Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide/Evidence

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. You must submit evidence in your own section. Editors who change other users' evidence may be blocked without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the committee by e-mail or on the talk page. The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable. Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page. Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by Tgeairn

Scope of the issue

Beginning in or around 2006, a large number of articles were created on various groups and individuals in the areas of religion, cult, and human potential movements (see this for a small set). The net effect of these articles and their subsequent development by a small number of editors was to create a significantly one-sided view of these organisations and to establish an appearance of notability for the “anti-cult” views espoused by those individuals. In 2011, ArbCom found that one of the primary creators and editors of this group of articles did, against policy, place "undue negative weight in topics on new religious movements and political BLPs" and follow poor sourcing practices. The editor was topic-banned and desysopped as a remedy for that behaviour. The affected articles were left in their current state and in many cases little or no content or sourcing have been improved until the past few months. This left thousands of edits in place for years that took “Wikipedia in a very slanted direction--not neutral, not accurate and not informative”. Having been introduced to the issues with these articles as a result of housekeeping actions and an eventual RfC on the inclusion of Landmark in a list, I began a systematic cleanup of the articles including tagging for sources, removal of clear POV content, and tagging or beginning AfD discussions for notability. In the process of that work, a number of problematic editor behaviours came to light.

Editors have blindly reverted or pasted copy into articles without regard for content

Astynax, Lithistman, Zambelo, and others have repeatedly reverted and confounded attempts to improve articles and have them consistent with policy. An obvious example of their disregard for the article content is the habit of pasting into articles and in the process producing duplicate paragraphs, sources, or sections.[1][2][3] Even while acknowledging that there was a discussion taking place (and generally not participating in that discussion).

Editors lack understanding of primary, secondary and tertiary sources

Somewhat as a result of the existing poor sourcing practices in these articles, and somewhat due to the editors’ own apparent lack of understanding, lists and articles have been built almost entirely dependent on a few tertiary sources. For instance, this looks like a wealth of sources, where in reality it is a wall of the same few sources being quoted over and over again by each other and in the majority of cases are encyclopedias, dictionaries, reference lists, bibliographies, etc. Additionally, editors have repeatedly inappropriately used primary sources where no secondary sources exist to provide context.[4][5][6] Again, these practices have had the net result of systemic bias in the affected articles. The sources in use have been treated as more reliable than quality secondary sources on the same subject matter, and have been used to advance an agenda.[7]

Editors have argued or fought for content rather than participating in discussion

For example, an RfC in 2013 closed with an outcome that indicated removing Landmark from the List of new religious movements. Astynax immediately reverted that removal with the edit summary ”closure of an RfC does not a consensus make”. After having it made clear that consensus in an RfC is in fact consensus, Astynax continued editing the Landmark main article to include religious characteristics and calling Landmark a New Religious Movement at that article. Following extensive back and forth editing, the majority of that material was eventually removed by the end of September 2013. In September 2014, Astynax returned and bulk inserted that same content again and fought for its preservation (despite numerous errors and duplicated passages). While editors were reverting in an attempt to include that material, DaveApter began an RfC on the content and behaviour. Astynax, Lithistman, and Zambelo all actively refused to participate in the RfC – while continuing to revert the questioned content into the article.

Editors have refused to participate in consensus building

In addition to the above issues, the recent article activity and requests for outside opinion have brought a number of experienced editors and administrators to the group of articles. As was seen in the case request statements for this case, the clear consensus of these additional editors (and in the cases of policy questions and behaviour, uninvolved administrators) is that these articles lack neutrality, are poorly sourced, often stretch notability, and are generally used as subtle and even outright attacks on people and organisations throughout. In the last 45 days, a number of articles have been deleted at Afd and other mechanisms. Those that remain have had a number of experienced editors performing cleanup and attempting to remove the bias. Throughout this process, Astynax, Zambelo, and others have argued and made accusations of COI, NPOV, canvasing, forum-shopping, etc. They have not participated in attempting to improve the articles.

General editor behaviour and mentality

I expect that others will comment on the multiple ANI, AN3, etc. threads that the major editors of these articles have been the subject of over their editing careers. Any review of their edit summaries alone is likely to make it clear that there is a battleground mentality present. If the committee requests specific diffs, I will provide them - however I am concerned that a simple selection would not present a complete view and that others would accuse cherry-picking. Given the long and large editing history of many of the editors here, the majority of their work is excellent. It has been in this semi-walled garden that tempers, good faith, and behaviour have suffered.

Evidence presented by DaveApter

Landmark article was created as an attack piece, and has been a battleground

At the outset, the page was created and substantially edited from anonymous IP accounts and was blatantly biased, and devoid of refs or citations as this version from 31st March 2004 illustrates.

After various initiatives to evolve to a more neutral and sourced article, a number of editors made concerted attempts from time to time to turn it back into an attack piece; eg:

• Pedant17 dozens of edits such as [8] - eventually sanctioned at ANI here.
• Smeelgova/ smee /Cirt hundreds of edits such as this. As noted above Cirt was topic banned and de-sysopped by Arbcom in 2011 for addmitted NPOV and BLP violations and misrepresentation of sources.
• Jeffrire dozens of edits, eg [9].
• Pax Arcane dozens of edits eg [10].

Both the editors moving towards an article more critical of Landmark and those moving towards one more favourable claim to be upholding neutrality, and accuse the others of attempting to create a soapbox.

Some editors use tag team edit warring to preserve their version

For example, these recent sequences involving Astynax and Lithistman [11] and [12].

Some editors refuse to assume good faith and are impolite

There have been repeated remarks impugning the motives and good faith of other editors, and accusations that all who do not share their point of view are involved in some sort of conspiracy.

• Lithistman eg [13], [14], [15], [16].
• Zambelo eg [17], [18],
• Astynax eg [19], [20], [21].

Some editors refuse to engage with the Dispute resolution procedures

In September 2013, there was lengthy discussion in [this RfC], and the result was a consensus that Landmark was not to be included in the list of New Religious Movements. In point of fact it is not 'religious' and not a 'movement', and furthermore it was concluded that the few passing comments about it (without referring to any research or investigation) in the academic literature did not justify this categorisation. Nonetheless, Astynax inserted a [whole section into the Landmark article] and even a [paragraph in the lead]. A number of uninvolved editors (Drmies: [22], Johnuniq[23], [24], Chillum: [25], Rlendog: [26]) suggested on the talk page that this was undue weight, but Astynax ignored them.

When I put up this RfC, Astynax ignored it and Lithistman responded with this insulting comment.

Evidence presented by Zambelo

I can only speak of certain actions here, since my interactions with certain editors detailed below started with my argument to keep the Landmark-critical article Voyage au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous, an article that had previously seen and survived two AFDs. I immediately saw the COI - despite many secondary sources being provided in support of the subject's notability, the editors refused to change their vote, insisting that it was non-notable, despite evidence to the contrary. This behaviour of selectively rejecting valid sources, and teaming up to force consensus continued long after the AFD was closed, and the article was merged (to opposition from the same editors) into Landmark Worldwide.

Problematic Editing Behaviours

It's funny that Tgeairn should mention problematic editor behaviours.

Improper deletions: bypassing due process

After the AFD discussion for the Voyage au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous in which editors [[User:Tgeairn|Tgeairn], Drmies, DaveApter, Nwlaw63 and [[User:Randykitty |Randykitty]] sought to delete the article, and the article was kept and merged in Landmark Worldwide, these users collaborated together to vindictively remove a number of associated articles - (I made note of this in the original filing here)

Over 2+ weeks, these editors destructively removed over 20 New Religious Movement - related articles. They did so by bypassing due process normally reserved for the deletion of articles, by teaming up for the AFD process. One editor would nominate an article for deletion, and the other 2-3 would quickly jump in and vote for deletion, citing a lack of sources. Even though I repeatedly found reliable secondary sources, it wasn't enough to save the articles from deletion, because there was never any outside commentary, and the only attempt to save the articles in question stemmed from my efforts to provide valid secondary sources (thereby answering the concerns raised by the AFD)

By teaming together, these editors knowingly bypassed the due deletion process.

The first articles to be 'nominated' were all in relation to the Voyage au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous article, about a Landmark-critical documentary that aired in France. These included:

• Jean-Pierre Jougla
• Jean-Marie Abgrall
• Jean-Pierre Brard
• Christian Lujan
• Mona Vasquez
• Catherine Picard

...all of which were participants in the documentary.

Quickly the number of articles 'nominated' escalated to include fringe movements critical of landmark

• 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
• (and many more)

Each time these same editors conspired to ensure the improper deletion of these articles - despite secondary sources being provided.

Since I was the only editor interested in preserving these articles from deletion, these same editors reported me to the BLP notice board claiming that I was violating BLP policies, which ultimately resulted in a topic ban for me. Never were any of these concerns discussed outside the BLP noticeboard, and never were any of the sourcing issues relating to the now deleted articles discussed on their respective talk pages.

Baiting

Meanwhile, while Tgeairn points out above that Smeelgova/smee/Cirt was topic banned, he (and to a lesser extent Drmies) have continually posted NRM-related discussions to that user's talk page - [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37].

Other concerns

As noted by other editors, and as noted by Tgeairn, other behaviour involves forum shopping for consensus, and NPOV editing - while I and others attempt to constructively edit articles (including but not limited to Landmark Worldwide, Tgeairn et al. have demonstrated time and time again that they have no interest in 1) Collaborating to improve an article 2) Discuss solutions 3) Wait for consensus 4) Wait for outside commentary or 5) Discuss any of the issues without first attempting to delete the content they are unhappy with.

Wether this stems from a COI concerning Landmark is immaterial here - what should be concerning to other editors is the fact that these editors 1) clearly have a POV in this matter 2) Are working in concert to achieve this POV 3) Will bypass normal procedures to achieve this POV, this includes skipping discussion and jumping to deletions, and false claims against anyone challenging their POV or deletion tactics 4) Forum-shopping for consensus 5) Baiting.

These editors will claim that there is POV from the named editors here, however their actions speak louder than words. Over 20 article deletions in a fortnight - multiple attempts to remove/minimize merged content from Voyage au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous by the same editors who sought to have it deleted is a good indication of what is going on here, in combination to their POV edits to the Landmark Worldwide article.

I can certainly see where the concerns shared by these other editors come from.

Zambelo; talk 06:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Andy the Grump

I filed an ANI against Andy the Grump, for threatening behaviour and ongoing inability to assume good faith. His comment below continues this trend. He now seeks to discredit me by fabricating some connection to a banned editor. Classy. Zambelo; talk 06:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by AndyTheGrump

I've not been directly involved with the Landmark Worldwide issue, and have no comment to make concerning that particular article. I would however like to point out that there is very strong circumstantial evidence that one of the participants here, Zambelo, is in fact the sockpuppet of banned User:Sfacets and that the Landmark article is one of the astonishingly many articles that they have both edited. As this interaction report [38] and the related sockpuppet investigation [39] show, Zambelo and Sfacets (and/or Sfacets sock User:Couchbeing) not only share an interest in cults, new religious movements and similar topics, but have also both edited such obscure unrelated subjects as Bohemia (musician), Pune and Hillsong Church. Zambelo's response when these 'coincidences' were pointed out (see the SPI) can only be described as stretching credulity beyond what might be considered reasonable, in my opinion. Regardless of what else is decided as a result of this arbitration, I think the committee should consider whether the evidence is strong enough to block Zambelo for sockpuppetry. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.