ludicrous the lengths to which you're willing to go to try to accomplish that end. LHMask me a question 02:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thinking of Tom Petty
The waiting is the hardest part.... John Carter (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It certainly is. The PD is largely complete at this point, but we do need to wrap up a few final details. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

re proposed "Contemporary social phenomena" classification
I'm responding here to 's comments on the workshop page today, rather than there because the close date for that page was 13 days ago.
 * Firstly, I agree that the phrase 'Contemporary social phenomemena' is 'extremely vague', and I had some misgivings about it myself, and I'd be delighted if anyone can suggest a better one. However, I think we all know what sort of articles I am referring to, and I'd suggest it will do as a placeholder for now.
 * Secondly - even if a more satisfactory and more restrictive phrase cannot be found - I don't see that that makes my suggestion 'unworkable': even if the category (pedantically interpreted) covers, for example, episodes of The Simpsons TV cartoon, I think there would be no difficulty in determining where the purported guidelines are appropriate and where they are irrelevant. DaveApter (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "Contemporary social movements" might be better, but probably still too broad, because not all are motivated by ideology or dogma.
 * By "social", it would seem that you mean "organized", and by "phenomena", the group activity defining the organization.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 17:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Possible late, admittedly circumstantial evidence
Would it be too late to provide some admittedly circumstantial evidence regarding possible POV or other problems regarding one of the parties involved in this case? John Carter (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This includes, from his early history here as an editor, a comment from DaveApter which seems to indicate he may have been at least an unpaid worker for Landmark here, his remarkable knowledge about stock ownership of the company, interesting because the company is according to our article employee-owned here, and a remarkable degree of knowledge regarding statistics and registration information relating the company's financial affairs here, here, and here. It was partially on the basis of such information that I advised him on his user talk page some time ago that if he was currently an employee of LM, or anticipates getting some sort of retirement or other compensation from the company in the future, that he could be seen as having a COI as per WP:COI regarding the topic. Although I haven't searched his talk page archives, I remember he shortly thereafter indicated that he would be taking a break from the topic. John Carter (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's quite a preponderance of circumstantial evidence. I'd say it's enough to at least consider a topic ban for DaveApter in all Landmark and NRM-related articles, broadly construed. LHMask me a question 19:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is also worth noting that his proposed guidelines are at least in part intended to reduce harm people associated with the movements involved might suffer, which presumably could include financial harm of a person with a COI, and that WP:HONESTY is considered a form of civility as per WP:CIVILITY. John Carter (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

This is one of the most outrageous slanders that I have ever encountered anywhere on Wikipedia. ''' is accusing me publicly of being a liar on the basis of nothing more than empty speculation. I insist politely request that he withdraws this accusation and apologises.''' I have already stated my position explicitly on the Workshop page:
 *  I am not 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 any of these. I'm not even currently one of their customers. I haven't even taken any of their courses for years.

Perhaps I should also add that I don't own any shares in Landmark and I never have done!

None of the edits he cites above from nine years ago entails his conclusion that "[I] may have been at least an unpaid worker for Landmark" or that "[I show] a remarkable degree of knowledge regarding statistics and registration information relating the company's financial affairs".

The edits in question are simply a mixture of figures readily available in the public domain and hypothetical "reality check" calculations made in the course of the discussions on the talk page at that time.

John's memory is also defective in relation to the exchange between us on my talk page (which is still there). He said nothing about employment or presumed retirement benefits and I said nothing about taking a break from the topic (the only time I recall ever offering to stand back from editing for a while is on the Landmark talk page a couple of months ago during the period of edit warring by  and ).

Presumably it is also out of order for John to presenting this so-called "evidence" now, when that phase closed three weeks ago? DaveApter (talk) 07:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Your narrowly delimited disclaimer is perhaps what John Carter finds less than forthcoming, and I certainly see the point of his taking an opportunity to raise the question here. Like other NRMs, Landmark is well-known to employ unpaid "volunteers" to do work normally done by paid employees in most companies (as has been the subject of more than one gov't investigation, as no employment and other tax is paid for such work). You didn't directly answer the question as to whether you have been a volunteer with Landmark. Why not? You might have clearly denied holding any license or rights from Landmark (which also delivers its courses through franchise-type licensees), having led or assisted at Landmark courses, etc. In other words, you could have disclaimed that you, your employer, family, clients and/or friends hold no business, financial or other interest or relationship whatsoever with Landmark beyond having attended a few courses in the past, but you again have not directly done so. Landmark is a private, limited liability corporation, and although the company is "owned" by its employees, it is not disclosed how this is held, how control is exercised or by whom. Disclaiming holding any stock is itself a non sequitur, as "employee owned" companies of which I am aware do not actually issue stock to individual employees. Nor have I come across anything that indicates that Landmark is in the habit of paying commissions for "finding customers". Honestly, why raise irrelevant points that start to look like red herring to my aged eyes? Nor are figures from Landmark's books "readily available" (beyond the certificate of incorporation, these are not public records), so the claim of knowledge of this sort of closely held information does raise questions, including the appearance of CoI, whether or not such actually exists. Your putting forward the "Contemporary social phenomena classification" wherein articles cannot address unflattering/defamatory information regarding organizations on the basis that "living individuals who are publicly associated with organisations could be harmed" again starts to look like CoI censorship around the edges (not to mention being unworkable: let's not mention reports that Takata likely knew about problems with its air bags for months prior to issuing any warnings—because living people associated with Takata might be harmed). I doubt that any of this will bear greatly on the case at hand, but the broader point regarding persistent bias raising possible CoI issues is surely relevant to articles beyond Landmark Worldwide. &bull; Astynax talk 09:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * First, I acknowledge my error thinking of another editor who was a seminar leader. And, well, honestly, not everyone is as single-mindedly obsessed with Landmark as Dave, and at least in the beginning I saw, and still see, the request here as being an attempt to railroad Astynax, which from the beginning I saw as being rather unlikely to succeed. Also, the frankly ridiculous request to have a new guideline to "protect" groups including for-profit businesses like Landmark on wikipedia here is the reason I made these comments later, because the likelihood in my eyes that such a proposal would only serve those who have some form of investment in one or more of the groups involved is the proximate reason for my having made the comment at all. However, I also notice the to me hysterical overreaction and refusal to directly address the matter of whether you are or are not in some way a compensated or non-compensated "employee" of Landmark, and I find that extremely interesting. And the apparent misstatement, based on Astynax's comments above, about what is and is not a matter of public record is also very interesting if true. I would be willing to offer an apology for raising the matter if I saw a direct and forthcoming statement from Dave regarding the true nature of his affiliation with Landmark, but I honestly have no reason to believe I will see one. And the demand that the statement be withdrawn very much looks like a legal threat, and making such comments is itself potentially a very problematic concern. John Carter (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Really John? DaveApter's statement "I insist that he withdraws this accusation and apologises" looks like a legal threat? If you really believe that, I recommend that you request administrative intervention immediately.  You can find guidance at Don't overlook legal threats, but I think you know that. --Tgeairn (talk) 05:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ""Insist"ing is a clear demand implying that some sort of action be taken if it is not abided by. Given DaveApter's pattern of recent behavior, yes, it is to my eyes not unreasonable to assume that he might consider it as possible legal action, as his proposed guideline is itself seemingly trying to engage in a form of paralegal protection of people like himself. John Carter (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt
Here is my last attempt to make my position absolutely clear:
 * I get no benefits of any kind (financial, spiritual or psychological) for promoting or publicising Landmark, and I never have. The same goes for anyone with whom I am related or associated. The only "interest" I have in the topic is in seeing that the article is fair, honest, accurate and in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

There - will that do?

Also, I have no insider knowledge of Landmark's accounts, statistics, share ownership or anything else. Anyone who takes the trouble to follow the five links John has provided above will find - as I have already said - that there is nothing that is not either in the public domain or speculation on my part.

My editing of the Landmark article is a very small portion of my total activity on Wikipedia. I'm far more interested in the other subjects I write on, and I only step in when - as in the last few months - there's another bout of attempts to slant the article.

I'm also concerned about the misrepresentation of my suggestion for guidelines. When I talked about harm to individuals, I wasn't referring to shareholders. What I had in mind was that, for example, Landmark has been publicly endorsed by large numbers of prominent figures - including clerics, academics, business leaders, doctors, psychiatrists etc - and these stand to suffer if the Wikipedia piece carries unsubstantiated allegations about it being a cult or brainwashing its customers. The same applies to a lot of other topics - for instance the Neuro-linguistic programming article is a mess for similar reasons. DaveApter (talk) 10:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Unclear, at least to me. I note that you have again chosen not to address the scope of your activity with Landmark. A Landmark volunteer worker would hardly be expected to receive financial compensation, and your perception of no "spiritual" or "psychological" benefits are fully in keeping with Landmark's denials that it is related to religion or engages in psychotherapy. Raising such points does not demonstrate an absence of CoI. Personalizing claims of CoI not initially aimed specifically at you, and your curiously parsed and narrowly delimited denials of CoI that fall far short of the concerns encompassed at WP:COI simply raise more questions than they answer. The hypersensitivity to, personalization of and convoluted denial of CoI seem very odd, and even more so the proposal for a new guideline that would limit reporting of potentially negative things about an organization or product on the basis that someone who has endorsed it/them might be "harmed" by association. As I said, I hardly think that this will be the focus of the arbs reviewing this case, but putting forth evasive-sounding rationalizations is something that might better be avoided. &bull; Astynax talk 19:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a way to clear this particular issue up would be to clarify whether or not you have ever worked as a volunteer for Landmark. LHMask me a question 19:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This self-declared "last attempt" seems to rather pointedly refuse to address some of the issues raised, and on that basis could reasonably be seen as simply a continuation of stonewalling refusal to address some legitimate concerns others might have. Also, honestly, the fact that you have proposed a guideline whose specific purpose would be to "protect" individuals who have endorsed an organization seems on the face of it to be clearly and directly in violation of WP:COI, as it seems to be, basically, an attempt to create a guideline to correct you as an individual and little else, and I cannot see how anyone would think that we are obliged to protect editors from what might well be seen as others from those editor's own possible mistakes and perhaps demonstrations of poor judgment. John Carter (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I find Tg's semi-wikistalking below, in an attempt to "discredit" me in some way, rather disturbing. LHMask me a question 05:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

If the Arbitrators have any Questions I'll be happy to answer them. In the meantime perhaps the three of you should re-read the rubric at the top of this page. If you have any evidence of policy violations please produce it. None has been provided here so far. DaveApter (talk) 03:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I simply asked you to clarify whether you've ever worked as a volunteer for Landmark. Your refusal to answer that simple question seems to be an answer in itself. LHMask me a question 04:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Although this expedition has been entertaining, LHM's addition of first a POV tag and now a COI tag, claiming that DaveApter has a COI and is a major contributor (where DaveApter has 15 edits to the article this year and LHM has 34) is really getting to be over the top. LHM has been seeing POV, COI, and conspiracy everywhere they look: beginning with their very first few edits, continuing to the next user name, and the next, and the next, and the next, and of course up to today. It just might do some good to assume a little good faith occasionally. I recommend that at least one of the two tags be removed from the Landmark article (and really, I don't see how either of them should stay at this point). --Tgeairn (talk) 05:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I asked a simple, straightforward question, for which a refusal to answer is quite telling. Now you're slinging some mud about articles and topics wholly unrelated to this case. Please stay focused. LHMask me a question 05:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that addressing a 7+ year pattern of behaviour is exactly why we have Arbcom. If you want to discuss the content of the Landmark Worldwide article, and your placement of the COI tag, I have started a talk page section for that purpose. --Tgeairn (talk) 05:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, stop. I'm not even a named party in the case, and the cherry-picking you did to find places where I've identified problems with POV in various articles over the years is just ludicrous on its face. What do you suppose that proves? That I attempt to work articles that I edit towards a NPOV? Well, that's... interesting, I guess. LHMask me a question 05:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

No sanction for DaveApter in proposed decision?
I am, quite frankly, shocked at this. You're considering a topic ban for 3 editors, and one of them isn't the most tendentious editor on that page? Very odd, indeed. I'd be interested in hearing the rationale behind that, given his behavior at the talkpage, particularly, but also in editing the actual article. All three of the current proposed topic bans are levied on editors who have, at least, attempted to compromise and work together at various points. LHMask me a question 00:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Dave Apter primarily edits the talk page which isn't quite as problematic. Also, I think it worth noting that the bans are only for six months, which tend to be among the shorter bans ArbCom hands out. With luck, maybe, in those six months editors who are not quite so problematic in editing the article itself might be able to get the main content up to snuff, with or without any problematic comments from basically talk-page-only editors. John Carter (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope you're right, but I have a bad feeling that if DA makes it through this arbcom unscathed, his edits to the actual article will resume in force. LHMask me a question 02:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Dave Apter has worked tirelessly on talk pages, but he is also one of the top 4 editors on the Landmark Worldwide article alone (and the only top editor to have edited recently) and has significant edits during this year, including reverts. I expect there must be some other reason he was dropped from the proposed decision. &bull; Astynax talk 07:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This is misleading: almost all those edits were in 2005 and 2006, and my activity in the last seven years has amounted to between 1 and 15 edits per year. In 2005-6, I was trying to shift the article from the deplorable state it had been in,in the face of a determined onslaught from editors who have since been sanctioned for serious NPOV violations in this area. DaveApter (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not include Apter in proposed sanctions because I didn't think the evidence presented warranted it. Admittedly, it is often difficult to elucidate things like "ownership of a page" or "civil POV pushing" in diffs, but edit counts and technicals really don't often matter compared to content. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A simple read through the talkpage of the article, and the archives thereof would show the problems DA causes. He stands in the way of compromise, he passive-aggressively casts aspersions, and just generally is a semi-civil POV-pusher. This whole case feels semi-pointless if the one editor who was the biggest problem isn't dealt with. LHMask me a question 16:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As I noted in Evidence, editors, including some who have come away from attending Landmark programs with no impression of it being religious, have been taken aback by Dave Apter's PoV-pushing. Even a drive-by admin seemingly previously at ease with the push of the other named editors was concerned enough to post a CoI tag and attempt to remove some of the puffery. As gatekeeper and having crafted what had become transparent advocacy, Dave Apter has been more involved in the PoV-pushing than anyone else for the entirety of his content editing there, up to the placement of the tag at the end of July, and since, yet goes unmentioned in the proposed decision. Something very odd about being unable to detect that, indeed.  &bull; Astynax talk 14:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It is I believe worth noting that at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide DaveApter specifically states, and I quote, "Also, I would welcome an authoritative ruling on whether the accusation that I am operating under a conflict of interest is justified or not." Therefore, I think it is perhaps reasonable for the ArbCom to consider offering an indicator of the editor's qualifying or not qualifying as having a COI, as the editor in question himself seems to have basically specifically requested such a statement. John Carter (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact - Item 4
So that the intentions of the Arbitrators are clear, I recommend splitting Proposed findings of fact 4 into two separate items (one for and one for.

Nwlaw63 only has 7 edits to the Landmark Worldwide article this year, and edits related to the article appear to be incidental with their rather larger quantity of work at AfD.

I (Tgeairn) have 43 edits to the Landmark Worldwide article, and have stated that I have in fact made a project of cleaning up NRM related articles. Of course, it is my belief that a couple months of frequent editing in the NRM/anti-NRM field of articles does not make me a SPA (particularly when compared against over 40,000 edits that have nothing whatsoever to do with Landmark or even NRMs). However, given that I have taken on cleanup of a long-standing set of articles, I can understand how that recent history would appear in passing to be an SPA (in the NRM field at least). It would be unfair for Nwlaw63 to get lumped together with my cleanup work. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed remedies - Item 5
Although I obviously disagree that topic-banning me from Landmark related articles (even for a relatively short period) is in the best interests of the project, if such is found to be the consensus of the community then I request that the scope be clarified to include or exclude New Religious Movements articles in general (which is where my recent editing is primarily). I find that attempts to characterize Landmark as a religion, and therefore confer upon it the opportunities, protections, and "rights" that religions gain, are disingenuous. However, those characterizations may prevent my work in other NRM/Anti-NRM articles if this remedy is adopted without clarification. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Clarification
On a couple of points: Hoping these can be addressed to avoid asking for clarification later. &bull; Astynax talk 07:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Proposed decision, Sourcing for Landmark Worldwide: There are indeed solid, scholarly sources in the fields of sociology, psychiatry and religious studies which deal with Landmark (under its dozen or so various names) and which may be applied to Landmark-related articles. While they are not as overwhelmingly numerous as sources on mainstream religions, movements or therapies, they are hardly insignificant, few or obscure. I offered a link to quotations from eminent scholars on my user pages during Evidence, which is but a small sampling. I would hate to see the words "rigorous academic sources for the topic are few and far between" made out to be Wikipedia's position as part of this decision, as will look ridiculous to anyone familiar with the literature.
 * Proposed decision, Astynax and tendentious editing I apologize for the 2013 revert flagged, although I still see a local consensus for ignoring scholarship as being in direct conflict with the wider community consensus that articles neutrally report all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources. I'll do the suggested penance for that revert without complaint, however. I should also appreciate an explanation, for my own benefit as well as for the record, as to what is being flagged as "tendentious" (aka, biased) in my editing, as my intent in relation to these articles has been limited to correcting PoV misrepresentation of sources and my insistence on sticking to solid, reliable sources rather than anecdotal OR and syntheses.
 * I would appreciate this clarification as well, since it seems as if the proposed "remedy" in re:Astynax is based almost solely on the "evidence" provided by pro-Landmark POV-pushers. If editors like Astynax who have researched and found scholarly sources on topics like Landmark are topic-banned as "tendentious", then the article will revert to a local "consensus" that is explicitly against Wikipedia policy regarding NPOV. LHMask me a question 16:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Tendentious editing has nothing to do with bias, it has to do with disruption. Ignoring the consensus of an RfC because you didn't like the outcome is disruptive. Local consensus can of course be overruled by a wider pool of editors, or by our accepted guidelines and policies; I recall nuking the Harry Potter wikiproject's style guide because it clashed horribly with WP:MOS, for instance. But if you want greater input, WP:RSN, WP:COIN, or RfCs are the mechanisms to do it, rather than unilateral action. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So, should a poorly-maintained article, with few watchers, have just been allowed to languish as basically an ad for Landmark, then? Because when I stumbled across it, that's what it read like: some sort of brochure for the company. Are you really saying that a local "consensus" of, perhaps 3-5 editors, should prevent that article from being moved towards a NPOV while the Wikiwheels turn? LHMask me a question 22:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear that a local "consensus" of, perhaps 3-5 editors, is a misrepresentation. I have taken questions on this article to the NPOV and RS noticeboards, and the Village pump, and requested a Peer Review, and issued one or two RfC's. Also I've asked opinions of several uninvolved experienced editors. At least a couple of dozen univolved editors have contributed to the article and or the discussion over the last year or two. In almost no cases have these other opinions supported the kind of slant that and  have been attempting to impose. DaveApter (talk) 10:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * According to WP:TENDENTIOUS and elsewhere, including the dictionary definition, "tendentious" is not merely disruptive and has a LOT to do with pushing bias, so I'd appreciate the question being seriously addressed, as much of my work on Wikipedia has been in researching and verifying sources. If I am going to be sanctioned with the implication that I have been pushing bias, then it is important to me to know how. I have already agreed that I should have attempted some other dispute resolution rather than the revert back in September 2013, and I did not revert thereafter. As this proposed arbcom decision itself does nothing to address the PoV-pushing that has occurred in spite of, rather than making use of, reliable sources, I now seriously doubt that the other suggested resolution venues would have stood up in the face of the intransigent advocacy. Your posted statement regarding high-quality reliable sources being unavailable is utterly misinformed, and I find the dismissiveness of some of the top scholars in the fields of sociology, psychology/psychiatry, etc. to be puzzling and begging the question whether reporting what any sources other than anecdotal fluff and careful extracts in line with Landmark is acceptable here. The article didn't get to a state of puffery due to lack of reliable sources, but rather due to removing or (when the material they supported wasn't simply blanked) cherry-picking from them. Rather than addressing the advocacy issue and its direct conflict with reliable sources, it appears that this decision is designed to go nowhere toward resolution. &bull; Astynax talk 14:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Proposed decision, Astynax and tendentious editing: I am unsure why the proposed decision says I am a "them", but should be corrected regardless. &bull; Astynax talk 15:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is the singular they, as it is rude to presume someone's gender, and "he or she/his or her" can often be unwieldy. It is not a suggestion or finding that multiple people operate your account. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I accept and understand the point regarding the greater number of sources relating to Landmark in its earlier incarnations, particularly including est, and I personally think that there is a very good chance that shortly after this arbitration is concluded, hopefully without the original poster of this thread being sanctioned Really subtle hint there, there will be some discussion about consolidating the relevant content into a smaller number of articles, or perhaps a single article. John Carter (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Pointers to Evidence already submitted regarding Astynax policy violations
In response to the concerns expressed that the evidence for accusations of Tendentious Editing by is somewhat thin, the one example quoted in the draft PD was a small sample of the items which had been submitted on the Evidence and Workshop pages. For convenience, here are pointers to some of them:

[Evidence 2.2] nos 19 and 20 (in tag team with ).
 * Astynax edit warring

[Evidence 1.2] no 3. [Workshop 4.6.1] no 35.
 * Astynax applying undue weight and using loaded language

[Evidence 2.3] nos 27, 28 and 29.
 * Astynax violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL

[Evidence 1.4] esp item “Astynax returned and bulk inserted”.
 * Astynax ignoring consensus and dispute resolution procedures

[Main case page 2.2] (numbers refer to links in section 1.2 Prior dispute resolution).

[Evidence 1.3] [Workshop 4.1.2.4]  DaveApter (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Astynax arguing for use of questionable sources


 * Yeah, that looks scary, until one reads through those links. The "edit warring" was nothing more than restoring referenced material that had been summarily blanked. The "undue weight" and "loaded language" were both firmly based in sources and corrective of the pro-Landmark PoV and absence of due weight that advocates have relentlessly maintained. The AGF and CIVIL charges are ridiculous, and the linked comments merely reflected the reality of the situation regarding Landmark-related articles. The "consensus" and "dispute resolution procedures" show nothing other than the advocacy's obstructionism. The mere idea of agreeing to the forming a consensus that misrepresents and ignores the sources is repellent, not in the interests of the project and directly opposed to the wider community consensus and policy that articles should reflect all significant reporting in reliable sources. The "questionable sources" charge relies entirely upon misrepresentation of rock-solid, reliable references by some of the top people in their fields. Even in the caic.org case, the site is almost entirely an aggregator rather than original content, is referenced in scholarly lit, and the particular antipathy of the Landmark crowd toward it (including blanking its article) is mystifying other than it quoting from material at variance from the Landmark PoV. Using an article being quoted or reprinted on caic.org as justification for blanking material is another convoluted straw man toward restoring advocacy. &bull; Astynax talk 18:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe it is generally expected that the arbitrators review the conduct of individuals during the arbitration as well. I sincerely hope that they give the behavior of certain individuals during this arbitration the attention that I believe they deserve. Also, I believe WP:TE might apply to repeating the same material repeatedly, particularly if, as Astynax says above, the comment also seems to be dramatically overlooking matters such as sourcing. John Carter (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I se co nd that, and this seems to be a strategy that is shared by advocates across a broad swath of articles where an evident degree of promotional zeal is exhibited by a group of editors motivated by belief and conviction as opposed to adherence to policies (and sources). I think that this statement sums up the phenomena fairly well"The mere idea of agreeing to the forming a consensus that misrepresents and ignores the sources is repellent, not in the interests of the project and directly opposed to the wider community consensus and policy that articles should reflect all significant reporting in reliable sources."and can point to an instance where such conduct is occurring on another article at present in the same manner (misrepresenting sources and claiming consensus ('consensus = compromise'), etc.). There doesn't seem to be a policy fix in the legislative pipeline, however, so this recurrent and typical problem will undoubtedly be something that the Committee has to deal with on such articles. -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 03:51, 7 December; 18:50, 12 December  2014 (UTC)

Mandated external review
Just reminding everyone here that the Falun Gong 2 arbitration used "mandated external review," or basically allowing problematic editors to edit the article itself only after approval by an uninvolved administrator. It might not be an unreasonable procedure to implement here on one or more of the parties involved. John Carter (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing for Landmark Worldwide
I think it worthwhile to perhaps look at Talk:Landmark Worldwide/to do. There do seem to be rather a large number of articles and other sources not on the sites I checked when I made the statement I did. And, FWIW, like I have recently said on my user talk page, I am going to check the various other databanks I can access with some more trouble, and some of the databanks listed by the ALA on its Guide to Reference website, to see if they might have additional information as well.

Also, on an unrelated point, as someone who personally regrets the recent developments that led to it, I regret the redlink in the clerks section of these pages. I would very sincerely hope that circumstances might change in the future to perhaps make it blue again in some way. John Carter (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * - Two things to note about the list of sources created by Astynax which he has just block-posted into the to-do list at the Landmark talk page:


 * 1) Most of the academic sources here are limited to a single line or brief passing mention of Landmark, and sometimes the original quote even predates the existence of Landmark. In all the sources supplied by Astynax that I have followed up over the past year or so, I have not found a single one that reported a detailed study, or direct observation, or survey of Landmark (which would have made them a primary source) or cited any published studies by other parties (which would have made them a secondary source). Few of them revealed any detailed knowledge of Landmark (in two cases they didn't even get the company's name correct).


 * 2) Regarding journalistic sources, while there has indeed been extensive coverage of Landmark in the media over the years (some critical, some positive), the majority of it is in the form of feature articles and op-ed pieces rather than factual news items. The few that are news items were mostly dealing with other matters and mention Landmark in a peripheral context. Furthermore, this does not appear to be an attempt to provide a comprehensive balanced list; rather, to collect every media reference that has ever criticized Landmark.


 * If I (or any editor) were to put a list together of dozens of journalistic sources that praised Landmark (which would not be difficult), we would rightly be accused of bias. DaveApter (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for once again making insinuations without evidence and attempting to impugn the motivations of others who do not have the obvious preexisting biases you personally have. You have of course provided no evidence to support why you draw your conclusion what the list "looks like" to you, but that possibly shouldn't surprise anyone. You might note that I indicated to Astynax on my user talk page that I gathered together pretty much every article available to me from some databanks which provided any substantial coverage of est in its various forms and am going through them to see what if anything useful they might have. And regarding the comparative positive/negative bias you contend without any evidence, well, you are of course free to add other sources to balance that if they exist and meet minimum RS standards, but it is not really our responsibility in any way to qualify or disqualify sources simply on the basis of whether, in the eyes of a clearly biased editor, they are positive or negative toward the topic regarding which he has a rather transparent bias. John Carter (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It does not follow that because some reliable sources cover Landmark in brief, that even those shorter mentions do not contain significant relevant information. Nor is your characterization of other sources I have posted (in some case reposted from summarily blanked material) accurate, and encouraging dissection of reliable sources to accept, reject and/or reframe information given is synthesis and original research, as has been pointed out to you on more than one occasion. There is enough coverage in highly reliable sources to put together a well-referenced, rounded article. I agree that journalistic coverage needs to be handled carefully, as it sometimes includes anecdotal observations, but cherry-picked anecdotes supporting the Landmark PoV are precisely what have been used in the article during its transformation into puffery. On the other hand, significant journalistic coverage that doesn't toe the Landmark PoV line, has been ignored or blanked, including significant, in-depth, non-anecdotal material. The list I posted is far from complete and just what I could quickly put up from my notes to save future editors the trouble of putting into cite format. &bull; Astynax talk 19:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

What about editor behavior?
In reading this mountain of a talk page and the section above about sourcing, I’m wondering what happened to the discussion of ‘Admin Shopping’, ‘Mistagging’, ‘Canvassing’, and all the other offenses that me and the other parties to this case are accused of. Instead, I see some broad charges of bias, but mostly discussion about article sourcing which seems similar to the discussion from the | RFC a year ago, which Astynax did not like the results of. This strengthens my suspicions that this case wasn’t brought by Astynax for any reason having to with editor behavior, but rather as a way of fighting an ongoing content dispute. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is possible that those aspects of editor behaviour should be clamped down on more. What seems likely to happen at the moment (when voting completes) is that at a minimum discretionary sanctions will be put in place, and editors will be reminded to be more rigorous with sourcing. Hopefully that will be enough. Sometimes an arbitration case doesn't actually fully resolve something, but can make help progress towards later resolution. Going a bit off-topic, I was reading through the Landmark Worldwide article again today, and I noticed that the lead says "personal development", while the infobox says "self-help". Are there any sources out there that discuss this aspect of things? Carcharoth (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a consensus among sources over which term to use. For instance, this article uses both. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Since the FoF for Nwlaw63 and Tgeairn can't pass, there is no factual basis for their proposed T-bans. That leaves a single editor with possible conduct issues - Astynax. That being the case, how can discretionary sanctions be based on the actions of a single editor? I don't see the reasoning. Ignocrates (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, turning the question around, if it's obvious to the arbs that none of the other involved parties is at fault, does that mean filing for arbitration was itself an attempt to gain leverage in a content dispute? I'm not saying it was, but the possibility should be discussed before the case is closed. Ignocrates (talk) 17:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is worth discussing. I filed under the possibly mistaken impression that pushing advocacy was a violation of policy and that this would be the place to address that. For whatever reason, I seem not to have made the case that this has been persistently done, or (as it involves content and looking at what scholarship says) this is not the place to address such issues. &bull; Astynax talk 07:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course we can all agree that "pushing advocacy is a violation of policy"! What is clear to me is that there is a symmetry here which is apparently invisible to and some others with a similar viewpoint.  Astynax,  and  seem to be sure that I and the other parties to this case are guilty of advocacy, and that they are the knights in shining armour upholding neutrality. On the other hand, it seems equally obvious to me that it is they who are guilty of advocacy and attempting to subvert Wikipedia as a channel to propagate their own vewpoints on the subject, and it is I who am attempting to restore neutrality and due weight.
 * But Arbitration is not the venue for settling content disputes.
 * It is a venue for examining editor behaviour and adherence to Wikipedia's policies and principles. I have tried to assume good faith and to debate openly with editors whose viewpoints differ from mine, even on occasion in the face of extreme provocation. I don't see that Astynax has done likewise. He/she appears to have complete contempt for editors who do not share their viewpoint and for the processes within this community for the resolution of disputes. It must be the rest of the army who are out of step! This attitude shows up in the edit warring at the Landmark Worldwide article, in the combative style of engagement on the talk page there, in the bringing of this request for Arbitration, and in the conduct as the case has unfolded. They even questioned the conduct of a bunch of Deletion debates, one of which was closed after due process by a member of this Arbitration Committee [] ! DaveApter (talk) 13:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting points. I reread identifying advocacy and it's not as easy as it sounds. As the essay says, "there is often a "fine line" between being an Advocate and being a Steward". How do you tell when an editor is defending their position with clarity and force (expected of a veteran editor) or crossing over the line to advocacy? Ignocrates (talk) 16:16, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Advocacy is indeed a violation of policy, and I did not mean to suggest otherwise, however it appears that there is no way to address or enforce this policy short of arbcom, which itself does not appear to be equipped to handle persistent advocacy which involves examination of content. The attempt to equate myself and other past and present editors and to misrepresent everyone who disagrees with the Landmark line as "advocates" is ridiculous and patently false. I have not a bit of history pro or con with Landmark, but once I and others over the years began to examine the scholarly literature, it was glaringly obvious that the article had been incrementally changed to reflect Landmark PR rather than reflecting what reliable sources report. This has involved dismissing reliable sources (including mischaracterizing them to appear unreliable for valid citations), incremental blanking of referenced material under the guise of "improvement", cherry-picking from the few reliable sources which were retained, adding material sourced entirely to the subject of the article and using the encyclopedia's voice to present what differs little from what has been presented by its marketing department. This is long-running behavior on this topic. As I stated in introducing my evidence: "If editors can push disregard for encyclopedically summarizing eminent, scholarly sources in favor of WP:OR and corporate PoV, then I don't know what we are doing here." &bull; Astynax talk 19:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And I am frankly appalled at User:DaveApter, an individual who has rather clearly acted throughout almost his entire history to promote a positive view of Landmark, and who has clearly refused to abide by WP:IDHT by providing a direct and meaningful answer to the question of his own COI, has the gall to continue in his efforts to cast unsupported aspersions on others as an attempt, possibly, to try to gloss over his own dubious adherence to policies and guidelines. And I have to agree with Astynax's self-quotation above, and regret that the behavior of certain editors was such as to make it seem necessary to him to say it either time. John Carter (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

NYB's new proposed remedy
First, I think it is worth noting that several arbitrators are retiring shortly, and it would certainly be possible for those retiring arbitrators to help rewrite it. :) Let's see once and for all if smart-ass comments like that one really are sanctionable on their own. Editors active in the Business, Companies, Education, and Psychology projects, which have tagged the article, could certainly be encouraged to take part, and I certainly think some of them may have some particular knowledge or expertise regarding this topic area which would be extremely useful. I suppose, after or maybe concurrent with the merger proposal I have said I intend to call after this arbitration ends, I and others could set up a series of specific questions for RfC-like input to help resolve some of the core problematic matters either through RfC or through regular discussion. John Carter (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I for one would welcome contributions from non-involved editors, and I have made numerous attempts to encourage this over the years through RfCs, postings on several relevant notice boards, requests for peer review etc. The disappointing response would seem to indicate that there is little interest in the subject, outside the groups who have some preconceived opinion on the matter. This case will have been worthwhile if it does mange to encourage wider participation. It is worth noting in passing that when uninvolved editors have contributed, they generally have had little sympathy for the line taken by, , , etc. DaveApter (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have actually made a proposal to more or less institute a permanent "research" committee, or maybe "comment" committee, at Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 16 of a type which might be useful in this sort of situation, and would welcome any input, positive or negative, there. I also know that there is a very real chance that the input would be more negative than positive, but, well, what the hell, I thought it worth mentioning anyway. John Carter (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Required impetus for implementation of future discretionary sanctions
Is it possible for the arbitrators to give a basic indication as to what level of dubious conduct should be presented as evidence to be counted as sufficient for discretionary sanctions to be implemented? John Carter (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation
I think this content dispute is ripe for a solution in formal mediation. It should include Astynax and DaveApter at a minimum, and anyone else prepared to get their hands dirty to fix this problem. I encourage all the back-benchers and kibitzers (like me) to stay on the sidelines and let them bring this dispute to a successful resolution. I would close this arbitration with a reminder to be nice and respect your fellow editors. Anything more than that is unnecessary intervention. Ignocrates (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)