Case clerks: Sphilbrick ( Talk) & Callanecc ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: David Fuchs ( Talk) & Seraphimblade ( Talk)
| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
 |
|
|
| Track related changes |
Case opened on 01:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Case closed on 06:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Case amended by motion on 10:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Case amended by motion on 00:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Once the case is closed, editors should edit the #Enforcement log as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
Involved parties
- Astynax ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- DaveApter ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Nwlaw63 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Tgeairn ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Prior dispute resolution
Statement by Astynax
Not all articles on Wikipedia attract enough editors familiar with the material to resist intransigent PoV pushing. In this case, the problem has been festering over several years and across multiple articles.
Landmark Worldwide (including its iterations over the past 4 decades) is widely discussed in Sociology, Psychology and New Religious Movements (NRM) fields. It is considered by many, though certainly not all, scholars as a NRM. Like many NRMs, Landmark disclaims any association with religion. Regardless, it is studied and discussed as a new religious form in academic works, often cited as a paradigm of new forms of religious expression. Landmark distances itself from its controversial origins, though these are treated as part of articles on Landmark in academic and encyclopedic sources. I became aware of a PoV problem when several editors arrived at List of New Religious Movements, having no history there; insisting that Landmark, The Forum and est were non-religious and should be excluded from that list. This group pushed through a "rough consensus" that Landmark/The Forum/est did not belong on the list, despite academic references to the contrary, and it was removed. They also decided that, rather than relying on what scholars say is a NRM, editors should create a novel restrictive definition that would exclude Landmark.
I first noticed at that time an ongoing situation at Landmark Education itself. I have made few edits there, as even minor article changes to broaden coverage or reflect reliable references are torpedoed. While I accept that the editors personally have not detected any religious overtones, that should be irrelevant for purposes of an article. An outside editor recently tagged what had become a puff piece with descriptions of the seminar products and other material sourced to Landmark itself forming much of the article, and this group of editors again reactivated to defend the corporate PoV.
Behaviors have often been on the edge of policies, and have included, but have not been limited to, wholesale blanking of referenced material, misuse of tagging, forum/admin shopping, pushing OR and syntheses, selectively dismissing (or poisoning the well) regarding solid sources on trumped up grounds, limiting citations (then later removing the supported statements and remaining reference); incremental reversion of material that differs from the view that Landmark presents of itself. Details will be added to evidence.
My concern is that if a small group in a relatively underwatched article forms a "consensus" to push a particular PoV or material at odds with what the literature on a subject says, they generally get their way. Rather than summarizing all significant points of view, such articles end up pushing the PoV of fans, employees, PR consultants, volunteers, members, etc., maintaining that WP:OR group consensus trumps WP:V and excluding/minimizing reporting of RS. It is a problem that transcends this particular cases. It is extremely frustrating to those trying to summarize what reliable sources say and at odds with Wikipedia's goals and pillars.
Replies by filing party
- Reply to Robert McClenon: Thank you for the warning. Yes, there is ongoing discussion, however the intransigent behavior has not changed. I raised this case because of a long history of misbehavior for which the following, non-exhaustive, set of diffs may help illustrate some of the problem:
- forum and admin shopping [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]
- involvment in deletion of articles related to Landmark [20] [21] [22] [23]
- canvasing [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]
- When a group of editors in forming a peculiar consensus, insists upon and enforces barring reliably sourced material and articles, then they are violating the community-wide consensus that requires verifiable, NPoV reporting of all significant and notable aspects of subjects. Mischaracterizing what eminently reliable references say in support of the PoV is also serious misbehavior which I am prepared to show. That these editors may simply have a blind spot when it comes to particular subjects is also a possibility. Whether or not a cabal exists, and there are certainly other possible explanations, the named editors, along with a very few others who drive by to comment, appear regularly when Landmark-related issues are raised, even after long absences on Wikipedia. Advocacy is in direct conflict with Wikipedia's pillars, regardless of whether a local "consensus" promoting PoV has been formed by a majority of editors participating on any particular article's talk page. • Astynax talk 19:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Reply to Drmies with regard to forum shopping: When an editor contacts an individual admin requesting "help", then it may not rise to the level of shopping. However, when an editor contacts several editors, as happened at the time of the diff you posted, that is WP:ADMINSHOP. Nor was that the only instance of shopping. • Astynax talk 01:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Reply to Jehochman: I see mediation as being a futile gesture, especially given the messy past attempt where reporting of significant aspects of coverage in reliable sources was sidetracked into arguing for consensus supporting WP:OR syntheses. I'll note that even things agreed to by parties there have since been incrementally expunged from the article. The blanking of reliably cited material has also continued, which seemed to be the behavior that prompted the original mediation, and the PoV has since been spread to other articles. Addressing the behaviors offers an opportunity to quickly resolve the situation and reiterate Wikipedia policies and pillars that should apply to others tempted to use similar tactics. As the situation has only grown in scope, my take is that it needs attention now. • Astynax talk 18:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Reply to Carcharoth: the user block of an editor who commented here (not one of the involved parties named in filing this) will do nothing to address the behavior issues I raised here. As for the Rfc, it was another stacked attempt to circumvent the requirements for summarizing all notable viewpoints and basing on reliable sources in preference to WP:OR and anecdotal fluff, so neither did the Rfc move anything toward resolution. • Astynax talk 21:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Statement by DaveApter
While I would welcome a decision on these issues by Arbcom, I would have thought that this request is premature, other forms of dispute resolution not having been exhausted. Regarding the list of links above:
- This Rfc appears unconnected with any of the editors named here (except Astynax)
- This Rfc was closed with a conclusion which Astynax did not like
- This Rfc was opened by me on 6th September; Astynax and Lithistman refused to engage with it (the latter with insulting comments). I also notified it on the NPOV noticeboard.
- This mediation attempt in 2007 did indeed appear inconclusive, although the line taken here by Astynax seems indistinguishable from the one taken there by several now discredited editors such as Pedant17 and Smee (aka Smeelgova, aka Cirt).
I have also attempted to discuss the matter politely with Astynax on his talk page, and with a couple of the other tendentious editors on their talk pages, without useful results.
IMHO it is Astynax who is guilty of the charges above that he levels at others. He appears to me to be genuinely convinced that his own perspective on the subject is a neutral PoV.
He also appears to me to be incapable of grasping the difference between acceptable and tendentious editing, or of understanding the policies regarding undue weight, reliable sourcing, edit warring, personal attacks, or civility.
Personally I am committed to the policies and objectives of Wikipedia, and I am always happy to discuss any of my edits on their own merits. In nine years of editing nothing I have done has resulted in my being sanctioned for policy violations.
I do not know why Astynax chose the three people named here to be included in this request, but if the case is to proceed, it should certainly also include Lithistman, AnonNep, and perhaps several other editors who have edited the article and/or its Talk page in the past month or two. DaveApter ( talk) 13:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Responses to further remarks by Astynax and Lithistman
I would be interested to get feedback from uninvolved editors and (if they think it appropriate) from arbitrators on whether they agree with Lithistman's opinion of my RfC as "ridiculous", or his judgement that the questions are not neutrally worded. Also on whether Astynax's list of 24 diffs above do constitute "bad behaviour" or normal wikipedia discussion and advice seeking. Regarding my supposed canvassing by informing people of the RfC, I thought this was sound practice to let everyone who had recent involvement with editing or discussion or the previous RfC at the list of NRMs know about it. Since I did this for all, regardless of whether they had supported or opposed my position, I don't see how it can be described as canvassing. DaveApter ( talk) 18:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Response to comment from Carcharoth
The issues raised are by no means settled, and the article is deadlocked in an unsatisfactory state, although it is not for me to say whether proceeding to Arbitration is appropriate at this stage. I did close the RfC Talk:Landmark_Worldwide#RFC:_Has_the_neutrality_of_this_article_been_improved_or_degraded_by_recent_wholesale_changes.3F which I had opened, because I felt that the interventions from uninvolved editors Drmies and Begoon had addressed my concerns and because there seemed to be no more activity in the thread; but this does not imply that everything is resolved. While it is a relief that Zambelo is out of the picture, I have concerns that Astynax and Lithisman are operating from a similar point-of-view and are blocking attempts to find consensus - as in this thread: Talk:Landmark_Worldwide#.22Religious_characteristics.22. Also, I would welcome an authoritative ruling on whether the accusation that I am operating under a conflict of interest is justified or not. DaveApter ( talk) 17:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Nwlaw63
The filer here asserts “intransigent POV pushing”. I suggest that those studying the edit history of these articles may come to a very different conclusion.
For instance, in the first and largest complaint, that of “blanking referenced material”, what happened is that the filer added a large mass of material to the article without gathering consensus on the talk page, material which had a variety of policy problems, including using unreliable sources and primary sources to make contentious sources in the article lead, mistakenly duplicating another paragraph and generally violating the undue weight policy. In the ensuing discussion, the filer argued at length for the use of the clearly unreliable source, including with a previously uninvolved administrator. Another editor fought to use primary sources to put controversial material in the article lead. The administrator removed this material; the editor who put it in then got into a contentious debate with that administrator (and later another administrator).
In fact, the previously mentioned administrator was responsible for removing most of the filer's "referenced material", not anyone involved in this case.
Attempts to discuss these policy issues with other editors have often been met with a lack of interest in the specifics of the sourcing or the policy or assertions of bad faith; indeed, sometimes lack of good faith in an editor has been used as the main justification for an edit.
Attempts to use the appropriate procedures and forums to resolve disputes on these articles have often been met with contentiousness, and in one case, contempt for the RFC process.
In other cases, the filer appears to misunderstand Wikipedia policy, such as when the appropriate notification of all editors who commented on a previous RFC on the same topic is described as “canvassing”. Given that the filer claims that the article is controlled by a small group of POV pushers, it is particularly ironic that many of the filer's complaints are related to attempts to get the eyes of other neutral editors and administrators on the article.
What I have noticed is pervasive in many of these articles is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia’s reliable sourcing and notability policies, and a lack of caution in using primary or unreliable sources in making contentious or extraordinary claims. One of my primary goals on Wikipedia is to keep the project from being tainted by such dubious or inappropriate material.
I welcome fresh eyes and new editors to these articles to give fresh perspectives about the content of these articles, and I welcome calm and open discussion using appropriate forums about the content of these articles inside of Wikipedia policies. Nwlaw63 ( talk) 16:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Tgeairn
It appears that the issue being brought here is POV editing and general editor behaviour. As the submitter of this request notes, this issue relates to a series of articles mostly within the scope of New Religious Movements and opposition to NRMs with relatively few active editors and has existed for several years. As the committee may be aware, the majority of those articles were created by a single editor who has since been topic banned and desysopped. In many cases, the disputes in this topic area extend back to the same violations of NPOV and BLP that the committee established as fact at that time (specifically that the editor placed "undue negative weight in topics on new religious movements and political BLPs" and followed poor sourcing practices). Those same views and same sources are (in many cases) what is at issue here.
The majority of recent editing and disputes have been surrounding Landmark Education and whether or not it is a religious movement. Those disputes have included a significant lack of good faith [29] [30], edit warring, accusations of COI [31], disregard for RfC results [32], and repeated use of sources which had already been determined to be unreliable at RSN [33].
That some editors are simply cutting and pasting into articles without regard for discussion, policy, or content is clearly evident. For example, at Landmark Worldwide two editors repeatedly (at least eight times) inserted a large block of text that included an entirely duplicated paragraph (even after this was pointed out to them). 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. This would appear to indicate that the editors were not even reading the talk page messages pointing out the duplication, nor were they reading the material they were inserting.
With very few exceptions, I do not make mass edits (although I have reverted mass additions and removals). All edits have been accompanied by appropriate edit summaries, and I have then explained my edits and my reasoning on talk pages. Once my edits are summarily reverted [34], other editors and admins have generally then taken up re-making the same revisions (for example, see User:Rlendog’s re-revision here or User:Drmies’s edits here).
It appears that the submitter is also accusing me (and others) of canvasing. In every case where I have gone to talk pages to get wider review of an issue, I have posted the same message to a wide range of editors – usually the most recent editors to the article - and always consistent with appropriate notification. In the case of RfCs, I have posted to talk pages as described at publishing an RfC.
I request that the committee accept this case and review all of the existing evidence as needed to determine what (if any) actions are needed to break this dispute once-and-for-all and to benefit Wikipedia. Thank you, Tgeairn ( talk) 05:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Response to question by Carcharoth
- A substantial amount of cleanup has been performed on some of this set of articles (in many cases by editors who have made statements here). However, there is still a significant presence of poor sourcing practices, bias, and undue promotion of relatively obscure assertions in many of the articles related to Landmark and its proponents, detractors, and activities (as well as the larger set of "New Religious Movement" articles in general). The recent topic-ban of one of the editors and the presence of an RfC on a single issue do not address the pervasive issues underlying these articles. It is very likely that without substantive action, these articles will continue to languish in circular arguments and poor editor behaviour. -- Tgeairn ( talk) 02:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Clerk notes
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)
- Well, there are aspects of this dispute which, at first glance, do indeed seem worrying and should be investigated; however, I'm not sure this dispute has exhausted all other venues and neither am I sure that the community are incapable of resolving it satisfactorily. In short, although judging by appearances there seems to be something of a fumus boni juris here, my feeling is that this request is still a tad premature at this juncture.
Salvio
Let's talk about it! 09:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- I will never again allow anyone to claim that I use the most lawspeak on this page. For those who need to look this one up, including myself: Fumus boni iuris. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- There are certainly some troubling issues here. I'm leaning toward accepting as I think that is probably the only way they'll get untangled at this point.
Seraphimblade
Talk to me 11:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Accept, I essentially agree with WTT. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- At this point I'm leaning decline. Given the scope of the dispute and the size of the participants avenues such as mediation might be more appropriate at this point.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(
talk) 01:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Per additional statements, accept. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 00:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Decline as premature. AGK [•] 09:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- This is certainly looking like a tangle and given that Arbcom has ended up trying to disentangle similar areas in the past, I'm not sure that anything short of arbitration is going to work in this situation. Grudgingly accept WormTT( talk) 14:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Based on a quick glance at the statements and the evidence that other steps in DR have been tried I am leaning towards acceptance. Will try to find time to make a more thorough evaluation in the next 24-48 hours. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- As Izak points out, articles about these types of movements, be they religious/spiritual, political, or whatever often suffer from POV pushing from both supporters and detractors. This is something ArbCom is equipped to deal with, hopefully with a quick case on an accelerated schedule. Accept. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Not sure yet. Given the topic ban and RfC, is a case still needed? Would like to get an update from those who have commented above who are still following this.
Carcharoth (
talk) 02:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Accept - Carcharoth ( talk) 00:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm thinking more or less the same thing as Carcharoth. I abstained from Accepting/Declining pending these developments. The article in question is certainly not in a satisfactory place, but that can take time. At the current time I'm slightly leaning accept but I'd also like to hear more responses to Carcharoth's question. NativeForeigner Talk 17:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Accept. This does not look like an issue that will be resolved through other DR methods. The topic ban and RfC that Carcharoth mention above do not appear to be sufficient. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Temporary injunction (none)
Final decision Information
All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.
Purpose of Wikipedia
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to the objectives of Wikipedia may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.
- Passed 10 to 0 at 06:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Neutral point of view and undue weight
2) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects which are peripheral to the topic. Relying on synthesized claims, poor sources, or other "original research", is also contrary to this principle.
- Passed 10 to 0 at 06:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Fair criticism and personal attacks
3) Wikipedia is a reference work, not a battlefield. Each and every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Open discussion is encouraged in every area of the encyclopedia as it is only by discussion that cooperation is possible. However, certain types of discourse – in particular, personal attacks – are not only discouraged but forbidden because they create a toxic atmosphere and thwart the building of consensus. For this reason, editors are expected to comment on the edits, not on the editor. Editors with concerns about other editors should use the community's dispute resolution processes calmly and civilly to resolve their differences rather than repeatedly engaging in strident personalised criticism in multiple forums. Editors who are unable to resolve their differences should seek to minimize the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them and, in extreme cases, may be directed to do so.
- Passed 10 to 0 at 06:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Edit warring
4) Edit warring is not an acceptable editing practice, whether the three-revert rule is broken or not. Editors are expected to engage in calm discussion and if necessary dispute resolution rather than making repeated reverts of disputed content.
- Passed 10 to 0 at 06:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Single-purpose accounts
5) Single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.
- Passed 10 to 0 at 06:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Locus of dispute
1) The focus of the dispute is broadly over the treatment of Landmark Worldwide, and more specifically whether or not Landmark is a new religious movement. The dispute has been characterized by accusations of collusion, arguments over consensus, and bad faith from vested contributors.
- Passed 10 to 0 at 06:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Sourcing for Landmark Worldwide
2) As discussed by editors providing evidence in this arbitration case, rigorous academic sources for the topic are few and far between, [35] meaning claims more often rest on weaker sources or claims from the organization in question.
- Passed 6 to 2, with 2 abstentions, at 06:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
All remedies that refer to a period of time (for example, a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months) are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Future discretionary sanctions
1.1) The committee cautions the parties involved that standard discretionary sanctions may be authorised by the committee in future – for any edit about, and for all pages relating to, Landmark Worldwide – and by motion after application at a later time.
- Passed 8 to 0 at 06:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Parties reminded
2) Parties to the case are reminded to base their arguments in reliable, independent sources and to discuss changes rather than revert on sight.
- Passed 10 to 0 at 06:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Additional eyes invited
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.
- Passed 7 to 0, with 2 abstentions, at 06:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Enforcement of restrictions
0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.
- In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.
Appeals and modifications
0) Appeals and modifications
|
|---|
|
This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes:
|
- In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.
Discretionary sanctions (January 2015)
| Rescinded by motion |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
|
- Passed 9 to 0 by
motion at 10:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Rescinded by motion at 00:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Landmark worldwide (February 2022)
The January 2015 motion in the Landmark Worldwide case (authorizing discretionary sanctions) is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.
- Passed 11 to 0 by motion at 00:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged in this section. Please specify the administrator, date and time, nature of sanction, and basis or context. Unless otherwise specified, the standardised enforcement provision applies to this case. All sanctions issued pursuant to a discretionary sanctions remedy must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log.
Case clerks: Sphilbrick ( Talk) & Callanecc ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: David Fuchs ( Talk) & Seraphimblade ( Talk)
| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
|
|
|
|
| Track related changes |
Case opened on 01:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Case closed on 06:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Case amended by motion on 10:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Case amended by motion on 00:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Once the case is closed, editors should edit the #Enforcement log as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
Involved parties
- Astynax ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- DaveApter ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Nwlaw63 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Tgeairn ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Prior dispute resolution
Statement by Astynax
Not all articles on Wikipedia attract enough editors familiar with the material to resist intransigent PoV pushing. In this case, the problem has been festering over several years and across multiple articles.
Landmark Worldwide (including its iterations over the past 4 decades) is widely discussed in Sociology, Psychology and New Religious Movements (NRM) fields. It is considered by many, though certainly not all, scholars as a NRM. Like many NRMs, Landmark disclaims any association with religion. Regardless, it is studied and discussed as a new religious form in academic works, often cited as a paradigm of new forms of religious expression. Landmark distances itself from its controversial origins, though these are treated as part of articles on Landmark in academic and encyclopedic sources. I became aware of a PoV problem when several editors arrived at List of New Religious Movements, having no history there; insisting that Landmark, The Forum and est were non-religious and should be excluded from that list. This group pushed through a "rough consensus" that Landmark/The Forum/est did not belong on the list, despite academic references to the contrary, and it was removed. They also decided that, rather than relying on what scholars say is a NRM, editors should create a novel restrictive definition that would exclude Landmark.
I first noticed at that time an ongoing situation at Landmark Education itself. I have made few edits there, as even minor article changes to broaden coverage or reflect reliable references are torpedoed. While I accept that the editors personally have not detected any religious overtones, that should be irrelevant for purposes of an article. An outside editor recently tagged what had become a puff piece with descriptions of the seminar products and other material sourced to Landmark itself forming much of the article, and this group of editors again reactivated to defend the corporate PoV.
Behaviors have often been on the edge of policies, and have included, but have not been limited to, wholesale blanking of referenced material, misuse of tagging, forum/admin shopping, pushing OR and syntheses, selectively dismissing (or poisoning the well) regarding solid sources on trumped up grounds, limiting citations (then later removing the supported statements and remaining reference); incremental reversion of material that differs from the view that Landmark presents of itself. Details will be added to evidence.
My concern is that if a small group in a relatively underwatched article forms a "consensus" to push a particular PoV or material at odds with what the literature on a subject says, they generally get their way. Rather than summarizing all significant points of view, such articles end up pushing the PoV of fans, employees, PR consultants, volunteers, members, etc., maintaining that WP:OR group consensus trumps WP:V and excluding/minimizing reporting of RS. It is a problem that transcends this particular cases. It is extremely frustrating to those trying to summarize what reliable sources say and at odds with Wikipedia's goals and pillars.
Replies by filing party
- Reply to Robert McClenon: Thank you for the warning. Yes, there is ongoing discussion, however the intransigent behavior has not changed. I raised this case because of a long history of misbehavior for which the following, non-exhaustive, set of diffs may help illustrate some of the problem:
- forum and admin shopping [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]
- involvment in deletion of articles related to Landmark [20] [21] [22] [23]
- canvasing [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]
- When a group of editors in forming a peculiar consensus, insists upon and enforces barring reliably sourced material and articles, then they are violating the community-wide consensus that requires verifiable, NPoV reporting of all significant and notable aspects of subjects. Mischaracterizing what eminently reliable references say in support of the PoV is also serious misbehavior which I am prepared to show. That these editors may simply have a blind spot when it comes to particular subjects is also a possibility. Whether or not a cabal exists, and there are certainly other possible explanations, the named editors, along with a very few others who drive by to comment, appear regularly when Landmark-related issues are raised, even after long absences on Wikipedia. Advocacy is in direct conflict with Wikipedia's pillars, regardless of whether a local "consensus" promoting PoV has been formed by a majority of editors participating on any particular article's talk page. • Astynax talk 19:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Reply to Drmies with regard to forum shopping: When an editor contacts an individual admin requesting "help", then it may not rise to the level of shopping. However, when an editor contacts several editors, as happened at the time of the diff you posted, that is WP:ADMINSHOP. Nor was that the only instance of shopping. • Astynax talk 01:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Reply to Jehochman: I see mediation as being a futile gesture, especially given the messy past attempt where reporting of significant aspects of coverage in reliable sources was sidetracked into arguing for consensus supporting WP:OR syntheses. I'll note that even things agreed to by parties there have since been incrementally expunged from the article. The blanking of reliably cited material has also continued, which seemed to be the behavior that prompted the original mediation, and the PoV has since been spread to other articles. Addressing the behaviors offers an opportunity to quickly resolve the situation and reiterate Wikipedia policies and pillars that should apply to others tempted to use similar tactics. As the situation has only grown in scope, my take is that it needs attention now. • Astynax talk 18:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Reply to Carcharoth: the user block of an editor who commented here (not one of the involved parties named in filing this) will do nothing to address the behavior issues I raised here. As for the Rfc, it was another stacked attempt to circumvent the requirements for summarizing all notable viewpoints and basing on reliable sources in preference to WP:OR and anecdotal fluff, so neither did the Rfc move anything toward resolution. • Astynax talk 21:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Statement by DaveApter
While I would welcome a decision on these issues by Arbcom, I would have thought that this request is premature, other forms of dispute resolution not having been exhausted. Regarding the list of links above:
- This Rfc appears unconnected with any of the editors named here (except Astynax)
- This Rfc was closed with a conclusion which Astynax did not like
- This Rfc was opened by me on 6th September; Astynax and Lithistman refused to engage with it (the latter with insulting comments). I also notified it on the NPOV noticeboard.
- This mediation attempt in 2007 did indeed appear inconclusive, although the line taken here by Astynax seems indistinguishable from the one taken there by several now discredited editors such as Pedant17 and Smee (aka Smeelgova, aka Cirt).
I have also attempted to discuss the matter politely with Astynax on his talk page, and with a couple of the other tendentious editors on their talk pages, without useful results.
IMHO it is Astynax who is guilty of the charges above that he levels at others. He appears to me to be genuinely convinced that his own perspective on the subject is a neutral PoV.
He also appears to me to be incapable of grasping the difference between acceptable and tendentious editing, or of understanding the policies regarding undue weight, reliable sourcing, edit warring, personal attacks, or civility.
Personally I am committed to the policies and objectives of Wikipedia, and I am always happy to discuss any of my edits on their own merits. In nine years of editing nothing I have done has resulted in my being sanctioned for policy violations.
I do not know why Astynax chose the three people named here to be included in this request, but if the case is to proceed, it should certainly also include Lithistman, AnonNep, and perhaps several other editors who have edited the article and/or its Talk page in the past month or two. DaveApter ( talk) 13:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Responses to further remarks by Astynax and Lithistman
I would be interested to get feedback from uninvolved editors and (if they think it appropriate) from arbitrators on whether they agree with Lithistman's opinion of my RfC as "ridiculous", or his judgement that the questions are not neutrally worded. Also on whether Astynax's list of 24 diffs above do constitute "bad behaviour" or normal wikipedia discussion and advice seeking. Regarding my supposed canvassing by informing people of the RfC, I thought this was sound practice to let everyone who had recent involvement with editing or discussion or the previous RfC at the list of NRMs know about it. Since I did this for all, regardless of whether they had supported or opposed my position, I don't see how it can be described as canvassing. DaveApter ( talk) 18:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Response to comment from Carcharoth
The issues raised are by no means settled, and the article is deadlocked in an unsatisfactory state, although it is not for me to say whether proceeding to Arbitration is appropriate at this stage. I did close the RfC Talk:Landmark_Worldwide#RFC:_Has_the_neutrality_of_this_article_been_improved_or_degraded_by_recent_wholesale_changes.3F which I had opened, because I felt that the interventions from uninvolved editors Drmies and Begoon had addressed my concerns and because there seemed to be no more activity in the thread; but this does not imply that everything is resolved. While it is a relief that Zambelo is out of the picture, I have concerns that Astynax and Lithisman are operating from a similar point-of-view and are blocking attempts to find consensus - as in this thread: Talk:Landmark_Worldwide#.22Religious_characteristics.22. Also, I would welcome an authoritative ruling on whether the accusation that I am operating under a conflict of interest is justified or not. DaveApter ( talk) 17:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Nwlaw63
The filer here asserts “intransigent POV pushing”. I suggest that those studying the edit history of these articles may come to a very different conclusion.
For instance, in the first and largest complaint, that of “blanking referenced material”, what happened is that the filer added a large mass of material to the article without gathering consensus on the talk page, material which had a variety of policy problems, including using unreliable sources and primary sources to make contentious sources in the article lead, mistakenly duplicating another paragraph and generally violating the undue weight policy. In the ensuing discussion, the filer argued at length for the use of the clearly unreliable source, including with a previously uninvolved administrator. Another editor fought to use primary sources to put controversial material in the article lead. The administrator removed this material; the editor who put it in then got into a contentious debate with that administrator (and later another administrator).
In fact, the previously mentioned administrator was responsible for removing most of the filer's "referenced material", not anyone involved in this case.
Attempts to discuss these policy issues with other editors have often been met with a lack of interest in the specifics of the sourcing or the policy or assertions of bad faith; indeed, sometimes lack of good faith in an editor has been used as the main justification for an edit.
Attempts to use the appropriate procedures and forums to resolve disputes on these articles have often been met with contentiousness, and in one case, contempt for the RFC process.
In other cases, the filer appears to misunderstand Wikipedia policy, such as when the appropriate notification of all editors who commented on a previous RFC on the same topic is described as “canvassing”. Given that the filer claims that the article is controlled by a small group of POV pushers, it is particularly ironic that many of the filer's complaints are related to attempts to get the eyes of other neutral editors and administrators on the article.
What I have noticed is pervasive in many of these articles is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia’s reliable sourcing and notability policies, and a lack of caution in using primary or unreliable sources in making contentious or extraordinary claims. One of my primary goals on Wikipedia is to keep the project from being tainted by such dubious or inappropriate material.
I welcome fresh eyes and new editors to these articles to give fresh perspectives about the content of these articles, and I welcome calm and open discussion using appropriate forums about the content of these articles inside of Wikipedia policies. Nwlaw63 ( talk) 16:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Tgeairn
It appears that the issue being brought here is POV editing and general editor behaviour. As the submitter of this request notes, this issue relates to a series of articles mostly within the scope of New Religious Movements and opposition to NRMs with relatively few active editors and has existed for several years. As the committee may be aware, the majority of those articles were created by a single editor who has since been topic banned and desysopped. In many cases, the disputes in this topic area extend back to the same violations of NPOV and BLP that the committee established as fact at that time (specifically that the editor placed "undue negative weight in topics on new religious movements and political BLPs" and followed poor sourcing practices). Those same views and same sources are (in many cases) what is at issue here.
The majority of recent editing and disputes have been surrounding Landmark Education and whether or not it is a religious movement. Those disputes have included a significant lack of good faith [29] [30], edit warring, accusations of COI [31], disregard for RfC results [32], and repeated use of sources which had already been determined to be unreliable at RSN [33].
That some editors are simply cutting and pasting into articles without regard for discussion, policy, or content is clearly evident. For example, at Landmark Worldwide two editors repeatedly (at least eight times) inserted a large block of text that included an entirely duplicated paragraph (even after this was pointed out to them). 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. This would appear to indicate that the editors were not even reading the talk page messages pointing out the duplication, nor were they reading the material they were inserting.
With very few exceptions, I do not make mass edits (although I have reverted mass additions and removals). All edits have been accompanied by appropriate edit summaries, and I have then explained my edits and my reasoning on talk pages. Once my edits are summarily reverted [34], other editors and admins have generally then taken up re-making the same revisions (for example, see User:Rlendog’s re-revision here or User:Drmies’s edits here).
It appears that the submitter is also accusing me (and others) of canvasing. In every case where I have gone to talk pages to get wider review of an issue, I have posted the same message to a wide range of editors – usually the most recent editors to the article - and always consistent with appropriate notification. In the case of RfCs, I have posted to talk pages as described at publishing an RfC.
I request that the committee accept this case and review all of the existing evidence as needed to determine what (if any) actions are needed to break this dispute once-and-for-all and to benefit Wikipedia. Thank you, Tgeairn ( talk) 05:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Response to question by Carcharoth
- A substantial amount of cleanup has been performed on some of this set of articles (in many cases by editors who have made statements here). However, there is still a significant presence of poor sourcing practices, bias, and undue promotion of relatively obscure assertions in many of the articles related to Landmark and its proponents, detractors, and activities (as well as the larger set of "New Religious Movement" articles in general). The recent topic-ban of one of the editors and the presence of an RfC on a single issue do not address the pervasive issues underlying these articles. It is very likely that without substantive action, these articles will continue to languish in circular arguments and poor editor behaviour. -- Tgeairn ( talk) 02:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Clerk notes
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)
- Well, there are aspects of this dispute which, at first glance, do indeed seem worrying and should be investigated; however, I'm not sure this dispute has exhausted all other venues and neither am I sure that the community are incapable of resolving it satisfactorily. In short, although judging by appearances there seems to be something of a fumus boni juris here, my feeling is that this request is still a tad premature at this juncture.
Salvio
Let's talk about it! 09:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- I will never again allow anyone to claim that I use the most lawspeak on this page. For those who need to look this one up, including myself: Fumus boni iuris. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- There are certainly some troubling issues here. I'm leaning toward accepting as I think that is probably the only way they'll get untangled at this point.
Seraphimblade
Talk to me 11:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Accept, I essentially agree with WTT. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- At this point I'm leaning decline. Given the scope of the dispute and the size of the participants avenues such as mediation might be more appropriate at this point.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(
talk) 01:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Per additional statements, accept. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 00:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Decline as premature. AGK [•] 09:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- This is certainly looking like a tangle and given that Arbcom has ended up trying to disentangle similar areas in the past, I'm not sure that anything short of arbitration is going to work in this situation. Grudgingly accept WormTT( talk) 14:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Based on a quick glance at the statements and the evidence that other steps in DR have been tried I am leaning towards acceptance. Will try to find time to make a more thorough evaluation in the next 24-48 hours. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- As Izak points out, articles about these types of movements, be they religious/spiritual, political, or whatever often suffer from POV pushing from both supporters and detractors. This is something ArbCom is equipped to deal with, hopefully with a quick case on an accelerated schedule. Accept. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Not sure yet. Given the topic ban and RfC, is a case still needed? Would like to get an update from those who have commented above who are still following this.
Carcharoth (
talk) 02:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Accept - Carcharoth ( talk) 00:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm thinking more or less the same thing as Carcharoth. I abstained from Accepting/Declining pending these developments. The article in question is certainly not in a satisfactory place, but that can take time. At the current time I'm slightly leaning accept but I'd also like to hear more responses to Carcharoth's question. NativeForeigner Talk 17:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Accept. This does not look like an issue that will be resolved through other DR methods. The topic ban and RfC that Carcharoth mention above do not appear to be sufficient. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Temporary injunction (none)
Final decision Information
All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.
Purpose of Wikipedia
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to the objectives of Wikipedia may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.
- Passed 10 to 0 at 06:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Neutral point of view and undue weight
2) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects which are peripheral to the topic. Relying on synthesized claims, poor sources, or other "original research", is also contrary to this principle.
- Passed 10 to 0 at 06:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Fair criticism and personal attacks
3) Wikipedia is a reference work, not a battlefield. Each and every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Open discussion is encouraged in every area of the encyclopedia as it is only by discussion that cooperation is possible. However, certain types of discourse – in particular, personal attacks – are not only discouraged but forbidden because they create a toxic atmosphere and thwart the building of consensus. For this reason, editors are expected to comment on the edits, not on the editor. Editors with concerns about other editors should use the community's dispute resolution processes calmly and civilly to resolve their differences rather than repeatedly engaging in strident personalised criticism in multiple forums. Editors who are unable to resolve their differences should seek to minimize the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them and, in extreme cases, may be directed to do so.
- Passed 10 to 0 at 06:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Edit warring
4) Edit warring is not an acceptable editing practice, whether the three-revert rule is broken or not. Editors are expected to engage in calm discussion and if necessary dispute resolution rather than making repeated reverts of disputed content.
- Passed 10 to 0 at 06:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Single-purpose accounts
5) Single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.
- Passed 10 to 0 at 06:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Locus of dispute
1) The focus of the dispute is broadly over the treatment of Landmark Worldwide, and more specifically whether or not Landmark is a new religious movement. The dispute has been characterized by accusations of collusion, arguments over consensus, and bad faith from vested contributors.
- Passed 10 to 0 at 06:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Sourcing for Landmark Worldwide
2) As discussed by editors providing evidence in this arbitration case, rigorous academic sources for the topic are few and far between, [35] meaning claims more often rest on weaker sources or claims from the organization in question.
- Passed 6 to 2, with 2 abstentions, at 06:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
All remedies that refer to a period of time (for example, a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months) are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Future discretionary sanctions
1.1) The committee cautions the parties involved that standard discretionary sanctions may be authorised by the committee in future – for any edit about, and for all pages relating to, Landmark Worldwide – and by motion after application at a later time.
- Passed 8 to 0 at 06:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Parties reminded
2) Parties to the case are reminded to base their arguments in reliable, independent sources and to discuss changes rather than revert on sight.
- Passed 10 to 0 at 06:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Additional eyes invited
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.
- Passed 7 to 0, with 2 abstentions, at 06:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Enforcement of restrictions
0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.
- In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.
Appeals and modifications
0) Appeals and modifications
|
|---|
|
This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes:
|
- In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.
Discretionary sanctions (January 2015)
| Rescinded by motion |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
|
- Passed 9 to 0 by
motion at 10:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Rescinded by motion at 00:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Landmark worldwide (February 2022)
The January 2015 motion in the Landmark Worldwide case (authorizing discretionary sanctions) is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.
- Passed 11 to 0 by motion at 00:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged in this section. Please specify the administrator, date and time, nature of sanction, and basis or context. Unless otherwise specified, the standardised enforcement provision applies to this case. All sanctions issued pursuant to a discretionary sanctions remedy must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log.