Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Issues related to Landmark Worldwide		20 September 2014	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Historical elections	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Aug 2024	03 Sep 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	none	none	26 July 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Issues related to Landmark Worldwide

Initiated by • Astynax ^talk at 01:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

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)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• DaveApter
• Nwlaw63
• Tgeairn

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_new_religious_movements/Archive_2#RfC:_revert_or_retain_the_recent_deep_revert
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_new_religious_movements/Archive_2#Rfc_regarding_Landmark_Worldwide
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Landmark_Worldwide#RFC:_Has_the_neutrality_of_this_article_been_improved_or_degraded_by_recent_wholesale_changes.3F
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-05-21_Landmark_Education
• this may not be complete; there is a long history spanning several years

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[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]
• involvment in deletion of articles related to Landmark[16][17][18][19]
• canvasing[20][21][22][23][24]

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)

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:

1. This Rfc appears unconnected with any of the editors named here (except Astynax)
2. This Rfc was closed with a conclusion which Astynax did not like
3. 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.
4. 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)

Comment by Scalhotrod

Comment - assuming that you are referring to this RfC, I would not refer to it as "ridiculous", but it seems clear that you have an understanding of the situation that a casual observer or disinterested editor would not have an easy time comprehending or even getting the gist of it.

That said, I'll openly state that I have edited the article as well as have taken several Landmark courses. Do I believe that it is a religious organization of any type, not at all. But, do I know people who treat it as such, you bet your "no feeling left from sitting for so long by Sunday of the Forum weekend" rear that I do. There are people who regard Tony Robbins' instruction with "religious devotion", but that doesn't make him a priest either. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:47, 23 September 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[25][26], edit warring, accusations of COI[27], disregard for RfC results[28], and repeated use of sources which had already been determined to be unreliable at RSN[29].

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[30], 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)

Statement by AnonNep

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

Statement by Lithistman

My history at this article (and related ones) is short. The first edit I made was on 26 July, to add a "promo" tag to the article, given my concerns that it read something like a press release for the company. My second edit was one month later, to switch that tag to an NPOV, after discussion on the talkpage convinced me that it wasn't so much a promotional issue as it was an issue with a slanted POV. Since that time, I've observed well-sourced information reverted en masse out of the article, causing serious NPOV issues with the article. At some point, DaveApter started a ridiculous "RFC", that was in no way neutrally-worded, and was seemingly designed only to gin up support for his own view, and opposition to those who were trying to bring balance to the article. Things have sort of "escalated" from there, and thus we arrive here. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• One further note: Drmies (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has now started an utterly frivolous ANI about me, mainly stemming from my description of the experience I've had in editing the Landmark article. He claims all sorts of personal attacks by me, none of which are true. Since interacting with him on the Landmark article, he has threatened to block me, left multiple complaining messages on my talkpage, and just generally caused me to feel harassed. Today, I finally asked him to refrain from posting to my talkpage, and thus far, he has complied with that request. I hope that continues, as at this point, I just wish I'd never stumbled across this stupid article, as well as the long-term editors associated with it. LHM^{ask me a question} 22:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Previously Uninvolved User:Robert McClenon

One of the RFCs cited by the filing party as evidence of previous efforts to resolve the problem is still in progress. The filing party hasn't cited any reason why the RFC shouldn't be allowed to run its course (such as personal attacks or disruptive editing in the RFC itself). Is the filing party complaining that there is something wrong with the RFC itself, or that the RFC is some sort of misconduct?

This is a contentious article, but it doesn't seem to rise to the level of needing discretionary sanctions, which would be the most likely result of arbitration.

The filing party appears to think that a cabal of three or four editors is trying to assert ownership of the article and to impose a POV on the article. If an article has only a few active editors, three or four editors may be consensus rather than a cabal.

In the unlikely case that the ArbCom accepts this case, the filing party should look out for the incoming boomerang.

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

Statement by Sitush

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

Statement by Zambelo

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

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

Articles connected to Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous:

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

Other:

• Ian Haworth (anti-cultist) - Proposed deletion by Tgeairn
• William V. Chambers (anti-cultist, psychologist)- Proposed deletion by Tgeairn
• Raffaella Di Marzio - (anti-cultist, psychologist) flagged by Tgeairn
• Michael Langone (anti-cultist) - flagged by Tgeairn
• Mark Sirkin (psychologist)- flagged by Tgeairn
• Cult Awareness and Information Centre (sued by Landmark) flagged by Tgeairn
• Jan Groenveld (anti-cultist sued by landmark) - flagged by Tgeairn

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

Is there a pattern here?

Meanwhile, the editors who voted for deleting the article on the Landmark-critical documentary Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous are:

• Nwlaw63
• DaveApter
• Tgeairn
• Randykitty
• Drmies

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

Statement by Jehochman

Let's see:

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

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

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

Statement by Drmies

I'll be short, for now. The Landmark "stuff" is troubling. I'm not sure I'd have tagged this version as an advertisement--I think that scrapping all the "content" stuff would go a long way toward neutralization. I think in general these articles suffer from adversarialitis: those who appear to be "for" the club and those who are clearly against are too far apart. There is something of a walled garden here, and those who have read Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous and the AFD will realize from this edit just to which extent wikilinking was used to establish credibility/notability. The "flagged" and nominated articles linked above by Zambelo, that's a normal part of the process. I'll speak for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Lujan, since I nominated that one: community consensus is clearly headed towards deletion; I've not looked at all the other ones, and until I have, I can't really judge whether ArbCom is the way to go. But if it turns out that the Voyage article is kept, which is a possibility, and if a group of editors manages to keep clearly unrelated content in that article (see this edit), where I self-reverted immediately to prevent accusations of disruption), then I think we do have a problem. I'm glad a broader audience is looking at these articles.

And for clarity's sake: this is not forum shopping, pace the filer's claim. An editor asks me for my opinion--what's the problem? If I need someone's opinion I'll go ask for it: nothing wrong with that, and there is no way that CANVASS forbids that type of message. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• On this very page Lithistman sees fit to accuse me of starting "frivolous" threads about me after they accused me of POV editing and admin abuse in an unrelated matter, and refused to back this up in the appropriate forum, which is ANI. For the record, I don't care much for their slander here or elsewhere (see their talk page--"Drmies forum-shopped until he found a forum to get me blocked. Mission accomplished, Drmies. I'm gone."), but it should be pointed out that I simply can't be one of the "long-term" editors associated with this "stupid article", since my first edit to this article was 13 September, months after they started on it. Lithistman claims to be retired now; for this article, that is not a bad thing. Drmies (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• To Zambelo's remark about a "pattern"--there is indeed a pattern here. A slew of articles (a walled garden of sorts) was created years ago, many in 2008. Some of these were valid, some were not, and some of the latter seem to have been created to add credibility to others. Some of the BLPs Zambelo listed are otherwise non-notable people who were given articles possibly with the intention to be allow more bluelinks in other articles (such as the "documentary" article). You know, because you can see this, who created some of these articles, and while I am not willing to criticize that editor more than they already are, it is true that some of those articles simply do not pass the GNG. That editor, for better or for worse, is still paying the price for edits in the larger anti-cult area, and on the one hand it is still causing them personal distress, with which I sympathize, but on the other hand we still have some fallout here from that business. I assume that's what Jehochman is pointing at; I don't know, since I don't believe I was involved in that business (was ArbCom?) and I don't know who all was on which side. I do believe it predates the involvement of most of the editors here.

  The Nouvel Observateur edit I pointed at above fits in that pattern, as does Template:Est and The Forum in popular culture. Feel free to check the history: I went through all those articles a few days ago and removed a few that were really undue additions--note that I didn't nominate the template for deletion, and my edits there are open to scrutiny, of course.

  This walled garden is not totally walled, but in my opinion there are articles and templates whose very effect is to strengthen other articles. Another prime example is Landmark Education litigation, an article with maybe three reliable, secondary sources; another is Ney v. Landmark Education Corporation and Werner Erhard, nominated for deletion here (and properly speedily kept, I suppose), but also properly gutted here and in other edits--the same "ubiquitous" background that was found in the documentary article. How that article is still a GA is not clear to me.

  Now, I don't have a COI in this, no hate for any editors, no involvement with the organization, no nothing. In fact, I was the one that placed the COI tag on the Landmark article since I was (and still am) concerned with DaveApter's edits. And I have no problem with edits like this, which seem properly verified and fair to me--but the overload on sourcing there strikes me as tendentious--in that version, starting at note 40.

  So, if all of this adds up to something ArbCom should look at, that's fine with me. I don't know what can come out of it, but I am not a bit worried about my edits, although the slanderous remarks about COI and clique-editing are offensive to me. True, Randykitty and I go back a long way, but usually we converge on BLP and scholarly matters--I may have asked him to look at an academic's article or some publications (like the French magazines that previewed the documentary) related to this matter; if that's what got Randy into this mess, I'm sorry. DaveApter, I don't know him from Adam. Tgeairn, I think we have run into each other, but I have no relationship of any significance with them: they asked me last year to look at List of new religious movements, and I advised them to start an RfC--I never edited the article or its talkpage, and haven't to my knowledge interacted with them until 11 September of this year. So there's no there there. If anything, this request has become a place where a few disgruntled editors have found a possible avenue to smear my character, but I trust that ArbCom can see right through that. Drmies (talk) 05:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Viriditas

As I previously commented on Lithistman's talk page,[31] this was the second major incident where administrator Drmies was caught edit warring,[32] just a week after being reported at ANI and 3RR/N for edit warring on Maup Caransa.[33][34] As I told Lithistman, he was also wrong to participate in the edit warring, but as an admin who was so recently reported for edit warring and taken to task for his bad behavior, Drmies should have known better than to repeat the same disruptive behavior only a week later. Zambelo's concerns about Drmies' role in targeting these articles with frivolous deletion requests in tandem with Tgeairn is also concerning considering Drmies' recent coordination of reverts and protection against consensus in the John Barrowman article.[35][36] I am concerned that Drmies' poor behavior in the space of less than a month on three different articles (one of which is Landmark Worldwide) demonstrates a pattern of impunity that arbcom would be wise to address. I recently attempted to directly address this problem in a WP:EW policy discussion, where I was supported by editors in my attempt, but stymied by a group of admins who did not want to be held to the same standards of decorum.[37] We need administrators to serve and protect the community, not control and pervert it. Perhaps arbcom could clarify the edit warring policy and how it applies to administrators. My attempt to do so was blocked at every level. Meanwhile, admins continue to edit war without consequences, while at the same time enforcing the policy. This is a problem. Viriditas (talk) 02:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter

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

Statement by Ubikwit (uninvolved)

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

Statement by IZAK (uninvolved)

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

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

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

Clerk notes

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

Issues related to Landmark Worldwide: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <2/2/0/1>

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)
• 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 Worm^TT(talk) 14:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)