This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: Sphilbrick ( Talk) & Callanecc ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: David Fuchs ( Talk) & Seraphimblade ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. 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 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, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Just to keep people in the loop, the ETA for the PD will probably be closer to the end of this weekend. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 03:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
The waiting is the hardest part.... John Carter ( talk) 16:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm responding here to John Carter's comments on the workshop page today [6], rather than there because the close date for that page was 13 days ago.
Would it be too late to provide some admittedly circumstantial evidence regarding possible POV or other problems regarding one of the parties involved in this case? John Carter ( talk) 17:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
This is one of the most outrageous slanders that I have ever encountered anywhere on Wikipedia.
John Carter is accusing me publicly of being a liar on the basis of nothing more than empty speculation. I insist politely request that he withdraws this accusation and apologises. I have already stated my position explicitly on the Workshop page:
Perhaps I should also add that I don't own any shares in Landmark and I never have done!
None of the edits he cites above from nine years ago entails his conclusion that "[I] may have been at least an unpaid worker for Landmark" or that "[I show] a remarkable degree of knowledge regarding statistics and registration information relating the company's financial affairs".
The edits in question are simply a mixture of figures readily available in the public domain and hypothetical "reality check" calculations made in the course of the discussions on the talk page at that time.
John's memory is also defective in relation to the exchange between us on my talk page (which is still there). He said nothing about employment or presumed retirement benefits and I said nothing about taking a break from the topic (the only time I recall ever offering to stand back from editing for a while is on the Landmark talk page a couple of months ago during the period of edit warring by Astynax and Lithistman).
Presumably it is also out of order for John to presenting this so-called "evidence" now, when that phase closed three weeks ago? DaveApter ( talk) 07:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Here is my last attempt to make my position absolutely clear:
There - will that do?
Also, I have no insider knowledge of Landmark's accounts, statistics, share ownership or anything else. Anyone who takes the trouble to follow the five links John has provided above will find - as I have already said - that there is nothing that is not either in the public domain or speculation on my part.
My editing of the Landmark article is a very small portion of my total activity on Wikipedia. I'm far more interested in the other subjects I write on, and I only step in when - as in the last few months - there's another bout of attempts to slant the article.
I'm also concerned about the misrepresentation of my suggestion for guidelines. When I talked about harm to individuals, I wasn't referring to shareholders. What I had in mind was that, for example, Landmark has been publicly endorsed by large numbers of prominent figures - including clerics, academics, business leaders, doctors, psychiatrists etc - and these stand to suffer if the Wikipedia piece carries unsubstantiated allegations about it being a cult or brainwashing its customers. The same applies to a lot of other topics - for instance the Neuro-linguistic programming article is a mess for similar reasons. DaveApter ( talk) 10:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
If the Arbitrators have any Questions I'll be happy to answer them. In the meantime perhaps the three of you should re-read the rubric at the top of this page. If you have any evidence of policy violations please produce it. None has been provided here so far. DaveApter ( talk) 03:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I am, quite frankly, shocked at this. You're considering a topic ban for 3 editors, and one of them isn't the most tendentious editor on that page? Very odd, indeed. I'd be interested in hearing the rationale behind that, given his behavior at the talkpage, particularly, but also in editing the actual article. All three of the current proposed topic bans are levied on editors who have, at least, attempted to compromise and work together at various points. LHM ask me a question 00:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
It is I believe worth noting that at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide#Response to comment from Carcharoth DaveApter specifically states, and I quote, "Also, I would welcome an authoritative ruling on whether the accusation that I am operating under a conflict of interest is justified or not." Therefore, I think it is perhaps reasonable for the ArbCom to consider offering an indicator of the editor's qualifying or not qualifying as having a COI, as the editor in question himself seems to have basically specifically requested such a statement. John Carter ( talk) 15:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
So that the intentions of the Arbitrators are clear, I recommend splitting Proposed findings of fact 4 into two separate items (one for Tgeairn ( talk · contribs · count) and one for Nwlaw63 ( talk · contribs · count).
Nwlaw63 only has 7 edits to the Landmark Worldwide article this year, and edits related to the article appear to be incidental with their rather larger quantity of work at AfD.
I (Tgeairn) have 43 edits to the Landmark Worldwide article, and have stated [16] that I have in fact made a project of cleaning up NRM related articles. Of course, it is my belief that a couple months of frequent editing in the NRM/anti-NRM field of articles does not make me a SPA (particularly when compared against over 40,000 edits that have nothing whatsoever to do with Landmark or even NRMs). However, given that I have taken on cleanup of a long-standing set of articles, I can understand how that recent history would appear in passing to be an SPA (in the NRM field at least). It would be unfair for Nwlaw63 to get lumped together with my cleanup work. -- Tgeairn ( talk) 03:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Although I obviously disagree that topic-banning me from Landmark related articles (even for a relatively short period) is in the best interests of the project, if such is found to be the consensus of the community then I request that the scope be clarified to include or exclude New Religious Movements articles in general (which is where my recent editing is primarily). I find that attempts to characterize Landmark as a religion, and therefore confer upon it the opportunities, protections, and "rights" that religions gain, are disingenuous. However, those characterizations may prevent my work in other NRM/Anti-NRM articles if this remedy is adopted without clarification. -- Tgeairn ( talk) 03:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
On a couple of points:
Hoping these can be addressed to avoid asking for clarification later. • Astynax talk 07:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I accept and understand the point regarding the greater number of sources relating to Landmark in its earlier incarnations, particularly including est, and I personally think that there is a very good chance that shortly after this arbitration is concluded, hopefully without the original poster of this thread being sanctioned Really subtle hint there, there will be some discussion about consolidating the relevant content into a smaller number of articles, or perhaps a single article. John Carter ( talk) 18:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
In response to the concerns expressed that the evidence for accusations of Tendentious Editing by Astynax is somewhat thin, the one example quoted in the draft PD was a small sample of the items which had been submitted on the Evidence and Workshop pages. For convenience, here are pointers to some of them:
[ Evidence 2.2] nos 19 and 20 (in tag team with Lithistman).
[ Evidence 1.2] no 3. [ Workshop 4.6.1] no 35.
[ Evidence 2.3] nos 27, 28 and 29.
[ Evidence 1.4] esp item “Astynax returned and bulk inserted”.
[ Main case page 2.2] (numbers refer to links in section 1.2 Prior dispute resolution).
[ Evidence 1.3] [ Workshop 4.1.2.4] DaveApter ( talk) 15:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
and can point to an instance where such conduct is occurring on another article at present in the same manner (misrepresenting sources and claiming consensus ('consensus = compromise'), etc.). There doesn't seem to be a policy fix in the legislative pipeline, however, so this recurrent and typical problem will undoubtedly be something that the Committee has to deal with on such articles. -- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 03:51, 7 December; 18:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)The mere idea of agreeing to the forming a consensus that misrepresents and ignores the sources is repellent, not in the interests of the project and directly opposed to the wider community consensus and policy that articles should reflect all significant reporting in reliable sources.
As was noted when this was proposed on another current case, mandated external review is deprecated.
Beeblebrox (
talk) 05:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
|
---|
Just reminding everyone here that the Falun Gong 2 arbitration used "mandated external review," or basically allowing problematic editors to edit the article itself only after approval by an uninvolved administrator. It might not be an unreasonable procedure to implement here on one or more of the parties involved. John Carter ( talk) 23:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC) |
I think it worthwhile to perhaps look at Talk:Landmark Worldwide/to do. There do seem to be rather a large number of articles and other sources not on the sites I checked when I made the statement I did. And, FWIW, like I have recently said on my user talk page, I am going to check the various other databanks I can access with some more trouble, and some of the databanks listed by the ALA on its Guide to Reference website, to see if they might have additional information as well.
Also, on an unrelated point, as someone who personally regrets the recent developments that led to it, I regret the redlink in the clerks section of these pages. I would very sincerely hope that circumstances might change in the future to perhaps make it blue again in some way. John Carter ( talk) 01:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
In reading this mountain of a talk page and the section above about sourcing, I’m wondering what happened to the discussion of ‘Admin Shopping’, ‘Mistagging’, ‘Canvassing’, and all the other offenses that me and the other parties to this case are accused of. Instead, I see some broad charges of bias, but mostly discussion about article sourcing which seems similar to the discussion from the RFC a year ago, which Astynax did not like the results of. This strengthens my suspicions that this case wasn’t brought by Astynax for any reason having to with editor behavior, but rather as a way of fighting an ongoing content dispute. Nwlaw63 ( talk) 00:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Since the FoF for Nwlaw63 and Tgeairn can't pass, there is no factual basis for their proposed T-bans. That leaves a single editor with possible conduct issues - Astynax. That being the case, how can discretionary sanctions be based on the actions of a single editor? I don't see the reasoning. Ignocrates ( talk) 16:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
First, I think it is worth noting that several arbitrators are retiring shortly, and it would certainly be possible for those retiring arbitrators to help rewrite it. :) Let's see once and for all if smart-ass comments like that one really are sanctionable on their own. Editors active in the Business, Companies, Education, and Psychology projects, which have tagged the article, could certainly be encouraged to take part, and I certainly think some of them may have some particular knowledge or expertise regarding this topic area which would be extremely useful. I suppose, after or maybe concurrent with the merger proposal I have said I intend to call after this arbitration ends, I and others could set up a series of specific questions for RfC-like input to help resolve some of the core problematic matters either through RfC or through regular discussion. John Carter ( talk) 18:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Is it possible for the arbitrators to give a basic indication as to what level of dubious conduct should be presented as evidence to be counted as sufficient for discretionary sanctions to be implemented? John Carter ( talk) 16:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I think this content dispute is ripe for a solution in formal mediation. It should include Astynax and DaveApter at a minimum, and anyone else prepared to get their hands dirty to fix this problem. I encourage all the back-benchers and kibitzers (like me) to stay on the sidelines and let them bring this dispute to a successful resolution. I would close this arbitration with a reminder to be nice and respect your fellow editors. Anything more than that is unnecessary intervention. Ignocrates ( talk) 16:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: Sphilbrick ( Talk) & Callanecc ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: David Fuchs ( Talk) & Seraphimblade ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. 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 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, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Just to keep people in the loop, the ETA for the PD will probably be closer to the end of this weekend. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 03:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
The waiting is the hardest part.... John Carter ( talk) 16:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm responding here to John Carter's comments on the workshop page today [6], rather than there because the close date for that page was 13 days ago.
Would it be too late to provide some admittedly circumstantial evidence regarding possible POV or other problems regarding one of the parties involved in this case? John Carter ( talk) 17:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
This is one of the most outrageous slanders that I have ever encountered anywhere on Wikipedia.
John Carter is accusing me publicly of being a liar on the basis of nothing more than empty speculation. I insist politely request that he withdraws this accusation and apologises. I have already stated my position explicitly on the Workshop page:
Perhaps I should also add that I don't own any shares in Landmark and I never have done!
None of the edits he cites above from nine years ago entails his conclusion that "[I] may have been at least an unpaid worker for Landmark" or that "[I show] a remarkable degree of knowledge regarding statistics and registration information relating the company's financial affairs".
The edits in question are simply a mixture of figures readily available in the public domain and hypothetical "reality check" calculations made in the course of the discussions on the talk page at that time.
John's memory is also defective in relation to the exchange between us on my talk page (which is still there). He said nothing about employment or presumed retirement benefits and I said nothing about taking a break from the topic (the only time I recall ever offering to stand back from editing for a while is on the Landmark talk page a couple of months ago during the period of edit warring by Astynax and Lithistman).
Presumably it is also out of order for John to presenting this so-called "evidence" now, when that phase closed three weeks ago? DaveApter ( talk) 07:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Here is my last attempt to make my position absolutely clear:
There - will that do?
Also, I have no insider knowledge of Landmark's accounts, statistics, share ownership or anything else. Anyone who takes the trouble to follow the five links John has provided above will find - as I have already said - that there is nothing that is not either in the public domain or speculation on my part.
My editing of the Landmark article is a very small portion of my total activity on Wikipedia. I'm far more interested in the other subjects I write on, and I only step in when - as in the last few months - there's another bout of attempts to slant the article.
I'm also concerned about the misrepresentation of my suggestion for guidelines. When I talked about harm to individuals, I wasn't referring to shareholders. What I had in mind was that, for example, Landmark has been publicly endorsed by large numbers of prominent figures - including clerics, academics, business leaders, doctors, psychiatrists etc - and these stand to suffer if the Wikipedia piece carries unsubstantiated allegations about it being a cult or brainwashing its customers. The same applies to a lot of other topics - for instance the Neuro-linguistic programming article is a mess for similar reasons. DaveApter ( talk) 10:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
If the Arbitrators have any Questions I'll be happy to answer them. In the meantime perhaps the three of you should re-read the rubric at the top of this page. If you have any evidence of policy violations please produce it. None has been provided here so far. DaveApter ( talk) 03:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I am, quite frankly, shocked at this. You're considering a topic ban for 3 editors, and one of them isn't the most tendentious editor on that page? Very odd, indeed. I'd be interested in hearing the rationale behind that, given his behavior at the talkpage, particularly, but also in editing the actual article. All three of the current proposed topic bans are levied on editors who have, at least, attempted to compromise and work together at various points. LHM ask me a question 00:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
It is I believe worth noting that at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide#Response to comment from Carcharoth DaveApter specifically states, and I quote, "Also, I would welcome an authoritative ruling on whether the accusation that I am operating under a conflict of interest is justified or not." Therefore, I think it is perhaps reasonable for the ArbCom to consider offering an indicator of the editor's qualifying or not qualifying as having a COI, as the editor in question himself seems to have basically specifically requested such a statement. John Carter ( talk) 15:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
So that the intentions of the Arbitrators are clear, I recommend splitting Proposed findings of fact 4 into two separate items (one for Tgeairn ( talk · contribs · count) and one for Nwlaw63 ( talk · contribs · count).
Nwlaw63 only has 7 edits to the Landmark Worldwide article this year, and edits related to the article appear to be incidental with their rather larger quantity of work at AfD.
I (Tgeairn) have 43 edits to the Landmark Worldwide article, and have stated [16] that I have in fact made a project of cleaning up NRM related articles. Of course, it is my belief that a couple months of frequent editing in the NRM/anti-NRM field of articles does not make me a SPA (particularly when compared against over 40,000 edits that have nothing whatsoever to do with Landmark or even NRMs). However, given that I have taken on cleanup of a long-standing set of articles, I can understand how that recent history would appear in passing to be an SPA (in the NRM field at least). It would be unfair for Nwlaw63 to get lumped together with my cleanup work. -- Tgeairn ( talk) 03:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Although I obviously disagree that topic-banning me from Landmark related articles (even for a relatively short period) is in the best interests of the project, if such is found to be the consensus of the community then I request that the scope be clarified to include or exclude New Religious Movements articles in general (which is where my recent editing is primarily). I find that attempts to characterize Landmark as a religion, and therefore confer upon it the opportunities, protections, and "rights" that religions gain, are disingenuous. However, those characterizations may prevent my work in other NRM/Anti-NRM articles if this remedy is adopted without clarification. -- Tgeairn ( talk) 03:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
On a couple of points:
Hoping these can be addressed to avoid asking for clarification later. • Astynax talk 07:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I accept and understand the point regarding the greater number of sources relating to Landmark in its earlier incarnations, particularly including est, and I personally think that there is a very good chance that shortly after this arbitration is concluded, hopefully without the original poster of this thread being sanctioned Really subtle hint there, there will be some discussion about consolidating the relevant content into a smaller number of articles, or perhaps a single article. John Carter ( talk) 18:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
In response to the concerns expressed that the evidence for accusations of Tendentious Editing by Astynax is somewhat thin, the one example quoted in the draft PD was a small sample of the items which had been submitted on the Evidence and Workshop pages. For convenience, here are pointers to some of them:
[ Evidence 2.2] nos 19 and 20 (in tag team with Lithistman).
[ Evidence 1.2] no 3. [ Workshop 4.6.1] no 35.
[ Evidence 2.3] nos 27, 28 and 29.
[ Evidence 1.4] esp item “Astynax returned and bulk inserted”.
[ Main case page 2.2] (numbers refer to links in section 1.2 Prior dispute resolution).
[ Evidence 1.3] [ Workshop 4.1.2.4] DaveApter ( talk) 15:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
and can point to an instance where such conduct is occurring on another article at present in the same manner (misrepresenting sources and claiming consensus ('consensus = compromise'), etc.). There doesn't seem to be a policy fix in the legislative pipeline, however, so this recurrent and typical problem will undoubtedly be something that the Committee has to deal with on such articles. -- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 03:51, 7 December; 18:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)The mere idea of agreeing to the forming a consensus that misrepresents and ignores the sources is repellent, not in the interests of the project and directly opposed to the wider community consensus and policy that articles should reflect all significant reporting in reliable sources.
As was noted when this was proposed on another current case, mandated external review is deprecated.
Beeblebrox (
talk) 05:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
|
---|
Just reminding everyone here that the Falun Gong 2 arbitration used "mandated external review," or basically allowing problematic editors to edit the article itself only after approval by an uninvolved administrator. It might not be an unreasonable procedure to implement here on one or more of the parties involved. John Carter ( talk) 23:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC) |
I think it worthwhile to perhaps look at Talk:Landmark Worldwide/to do. There do seem to be rather a large number of articles and other sources not on the sites I checked when I made the statement I did. And, FWIW, like I have recently said on my user talk page, I am going to check the various other databanks I can access with some more trouble, and some of the databanks listed by the ALA on its Guide to Reference website, to see if they might have additional information as well.
Also, on an unrelated point, as someone who personally regrets the recent developments that led to it, I regret the redlink in the clerks section of these pages. I would very sincerely hope that circumstances might change in the future to perhaps make it blue again in some way. John Carter ( talk) 01:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
In reading this mountain of a talk page and the section above about sourcing, I’m wondering what happened to the discussion of ‘Admin Shopping’, ‘Mistagging’, ‘Canvassing’, and all the other offenses that me and the other parties to this case are accused of. Instead, I see some broad charges of bias, but mostly discussion about article sourcing which seems similar to the discussion from the RFC a year ago, which Astynax did not like the results of. This strengthens my suspicions that this case wasn’t brought by Astynax for any reason having to with editor behavior, but rather as a way of fighting an ongoing content dispute. Nwlaw63 ( talk) 00:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Since the FoF for Nwlaw63 and Tgeairn can't pass, there is no factual basis for their proposed T-bans. That leaves a single editor with possible conduct issues - Astynax. That being the case, how can discretionary sanctions be based on the actions of a single editor? I don't see the reasoning. Ignocrates ( talk) 16:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
First, I think it is worth noting that several arbitrators are retiring shortly, and it would certainly be possible for those retiring arbitrators to help rewrite it. :) Let's see once and for all if smart-ass comments like that one really are sanctionable on their own. Editors active in the Business, Companies, Education, and Psychology projects, which have tagged the article, could certainly be encouraged to take part, and I certainly think some of them may have some particular knowledge or expertise regarding this topic area which would be extremely useful. I suppose, after or maybe concurrent with the merger proposal I have said I intend to call after this arbitration ends, I and others could set up a series of specific questions for RfC-like input to help resolve some of the core problematic matters either through RfC or through regular discussion. John Carter ( talk) 18:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Is it possible for the arbitrators to give a basic indication as to what level of dubious conduct should be presented as evidence to be counted as sufficient for discretionary sanctions to be implemented? John Carter ( talk) 16:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I think this content dispute is ripe for a solution in formal mediation. It should include Astynax and DaveApter at a minimum, and anyone else prepared to get their hands dirty to fix this problem. I encourage all the back-benchers and kibitzers (like me) to stay on the sidelines and let them bring this dispute to a successful resolution. I would close this arbitration with a reminder to be nice and respect your fellow editors. Anything more than that is unnecessary intervention. Ignocrates ( talk) 16:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)