Case clerks: Sphilbrick ( Talk) & Callanecc ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: David Fuchs ( Talk) & Seraphimblade ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Purpose of the workshop: The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Behavior during a case may be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
1)
2)
3)
1)
2)
3)
4)
1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or an indiscriminate collection of information. DaveApter ( talk) 10:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
2) Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view: We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong. DaveApter ( talk) 10:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
3) Editors should treat each other with respect and civility: Editors should respect their fellow Wikipedians, even when they disagree. Editors should apply Wikipedia etiquette, and refrain from personal attacks. Editors should seek consensus, avoid edit wars, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Editors should act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others. If a conflict arises, editors should discuss it calmly on the nearest talk pages, and follow dispute resolution procedures. DaveApter ( talk) 10:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
4) The assertion of false or misleading statements is not only a disservice to readers, but is also damaging to the reputation of Wikipedia. DaveApter ( talk) 10:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
5) Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. DaveApter ( talk) 10:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
1) The Landmark Worldwide article was created as an attack piece and has been a recurrent battleground, as demonstrated in the first paragraph of my evidence. DaveApter ( talk) 16:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
2) The challenges in creating a collaboratively crafted high quality encyclopedia article on this subject arise from four factors:
DaveApter ( talk) 16:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
3) The specific challenges outlined above do not apply only to this article, or even just to organisations that have been labelled as 'New Religious Movements' or 'Cults'. They apply to a wide range of "Contemporary Social Phenomena", including for example:
4) Astynax has argued vigorously and repeatedly for the use of questionable sources. For example he proposed the use of caic.org.au - a clearly partisan and biased self-promotional website with poor editorial oversight - on the RS Noticeboard last year and on the Landmark talk page recently. DaveApter ( talk) 11:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) Wikipedia should have a set of specific guidelines for articles on contemporary social phenomena. As a starting point, the guidelines relating to Biographies of Living Persons could be adopted. Living individuals who are publicly associated with organisations could be harmed if inaccurate or defamatory information is propagated concerning those organisations. DaveApter ( talk) 21:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
2) Astynax and Lithistman should be reminded to abide by the policies to assume good faith, to be civil, to avoid personal attacks, to refrain from edit warring, and to co-operate with the Dispute Resolution Procedures. DaveApter ( talk) 21:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
1) In line with Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith, when giving an edit summary or discussing on the talk page, editors should engage in a substantive discussion of the topic and the edits at hand, and neither cast aspersions on the motives of other editors, nor give as justification for an edit the supposed bad faith of another.
2) Controversial or contentious claims cannot be made using unreliable or primary sources, and such claims should reflect the consensus of reliable secondary sources (not giving any view undue weight).
1) This case is ultimately a response to the result of an RFC which Astynax started, and the results of which Astynax did not agree with, and their attempts to classify Landmark as both a religion and a New Religious Movement. Astynax has never used any of the appropriate venues (dispute resolution, mediation, etc.) to make this case but instead took the argument to Arbcom under the guise of "editor behavior."
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.
2) While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
3) Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include:
1) Editors have made extraordinary claims about Landmark (and other groups) without regard for consensus, while relying on sources that are not directly related to the topic of the article, and do not directly support the material being presented.
2) Editors have relied heavily on Primary and Tertiary sources, while ignoring readily available mainstream Secondary sources. This source selection is intentionally designed to introduce a POV or bias into articles and lists.
3) Editors have repeatedly argued for the use of unreliable sources including aggregation websites, materials posted online in violation of copyright, blogs and similar websites, and student papers. These sources have been advanced in place of readily available mainstream secondary sources.
4) Editor Astynax has repeatedly made significant changes to articles including reverting removals, while only engaging on talk pages to continue to argue for a single point of view. When material added by Astynax is removed, (s)he reverts the removal while continuing to not work to seek consensus. In the realm of religion or cult articles, Astynax has not been here to build an encylopedia, but rather to advance an agenda.
5) Editors Lithistman and Zambelo have edit warred, ignored consensus, been uncivil, and have regularly impeded development of this project. While not parties to this case, they have both participated in the case and their behaviour (including that of their previous accounts where known or declared) should be considered by the committee.
6) There exists a large number of articles in the new religious movement, cult, and human potential movement arena that were created by a small number of editors with the intent of supporting one another and advancing a point of view regarding Landmark and other human potential movements. These articles served to artificially inflate the relative significance of the point of view of the anti-cult community.
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) Astynax is indefinitely prohibited from editing, commenting on, or otherwise participating in any Wikipedia process related to articles about religious movements, cults, sectes, or human potential movements, broadly interpreted.
2) Lithistman is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
3) Zambelo is banned from Wikipedia indefinitely.
4) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to human potential movements, cults, and new religious movements, broadly interpreted.
1) Should any editor subject to a discretionary sanction under this decision violate the terms of the sanction, then further sanctions may be imposed as appropriate pursuant to the discretionary sanction remedy.
2) Should any editor subject to a restriction under the terms of this decision violate the restriction, then the editor may be blocked for a period of up to one week by any uninvolved administrator. Subsequent blocks will escalate in duration, with a maximum block period of one year. As an alternative to blocking under this paragraph, the uninvolved administrator may impose a discretionary sanction, which shall be in addition to any sanction imposed in this decision.
1) These editors have participated in some destructive article deletions. There may be others, but those that have been brought up here which seem particularly destructive are Cult Awareness and Information Centre (a site regarding which I've run across frequent mentions and references in academic NRM publications), Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System (a television episode which is also mentioned in NRM material regarding est and Landmark), Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous (another television episode that is mentioned in the NRM lit with regard to Landmark's French operations), Scientology and Werner Erhard (I hadn't had an opportunity to read this prior to its deletion, but certainly Erhard's involvement with Scientology pro and con is notable and I have no idea whether the information contained therein is adequately covered in other articles as claimed during the Afd), Raffaella Di Marzio (I was rather shocked to see this was deleted, as well as the mischaracterization given that she is an "anti-cultist"—another instance of someone throwing out claims that are not carefully checked by the nominator or voters); Ian Haworth (I cannot tell whether the tagging for deletion on this was justified, but Haworth is certainly notable with many references to his career and any issue should have been fixed rather than deleted). I request that these articles be undeleted to allow content to be improved.
1) DaveApter, Tgeairn and Nwlaw63 have been intransigently editing articles related to Landmark Worldwide over several years, including opposing changes based upon reliable sources and pushing viewpoints that reflect advocacy put forward by Landmark Worldwide itself, its volunteers, its employees, its franchisees, its subsidiaries and other fans. They have repeatedly and insistently attempted to sway/discourage editors, often under the guise of consensus, to accept Landmark advocacy and ignore reliable, scholarly sources. The persistent IDHT behavior is inexplicable, and the claim of "cleaning up" the work of former editors sounds more like a rationalization brought up here, if not a witch-hunt (although this has been previously dredged up by DaveApter to threaten a couple of editors [1] [2]). The effect has been to discourage editors who have wished to edit (including myself) Landmark-related articles, rather than opt for bowing to these editors' insistence that all edits be "discussed" and approved by "consensus" at the stonewall that passes for a talk page, and/or upon noting the incremental reverts of previous edits that run contrary to the Landmark PoV. I ask that ArbCom topic ban DaveApter, Tgeairn and Nwlaw63 for any article related in any way to either Landmark Worldwide, in any of its iterations, or to religious movements. As much of their activity has consisted of harassment on talk pages, I also ask that they be banned from discussing in relation to these two subjects on talk pages.
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
Evidence presented by Astynax:
I have already responded to the initial points on the evidence page, and these remarks refer to his supplementary response in the paragraph headed '@DaveApter'.
I am unsure what point Astynax is trying to make with the 11 diffs in this section as most of them have nothing to do with me - or indeed with any of the parties to this dispute.
I cannot see the accuracy of his claim that he: "... was challenged at nearly every turn, particularly by DaveApter, and was eventually accused of being anti-Landmark,"
And, since you raise the subject, it seems perfectly clear (to me) that I meet none of the criteria of having a conflict of interest: I am not being employed by Landmark, or engaged as a consultant, or rewarded for promoting them, or being offered a commission for finding customers for them. And I never have been. I'm not even currently one of their customers. I haven't even taken any or their courses for years. And I do have an opinion on the subject, and I've been open about what that is. DaveApter ( talk) 14:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Regarding Astynax's assertions under the heading 'Activity at the List of new religious movements article', I am responding here because those assertions involve the content dispute which appears to be at the heart of this case. I apologize in advance possibly delving too deeply into content based discussions; I am doing this because Astynax has made these content based arguments at length in this evidence section and the link to their user page contained therein.
The first thing to note is that Asynax mischaracterizes the closure of the RFC which was found to exclude Landmark from the List of New Religious Movements article, (and which RFC Astynax began). What the closure specifically states is that "the arguments to exclude [Landmark from the list] are stronger than the arguments to include, based on the understanding of inclusion criteria and the reading of the sources by those participating. I'd suggest editors continue the discussion about inclusion criteria, with no prejudice to re-opening this discussion, once there is a consensus agreement of refined criteria and what sources are most reliable to judge same."
Astynax later put in a new, vaguely defined definition of a New Religious Movement into the List of New Religious Movements article, without consensus, and is now arguing that this insertion of this definition, allows them to buck the closure of the RFC (see more below). Later, on the talk page, I gave six definitions of New Religious Movements from the leading scholars in the field; Astynax has ignored this and continued to make assertions based on the vague definition they added previously.
Regarding the list of sources Astynax put on their user page to continue to argue for Landmark as a new religious movement, almost every source actually mentions est/the Forum, which predate the existence of Landmark as a company, almost every source simply gives a name on a list in passing rather than making any assertion that Landmark is religious, and almost every source there does not cite any primary source research regarding Landmark.
Why Landmark is on some of these NRM lists without significant assertions of its actual religiosity is explained by one of the leading scholars in the field who puts Landmark on such a list, Chryssides, who says: "...it is doubtful whether [Landmark and other organizations] should be accorded full status as religious organizations. Although I have argued that not all the organizations within this chapter should count as religions, the examples I have studied are nonetheless useful...they all certainly possess an important spiritual dimension, and provide useful studies for determining where the edges of religion lie."
In other words, Chryssides and some other scholars include human potential movements like Landmark on NRM lists because they provide "useful studies" and have some association with spirituality, not because they are overtly religions or religious.
This discussion is relevant to the case, because Astynax, asserting a definition of New Religious Movements that does not require overt religiosity, then uses these sources that put Landmark on these lists to make edits asserting that Landmark is a religion and/or religious (and against the consensus of the RFC which Astynax began).
This shell game seems like clear synthesis - using a definition of an NRM that doesn't require overt religiosity to claim something is an NRM, and then use the claim of it being an NRM to assert that it's actually religious.
Apologies again for the long, content-related arguments.
There is no justification for Astynax's accusation that the connection between Landmark, est and Werner Erhard has been suppressed or misrepresented in the article. On the contrary the connection has been stated clearly and accurately in both the lead and the 'History' section for years.
It is not factually accurate to state that Landmark and est are identical. 'est' refers both to a training seminar and to the company that offered it. The est training was discontinued in 1984 and replaced by 'The Forum', a product with significantly different structure and methodology.[ [32]]
As regards the company, the issue is even more clear-cut: Landmark is a distinct legal entity which was formed in 1991, and has a different ownership and management from either est or WEA. It bought the intellectual property rights to The Forum, and developed it to create 'The Landmark Forum', which has been further evolved in the subsequent 23 years.[ [33]], [ [34]]
(Perhaps this is getting too involved in content issues rather than policy and behaviour, but it does seem to be at the heart of the disagreement which provoked this case). DaveApter ( talk) 21:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Case clerks: Sphilbrick ( Talk) & Callanecc ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: David Fuchs ( Talk) & Seraphimblade ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Purpose of the workshop: The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Behavior during a case may be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
1)
2)
3)
1)
2)
3)
4)
1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or an indiscriminate collection of information. DaveApter ( talk) 10:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
2) Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view: We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong. DaveApter ( talk) 10:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
3) Editors should treat each other with respect and civility: Editors should respect their fellow Wikipedians, even when they disagree. Editors should apply Wikipedia etiquette, and refrain from personal attacks. Editors should seek consensus, avoid edit wars, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Editors should act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others. If a conflict arises, editors should discuss it calmly on the nearest talk pages, and follow dispute resolution procedures. DaveApter ( talk) 10:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
4) The assertion of false or misleading statements is not only a disservice to readers, but is also damaging to the reputation of Wikipedia. DaveApter ( talk) 10:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
5) Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. DaveApter ( talk) 10:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
1) The Landmark Worldwide article was created as an attack piece and has been a recurrent battleground, as demonstrated in the first paragraph of my evidence. DaveApter ( talk) 16:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
2) The challenges in creating a collaboratively crafted high quality encyclopedia article on this subject arise from four factors:
DaveApter ( talk) 16:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
3) The specific challenges outlined above do not apply only to this article, or even just to organisations that have been labelled as 'New Religious Movements' or 'Cults'. They apply to a wide range of "Contemporary Social Phenomena", including for example:
4) Astynax has argued vigorously and repeatedly for the use of questionable sources. For example he proposed the use of caic.org.au - a clearly partisan and biased self-promotional website with poor editorial oversight - on the RS Noticeboard last year and on the Landmark talk page recently. DaveApter ( talk) 11:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) Wikipedia should have a set of specific guidelines for articles on contemporary social phenomena. As a starting point, the guidelines relating to Biographies of Living Persons could be adopted. Living individuals who are publicly associated with organisations could be harmed if inaccurate or defamatory information is propagated concerning those organisations. DaveApter ( talk) 21:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
2) Astynax and Lithistman should be reminded to abide by the policies to assume good faith, to be civil, to avoid personal attacks, to refrain from edit warring, and to co-operate with the Dispute Resolution Procedures. DaveApter ( talk) 21:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
1) In line with Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith, when giving an edit summary or discussing on the talk page, editors should engage in a substantive discussion of the topic and the edits at hand, and neither cast aspersions on the motives of other editors, nor give as justification for an edit the supposed bad faith of another.
2) Controversial or contentious claims cannot be made using unreliable or primary sources, and such claims should reflect the consensus of reliable secondary sources (not giving any view undue weight).
1) This case is ultimately a response to the result of an RFC which Astynax started, and the results of which Astynax did not agree with, and their attempts to classify Landmark as both a religion and a New Religious Movement. Astynax has never used any of the appropriate venues (dispute resolution, mediation, etc.) to make this case but instead took the argument to Arbcom under the guise of "editor behavior."
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.
2) While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
3) Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include:
1) Editors have made extraordinary claims about Landmark (and other groups) without regard for consensus, while relying on sources that are not directly related to the topic of the article, and do not directly support the material being presented.
2) Editors have relied heavily on Primary and Tertiary sources, while ignoring readily available mainstream Secondary sources. This source selection is intentionally designed to introduce a POV or bias into articles and lists.
3) Editors have repeatedly argued for the use of unreliable sources including aggregation websites, materials posted online in violation of copyright, blogs and similar websites, and student papers. These sources have been advanced in place of readily available mainstream secondary sources.
4) Editor Astynax has repeatedly made significant changes to articles including reverting removals, while only engaging on talk pages to continue to argue for a single point of view. When material added by Astynax is removed, (s)he reverts the removal while continuing to not work to seek consensus. In the realm of religion or cult articles, Astynax has not been here to build an encylopedia, but rather to advance an agenda.
5) Editors Lithistman and Zambelo have edit warred, ignored consensus, been uncivil, and have regularly impeded development of this project. While not parties to this case, they have both participated in the case and their behaviour (including that of their previous accounts where known or declared) should be considered by the committee.
6) There exists a large number of articles in the new religious movement, cult, and human potential movement arena that were created by a small number of editors with the intent of supporting one another and advancing a point of view regarding Landmark and other human potential movements. These articles served to artificially inflate the relative significance of the point of view of the anti-cult community.
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) Astynax is indefinitely prohibited from editing, commenting on, or otherwise participating in any Wikipedia process related to articles about religious movements, cults, sectes, or human potential movements, broadly interpreted.
2) Lithistman is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
3) Zambelo is banned from Wikipedia indefinitely.
4) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to human potential movements, cults, and new religious movements, broadly interpreted.
1) Should any editor subject to a discretionary sanction under this decision violate the terms of the sanction, then further sanctions may be imposed as appropriate pursuant to the discretionary sanction remedy.
2) Should any editor subject to a restriction under the terms of this decision violate the restriction, then the editor may be blocked for a period of up to one week by any uninvolved administrator. Subsequent blocks will escalate in duration, with a maximum block period of one year. As an alternative to blocking under this paragraph, the uninvolved administrator may impose a discretionary sanction, which shall be in addition to any sanction imposed in this decision.
1) These editors have participated in some destructive article deletions. There may be others, but those that have been brought up here which seem particularly destructive are Cult Awareness and Information Centre (a site regarding which I've run across frequent mentions and references in academic NRM publications), Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System (a television episode which is also mentioned in NRM material regarding est and Landmark), Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous (another television episode that is mentioned in the NRM lit with regard to Landmark's French operations), Scientology and Werner Erhard (I hadn't had an opportunity to read this prior to its deletion, but certainly Erhard's involvement with Scientology pro and con is notable and I have no idea whether the information contained therein is adequately covered in other articles as claimed during the Afd), Raffaella Di Marzio (I was rather shocked to see this was deleted, as well as the mischaracterization given that she is an "anti-cultist"—another instance of someone throwing out claims that are not carefully checked by the nominator or voters); Ian Haworth (I cannot tell whether the tagging for deletion on this was justified, but Haworth is certainly notable with many references to his career and any issue should have been fixed rather than deleted). I request that these articles be undeleted to allow content to be improved.
1) DaveApter, Tgeairn and Nwlaw63 have been intransigently editing articles related to Landmark Worldwide over several years, including opposing changes based upon reliable sources and pushing viewpoints that reflect advocacy put forward by Landmark Worldwide itself, its volunteers, its employees, its franchisees, its subsidiaries and other fans. They have repeatedly and insistently attempted to sway/discourage editors, often under the guise of consensus, to accept Landmark advocacy and ignore reliable, scholarly sources. The persistent IDHT behavior is inexplicable, and the claim of "cleaning up" the work of former editors sounds more like a rationalization brought up here, if not a witch-hunt (although this has been previously dredged up by DaveApter to threaten a couple of editors [1] [2]). The effect has been to discourage editors who have wished to edit (including myself) Landmark-related articles, rather than opt for bowing to these editors' insistence that all edits be "discussed" and approved by "consensus" at the stonewall that passes for a talk page, and/or upon noting the incremental reverts of previous edits that run contrary to the Landmark PoV. I ask that ArbCom topic ban DaveApter, Tgeairn and Nwlaw63 for any article related in any way to either Landmark Worldwide, in any of its iterations, or to religious movements. As much of their activity has consisted of harassment on talk pages, I also ask that they be banned from discussing in relation to these two subjects on talk pages.
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
Evidence presented by Astynax:
I have already responded to the initial points on the evidence page, and these remarks refer to his supplementary response in the paragraph headed '@DaveApter'.
I am unsure what point Astynax is trying to make with the 11 diffs in this section as most of them have nothing to do with me - or indeed with any of the parties to this dispute.
I cannot see the accuracy of his claim that he: "... was challenged at nearly every turn, particularly by DaveApter, and was eventually accused of being anti-Landmark,"
And, since you raise the subject, it seems perfectly clear (to me) that I meet none of the criteria of having a conflict of interest: I am not being employed by Landmark, or engaged as a consultant, or rewarded for promoting them, or being offered a commission for finding customers for them. And I never have been. I'm not even currently one of their customers. I haven't even taken any or their courses for years. And I do have an opinion on the subject, and I've been open about what that is. DaveApter ( talk) 14:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Regarding Astynax's assertions under the heading 'Activity at the List of new religious movements article', I am responding here because those assertions involve the content dispute which appears to be at the heart of this case. I apologize in advance possibly delving too deeply into content based discussions; I am doing this because Astynax has made these content based arguments at length in this evidence section and the link to their user page contained therein.
The first thing to note is that Asynax mischaracterizes the closure of the RFC which was found to exclude Landmark from the List of New Religious Movements article, (and which RFC Astynax began). What the closure specifically states is that "the arguments to exclude [Landmark from the list] are stronger than the arguments to include, based on the understanding of inclusion criteria and the reading of the sources by those participating. I'd suggest editors continue the discussion about inclusion criteria, with no prejudice to re-opening this discussion, once there is a consensus agreement of refined criteria and what sources are most reliable to judge same."
Astynax later put in a new, vaguely defined definition of a New Religious Movement into the List of New Religious Movements article, without consensus, and is now arguing that this insertion of this definition, allows them to buck the closure of the RFC (see more below). Later, on the talk page, I gave six definitions of New Religious Movements from the leading scholars in the field; Astynax has ignored this and continued to make assertions based on the vague definition they added previously.
Regarding the list of sources Astynax put on their user page to continue to argue for Landmark as a new religious movement, almost every source actually mentions est/the Forum, which predate the existence of Landmark as a company, almost every source simply gives a name on a list in passing rather than making any assertion that Landmark is religious, and almost every source there does not cite any primary source research regarding Landmark.
Why Landmark is on some of these NRM lists without significant assertions of its actual religiosity is explained by one of the leading scholars in the field who puts Landmark on such a list, Chryssides, who says: "...it is doubtful whether [Landmark and other organizations] should be accorded full status as religious organizations. Although I have argued that not all the organizations within this chapter should count as religions, the examples I have studied are nonetheless useful...they all certainly possess an important spiritual dimension, and provide useful studies for determining where the edges of religion lie."
In other words, Chryssides and some other scholars include human potential movements like Landmark on NRM lists because they provide "useful studies" and have some association with spirituality, not because they are overtly religions or religious.
This discussion is relevant to the case, because Astynax, asserting a definition of New Religious Movements that does not require overt religiosity, then uses these sources that put Landmark on these lists to make edits asserting that Landmark is a religion and/or religious (and against the consensus of the RFC which Astynax began).
This shell game seems like clear synthesis - using a definition of an NRM that doesn't require overt religiosity to claim something is an NRM, and then use the claim of it being an NRM to assert that it's actually religious.
Apologies again for the long, content-related arguments.
There is no justification for Astynax's accusation that the connection between Landmark, est and Werner Erhard has been suppressed or misrepresented in the article. On the contrary the connection has been stated clearly and accurately in both the lead and the 'History' section for years.
It is not factually accurate to state that Landmark and est are identical. 'est' refers both to a training seminar and to the company that offered it. The est training was discontinued in 1984 and replaced by 'The Forum', a product with significantly different structure and methodology.[ [32]]
As regards the company, the issue is even more clear-cut: Landmark is a distinct legal entity which was formed in 1991, and has a different ownership and management from either est or WEA. It bought the intellectual property rights to The Forum, and developed it to create 'The Landmark Forum', which has been further evolved in the subsequent 23 years.[ [33]], [ [34]]
(Perhaps this is getting too involved in content issues rather than policy and behaviour, but it does seem to be at the heart of the disagreement which provoked this case). DaveApter ( talk) 21:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)