[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:arbitration/Requests/Case

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zambelo (talk | contribs) at 07:30, 12 October 2014 (→‎Notification of Action by uninvolved TParis: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Discretionary sanctions at Historicity of Jesus   11 October 2014 {{{votes}}}
Editor COI/NPOV problems with BLP Debito Arudou   6 October 2014 {{{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).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) Motion none 26 July 2024
Clarification request: Appeal methods for Lima Bean Farmer topic ban none none 12 August 2024
Amendment request: German war effort none (orig. case) 13 August 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) none none 17 August 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Discretionary sanctions at Historicity of Jesus

Initiated by Fearofreprisal (talk) at 13:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

This is a long-term user conduct issue, involving a large number of users editing a controversial article. Dispute resolution attempts addressing individuals are ineffective.

Statement by Fearofreprisal

I started editing the Historicity of Jesus article not because I had a strong viewpoint on the subject, but rather because the article was so screwed up and contentious, I was curious if it could be fixed. My curiosity got me topic-banned. [1]. (This is not an appeal of that topic-ban.)

The term historicity refers to the quality of historical actuality (or “facticity”) of persons or events in the past. It has only to do with “what actually happened back then.” The Historicity of Jesus is about history, not theology.

Because the title of the article includes the word “Jesus,” it attracts editors who have a strong interest in Christian themed articles. For lack of a less polarizing term: Christian apologists. These people tend to be journeymen editors, who know how things work around here, and they've been very successful at injecting theology into the article.

This is a link to a table that shows the top 10 editors, based on their number of talk page posts (as of October 10. Only recently active editors are included.)

There are a few interesting things to note in this table:

  • 9 our of 10 of these editors (in other words, all of them except me) appear to be Christian apologists.
  • 4 of these editors have made few, if any, meaningful contributions to the articles. Their involvement has been limited to reverting article edits, and writing walls of text in the talk page (much of which attacks those who hold differing viewpoints from theirs.)
  • Another 2 of these editors have made some contributions, but have still spent about half of their edits in reverts.
  • The editor responsible for most of the recent changes to the article ultimately tried to kill it by blanking almost all of the content, and pointing readers to Christian articles on Jesus (the resulting shit-storm is what lead to my being topic-banned.)

The table demonstrates something that is obvious to anyone who reads the talk page: the article is dominated by a group of persistent, outspoken, and experienced editors who represent a single ideologically-based viewpoint.

Because of the majority position they hold, and their experience with WP policies and guidelines, these editors often push the bounds of WP policy and guidelines.

As a practical matter, this situation can't be changed. While the article's topic is a matter of history, it also happens to be the foundation of Christianity. It's natural that it attracts the editors it does. And it's natural that those editors use their experience and knowledge to support their strongly-held point of view. It has been this way for the 11 years the article has existed, and no amount of RfC, DRN, RfM, ANI, bans, or blocks are going to change it.

For this article to have any possibility of being fixed, its chronic POV imbalance must be managed for the long term. The only tool you have that can possibly do that is discretionary sanctions.

Statement by Wdford

Fearofreprisal constantly declares that this article should consider “only what really happened”, but he refuses to acknowledge that there is minimal actual “evidence” on which to make that judgment, that scholars are thus forced to tease details out of the available documentary sources (specifically the gospels) and that most scholars conclude from the process that Jesus did exist although most of what is in the gospel accounts is not actually historical. This is WP:RS material, and it cannot be excluded on the grounds that it is “merely opinion”.

My edit did not blank the article, despite the false accusation being made by Fearofreprisal to this effect. A lot of material was in fact retained, all of it being supported by a scholarly consensus. It is largely the same material that currently stands in the article today, but it was much more summarized per WP:SUMMARY to avoid duplication with existing articles dedicated to those topics.

I felt that this move was needed because of extensive duplication and because of extensive edit warring – largely from banned editor Fearofreprisal. My edit was WP:BOLD but it was well received and was supported by almost all of the editors that had been working on the article at that time.

The various over-lapping articles to which my shortened article referred readers are not in any way “Christian” articles. These articles were the following – see here: Historical Jesus; Christ myth theory; Historical reliability of the Gospels; Sources for the historicity of Jesus; Historical background of the New Testament; Quest for the historical Jesus and Jesus Christ in comparative mythology – all of which deal with material that contradicts the “traditional” Christian views. To any objective editor it would be perfectly clear that NONE OF THESE REDIRECTS was to a “Christian” article at all – in fact QUITE THE OPPOSITE. This accusation against me is thus a blatant lie, and is typical of the behaviour that got the banned editor banned in the first place.

The accusation that I am a Christian apologetic is also a lie – I am not personally a Christian, and I have edited against anything that claims that the gospels are historically true. I created the Historical reliability of the Gospels article and the article Sources for the historicity of Jesus, both of which detail a lot of WP:RS scholarly evidence that leans against the historical reliability of the gospels.

Fearofreprisal fought a long and disruptive campaign against a strong consensus to change the focus of this article and to remove much of the content. Even now that he has been topic-banned, he is still tossing out false accusations against editors who stood up to him. Wdford (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bill the Cat 7

Statement by Mmeijeri

I'm surprised a topic-banned editor is even allowed to initiate such a request. As User:Jeppiz notes below, the suggestion that I'm a Christian apologist is absurd, on pages related to Christianity I mainly find myself trying to remove covert and sometimes even overt Christian apologetics. Also, closer inspection of my edits (rather than Talk page entries) reveals many more interests: science and technology in general, spaceflight in particular, mathematics, (agile) software development, history in general, WW2 in particular, linguistics, cryptocurrencies and probably some more I can't think of right now. I'm not fundamentally opposed to stronger oversight, but I don't think it's necessary right now, and in any event I'd like to see clarification as to whether a topic-banned user is even allowed to initiate a request for it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In reponse to Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs's question: there are long-standing content disputes, sometimes spilling over into conduct issues by multiple users, or at least various users have at times felt there were conduct issues. The problems aren't confined to just Historicity of Jesus, the two main sister pages Historical Jesus and Christ Myth Theory suffer from exactly the same problems and are frequented by largely the same users. The same may be true for a few other related pages. Any action that might be necessary on the current page would likely have to be applied to these other pages as well in order to be useful. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jeppiz

I've been notified about this request by the topic banned WP:SPA who has admitted they have a main account beside this SPA. I have several issues with this request made in bad faith.

  • The OP had made a table of ten users, including myself [2]. I'll get back to the content but a user topic banned from anything concerning Historicity of Jesus, including their own talk page, making a table with comments about users on that very page seems to be in breach of the topic ban. That is the smallest problem.
  • The OP claims that every user except himself is a "Christian apologist". This breach of WP:NPA is completely made up. The most active user User:Mmeijeri is active because of arguing against Christian apologists. Most of my talk page edits concerning Christianity are because of disagreements with User:Mmeijeri. Despite these disagreements, I respect User:Mmeijeri and think our discussions are fruitful. That goes for several other users with whom I disagree. Having differences of opinion is never a problem and usually beneficial for improving articles. That the OP groups us all together is as revealing as it is hilarious.
  • As for me being a "Christian apologist" I doubt even 5% of my edits at Wikipedia concern Christianity, and a number of those are against Christian views. Here are three such edits just from the last days [3],[4], [5]. Out of the ten articles I've edited the most, this article is the only one related to religion. The fact that I've made far more edits to Larissa Riquelme [6] than to Jesus probably indicates bad taste but hardly a Christian apologist.
  • The fifth column in the OP's table list "Christian article focus". According to the OP, every user involved has a Christian article focus except (of course) the OP himself. Again, perhaps 5% of my Wikipedia edits concern Christianity. In contrast, since July, the OP has made hundreds of edits of which at least 90% concern those same articles. It's beyond me how a a 5% focus on Christianity is a "Christian article focus" for me while 90% focus on Christianity is not a "Christian article focus" for the OP.
  • The OP list how often we have reverted but conveniently forgets a crucial detail. This very popular WP:CANVAS [7] praising the OP for "pissing-off those Christian editors" and calling on the people at Reddit's atheism forum to come to the article to help out the OP. A large number of IP vandalism and SPA vandalism took place before the article was semi-protected. A large part of the reverts stem from that convenient canvassing for the OP.
  • Just as the OP is untruthful about "Christian apologists" and "Christian article focus", the accusations against User:Wdford are also distorted. Far from "blanking" the article, the user made a WP:BOLD attempt at solving the situation by linking to a number of articles. That those articles were "Christian articles" is yet another lie. On the top of my head, one was to Christ myth theory, an "anti-Christian" theory in that it suggests Jesus never existed. Another was to Historical Jesus, an article that deals with what academics say about the actual person, very different (and inconvenient) for Christians.
  • Revealingly, 90% of all problems have disappeared from the article after the OP was topic banned. That is not because there is any consensus yet, but now users of different opinions discuss the sources. Sometimes passionately, sometimes too long and too much (I make this mistake myself), but despite the differences, we are all discussing and even finding common ground based on using academic sources, far from the claims about any Christian apologism. Users can have different opinions and still interact constructively. The OP was topic banned for failing this, not for any difference of opinion.

In short, the OP has made a table of users (possibly violating the topic ban), falsely accused everybody else of being "Christian apologists", falsely claimed that all other users focus on "Christian articles", falsely claimed that the OP himself does not focus on said articles, severely misrepresented Wdford's edits in particular, and left out his own disruptions and the canvassing at Reddit. Perhaps the OP's original account is here for the right reason, but the SPA Fearofreprisal is most certainly WP:NOTHERE for the right reasons, and I believe both the topic ban and this request proves it.Jeppiz (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Answer to Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs. It is clearly a subject that passionates many users and as Harry Mitchell said Several editors have not conducted themselves in a manner appropriate to a controversial article That is true of myself, for one. I've mainly limited myself to the talk page, and to discuss academic sources on the talk page, but it did happen that I reverted too fast. While no policy was broken, I could have left it and just discussed on the talk page. I'd say that that goes for several other users, some have reverted each other, some have reverted me. On the other hand, I believe in the good faith of all users except the OP. I don't believe the users with whom I disagree, and who have reverted me, have done so for the wrong reasons. They believed their edits to be in line with policies as I believed mine. So some of us have occasionally been to eager as happens in intense discussions, but for the most part we have all discussed with each other rather than reverted. Personally, I've taken a break from the article for a few days to focus on other things. In short I believe every user except the OP to be there for the right reasons, and the differences are due to different interpretations of different policies. The atmosphere has improved markedly in the last few days, with much more understanding and a common scrutiny of the sources to agree with WP:NPOV and WP:RS.Jeppiz (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Smeat75

Statement by John Carter

There have been conduct issues, including regarding myself. I believe a substantial part of the problem which initiated the conduct issues, the conduct of the filer, is now resolved by the topic ban of that party. To my eyes, as a person who has spent a lot of time involved in the broad field of religion around here, many of the remaining problems could not unreasonably be dealt with by consulting the reference sources I have found to date which deal specifically with this topic under the title "Historicity of Jesus" and "Jesus, Historicity of" and basically trying to more or less include what they include in roughly the proportion they include it and the recent book of conference papers on this topic which I intended to get to today before I found that the seminary library which has the book also currently has a huge room full of books they are giving away to all comers and which I am greedily and pointedly going through for reference sources and journals and suchlike. I find the filer's apparent categorization of me as a "Christian apologist" amusing, and think that such conduct here is almost certainly one of the reasons for his topic ban. I think it would be broadly useful to have discretionary sanctions available on a rather large number of articles relating to early Christianity, including early Christian groups which are experiencing some sort of attempted "revivals" and the significant number of somewhat controversial articles relating to the varied positions of Islam and Christianity and modern agnosticism or atheism on Jesus and his era, and would support such sanctions if useful clear and comparatively limited description of the contentious topics could be arrived at. John Carter (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paul Barlow

Statement by Tgeorgescu

In the light of WP:RNPOV policy, my take on the article still is and I here reaffirm it: [8], namely that fundamentalist Christians create trouble inside Wikipedia because they want it to affirm the inerrancy of the Bible and inside the discussed article the fundamentalist atheists create trouble, by pushing the contrary view (its mirror image), namely that the Bible is absolutely worthless for anything pertaining to historical research, despite it being critically sifted by scholars for this purpose.

According to [9] my only two edits which could (however vaguely) be construed as attacks upon Fearofreprisal are: [10] and [11]. The first shows my disappointment that a user whose edits violate basic Wikipedia policies makes a big fuss about the removal of his errant edits, and the consequence I drew from it was that the user is unreliable and unwilling to cooperate with bona fide editors, therefore he should be topic banned if the allegation (not mine, someone's else) about his edits turns out to be true (i.e. by actually checking what the quoted sources say by actually reading them). As the links show, I am no Christian and I have no Christian bias, I am a science-loving person and I have a pro-academia bias (aka bias in favor of reliable sources, as defined by Wikipedia policies and guidelines).

I have to say that none of these links does show a vicious attack upon the person of Fearofreprisal, instead I criticized his behavior, his lack of comprehension of basic Wikipedia policies and his abuse of editing privileges through misquoting reliable sources in order to push his POV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Evensteven

Statement by User:Robert McClenon

I have added myself as a party to the case request. I don't agree with any of the previous actions by the filing party about this article, but I do agree that discretionary sanctions are appropriate, not for the reasons stated by the filing party, but because the article is plagued by a combination of content issues and conduct disputes that make resolving the content issues impossible. I would ask that the Arbitration Committee expand the scope of the arbitration to include all topics related to the early history of Christianity, defined as the first century CE. Other articles in that area have also been troublesome. Historical Jesus, which is not the same as Historicity of Jesus, is commonly edited by SPAs with fringe theories. Gospel of Matthew was the topic of a recent moderated dispute resolution thread that failed. There have been previous Arbitration cases concerning the Ebionites. I ask that the Arbitration Committee open a case to request evidence of conduct issues (edit-warring, personal attacks, battleground editing, trolling) in the early history of Christianity. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The argument can be made that this filing is a violation of the filing party's topic ban. I would ask that the ArbCom accept it anyway, both as a boomerang (for a possible site-ban of the filing party), and because the conflict preceded and extends beyond the misconduct of the filing party. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answers to questions

One of the arbitrators asked whether the conduct issues go beyond those of User:Fearofreprisal. The answer is yes, especially if the scope of the case is expanded as requested. While FOR's conduct recently has been the most egregious, other editors have engaged in POV-pushing, personal attacks, and other non-collaborative editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Passing comment for Harry Mitchell

I have some involvement in this issue in an admin capacity. I came across an RfPP request related to the historicity of Jesus article, as a result of which I fully protected it to prevent edit-warring. When the edit war resumed after the expiry of full protection, I blocked two editors. The blocks seemed to dampen things down, but were only a very temporary measure. There are clearly long-term issues at that article involving multiple parties. Several editors have not conducted themselves in a manner appropriate to a controversial article but without necessarily stepping over the line into obviously sanction-worthy misconduct. I don't know if a full case is necessary here, but discretionary sanctions might be helpful in that they would allow administrators to more easily deal with the sort of sub-par conduct which creates a hostile editing environment. Arbs, this page is on my watchlist (for my sins!), but I don't venture here very often; it may be necessary to ping me if you desire further input from me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Discretionary sanctions at Historicity of Jesus: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/0/0/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

  • Awaiting additional statements from parties, but a question that might help focus whether arbitration is needed: do parties see there being issues with conduct of parties besides Fearofreprisal? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am convinced that there are complex editor conduct problems in this area. Moreover, this conduct appears to be significantly damaging article quality, and it seems unlikely to be resolved by the community without an undue investment of administrator time and attention. Accept. AGK [•] 23:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editor COI/NPOV problems with BLP Debito Arudou

Initiated by Arudoudebito (talk) at 01:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC) Prior attempts to resolve dispute: 2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Debito_Arudou#.22getting_fired.22_vs_.22quitting.22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Debito_Arudou#Arudou.27s_Published_Article_on_His_Lack_of_Japanese_Friends[reply]

  • Longstanding disputes about same issues of NPOV at BLP since 2008:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Arudoudebito

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oddexit#Request_for_Arbitration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eido.inoue

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Debito_Arudou#.22getting_fired.22_vs_.22quitting.22*Link 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Debito_Arudou#Arudou.27s_Published_Article_on_His_Lack_of_Japanese_Friends

  • See also Statement by Arudoudebito below.

Statement by Arudoudebito

BLP for Dr. Debito ARUDOU, a researcher, newspaper columnist, author, and activist for human rights in Japan, misrepresented its subject in violation of WP rules. Issue is not over content, rather a longstanding breakdown in editing process. For years editors misquoted sources to portray BLP subject negatively (and omitted sources portraying positively). Requests (from 2008) have neither rebalanced nor updated BLP of events positive to subject’s notability. As BLP subject, I request arbitration because BLP has unfairly hurt my public image, inflicting monetary loss.

Created in 2004, BLP according to WP metrics was edited 1241 times. Disproportionately, 14.1% (edit number) and 17.4% (edit content) alone is by Oddexit. Further, Oddexit’s recent edits violated WP:NPOV:

For years, section “Japanese naturalization” said: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debito_Arudou#Japanese_naturalization “As reasons for naturalization, he cited the right to vote, other rights, and increased ability to stand on his rights; he renounced his U.S. citizenship in 2002.” Original source did not say this. Published source revised this to: “As reasons for naturalization, he cited his life in Japan paying taxes the same as any other Japanese, a stable job, a house and property in Japan, Japanese friends, fluent Japanese ability, and the desire to participate in Japan's democratic process.” http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Debito_Arudou&diff=627227768&oldid=627225331

Oddexit amended: “Arudou attributed his naturalization decision to an enjoyable life in Japan as a “White Boy”, a comfortable lifestyle, property ownership, sufficient Japanese ability, paying taxes, the right to vote, the ability to counter his “you’re just a guest here” critics with naturalization, a satisfying job, and many Japanese friends – with the latter reason (many Japanese friends) eventually being questioned by Arudou himself.” http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Debito_Arudou&diff=next&oldid=627340339

Violations of NPOV: 1. Oddexit: “an enjoyable life in Japan as a White Boy”. Source: “I enjoy the daily mental challenges that a White Boy gets in this society”, i.e., people phenotypically different than Japanese get mental challenges, which I happen to enjoy. Oddexit’s sounds like I take advantage of White Privilege in Japan.

2. Oddexit: “sufficient Japanese ability”, as if my Japanese is only survival level. Source: “enough Japanese ability to do far more than just get by”.

3. Oddexit: “many Japanese friends – with the latter reason (many Japanese friends) eventually being questioned by Arudou himself.” Contemporary source: “I have plenty of friends (yes, that includes even old Japanese men in my village)”. Oddexit’s sounds like I lied about having Japanese friends.

On Talk page, Oddexit neither reverts nor acknowledges content of her edits: “What [is] the specific WP:NPOV objection is to adding 10 words[?]”. Editor response: “My objection is what those 10 words say… [it’s not] what the source said.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Debito_Arudou#Arudou.27s_Published_Article_on_His_Lack_of_Japanese_Friends

Oddexit has not continued discussion. Request for mediation on Talk page came to naught. I believe earlier steps of the dispute resolution process would be unproductive.

Will discuss Eido Inoue’s WP:COI based upon published personal animus towards BLP subject later.

Statement by Oddexit

Statement by Eido.inoue

Shouldn't User:Sweetandlovable and User:Mister Mtzplk be included in this as in "involved party"? They appear to be the ones who were involved in both the Talk and the Edit revisions. I'd like to hear their opinions too.

Dr. Arudou, obviously, is entitled to have an opinion on this and participate, but if you're going to include To Edit Wikipedia or Not to Edit Wikipedia? That is the question. I guess that we should all make the effort to edit. and

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Eido.inoue! Thank you for your contributions. I am Quenhitran and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! —ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 08:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Editor COI/NPOV problems with BLP Debito Arudou and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,Arudoudebito (talk) 02:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of edit at Arbcom case requests

Per convention, only the initiator, an arbitrator or a clerk (at the request of an arbitrator) should add parties to the list of involved parties. I have removed the two parties added by you. Feel free to propose addition fo the names to the initiator or an arbitrator, but note that the initial reaction is that the case will be declined, so you might wait to see if it is more likely to succeed before proceeding. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User talk:Sphilbrick : my bad. Wasn't aware that was part of the protocol. Just trying to be helpful. Thanks for fixing it, and sorry to trouble you.

Debito Arudou discretionary sanctions

Hello Eido.inoue. This is just to let you know that Debito Arudou, an article you have recently edited, is under discretionary sanctions. I've included some boilerplate text about what discretionary sanctions are below. Let me know if you have any questions about it. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Don't know

Don't know really. But your SPI is still open. Sometimes they close fast and sometimes they don't.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's been over a month. For some reason, I feel bound by unwritten etiquette to refrain from editing until the investigation is over.

Signature

Hello! I wanted to let you know that your signature does not adhere to the signature guidelines. According to the guideline WP:SIGLINK: Signatures must include at least one direct internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page. Your signature reads Eido INOUE 11:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC) (italics added), all in text with no links.

I realize that you aren't editing right now but when you do return to editing, can you please change your signature to conform to the guideline? Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 11:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this means I'm going to actually need a user page etc that isn't blank. :) Thanks for the heads up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.238.28.209 (talk) 02:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How's this? Eido INOUE | 井上エイド 🇯🇵 08:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another test Eido INOUE | 井上エイド 08:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That looks fine to me. By the way, if you don't want to make a user page you can also redirect it to your talk page to avoid it appearing as a red link. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get around to it eventually. Took me forever just to do this after an average of a minor edit or two a year on a Japan related page. Thanks for the tip. Eido INOUE | 井上エイド 14:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article Baye McNeil proposed for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baye McNeil)

Hello Eido.inoue,

FYI, a page you edited, Baye McNeil, has been proposed for deletion by user Nagoyabllue, and I thought you might want to participate in the debate: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baye McNeil. I created the Baye McNeil page, going through Wikipedia articles for creation to do so - whereupon it was approved for publication by an editor. All of the references (including the cover blurbs) were looked at and considered notable enough for the article…I look forward to your thoughts on the proposed deletion…Hoping you're well...Thank you!...Minusminority (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC) , you should include the users with whom they were originally editing and talking together with.[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Not clear what the problem is. Maybe WP:DRN or WP:ANI should be tried first before arbitration. Arbitration only deals with behavioral problems. Specific WP:BLP violations should be reported to WP:ANI if the user persists after being issued warnings. Conflicts of interests should be disclosed voluntarily, there is no policy banning sincere users from editing, e.g. Christians are allowed to edit articles on Christianity, same applies to atheists, etc. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Editor COI/NPOV problems with BLP Debito Arudou: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/6/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

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

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

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:
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]
  • 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]
  • Reply to Jehochman: I see mediation as being a futile gesture, especially given the messy past attempt where reporting of significant aspects of coverage in reliable sources was sidetracked into arguing for consensus supporting WP:OR syntheses. I'll note that even things agreed to by parties there have since been incrementally expunged from the article. The blanking of reliably cited material has also continued, which seemed to be the behavior that prompted the original mediation, and the PoV has since been spread to other articles. Addressing the behaviors offers an opportunity to quickly resolve the situation and reiterate Wikipedia policies and pillars that should apply to others tempted to use similar tactics. As the situation has only grown in scope, my take is that it needs attention now. • Astynax talk 18:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Carcharoth: the user block of an editor who commented here (not one of the involved parties named in filing this) will do nothing to address the behavior issues I raised here. As for the Rfc, it was another stacked attempt to circumvent the requirements for summarizing all notable viewpoints and basing on reliable sources in preference to WP:OR and anecdotal fluff, so neither did the Rfc move anything toward resolution. • Astynax talk 21:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Response to comment from Carcharoth

The issues raised are by no means settled, and the article is deadlocked in an unsatisfactory state, although it is not for me to say whether proceeding to Arbitration is appropriate at this stage. I did close the RfC Talk:Landmark_Worldwide#RFC:_Has_the_neutrality_of_this_article_been_improved_or_degraded_by_recent_wholesale_changes.3F which I had opened, because I felt that the interventions from uninvolved editors Drmies and Begoon had addressed my concerns and because there seemed to be no more activity in the thread; but this does not imply that everything is resolved. While it is a relief that Zambelo is out of the picture, I have concerns that Astynax and Lithisman are operating from a similar point-of-view and are blocking attempts to find consensus - as in this thread: Talk:Landmark_Worldwide#.22Religious_characteristics.22. Also, I would welcome an authoritative ruling on whether the accusation that I am operating under a conflict of interest is justified or not. DaveApter (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[36][37], edit warring, accusations of COI[38], disregard for RfC results[39], and repeated use of sources which had already been determined to be unreliable at RSN[40].

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[41], 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)[reply]

Response to question by Carcharoth
A substantial amount of cleanup has been performed on some of this set of articles (in many cases by editors who have made statements here). However, there is still a significant presence of poor sourcing practices, bias, and undue promotion of relatively obscure assertions in many of the articles related to Landmark and its proponents, detractors, and activities (as well as the larger set of "New Religious Movement" articles in general). The recent topic-ban of one of the editors and the presence of an RfC on a single issue do not address the pervasive issues underlying these articles. It is very likely that without substantive action, these articles will continue to languish in circular arguments and poor editor behaviour. --Tgeairn (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. LHMask me a question 15:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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. LHMask me a question 22:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

Other:

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)[reply]

The tally is in! Two weeks later, of the articles nominated, only 5 remain, and only because I have worked hard adding new references. And yet time after time, each time, the articles are targeted by the same editors, Tgeairn, Randykitty and Drmies, who will propose deletion of the article, and together, ensure that it is deleted, bypassing due process, and not allowing any sort of attempt at saving the articles by researching new references. Zambelo; talk 11:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Statement by Viriditas

As I previously commented on Lithistman's talk page,[42] this was the second major incident where administrator Drmies was caught edit warring,[43] just a week after being reported at ANI and 3RR/N for edit warring on Maup Caransa.[44][45] 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.[46][47] 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.[48] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by Jayen466

The piece mentioned by John Carter above can be found at WP:NRMMOS. Andreas JN466 21:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of Action by uninvolved TParis

  • This is to inform the Arbitration committee that I have closed a thread on WP:ANI related to this topic with a topic ban for User:Zambelo from any new religious movement article and any article related to indoctrination. This action, of course, includes an exemption for Arbitration.--v/r - TP 03:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find it amusing, and a little disquieting that I should be topic banned after opposing the deletion of Voyage au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous after the editors attempting to delete it did everything in their power to get me banned - well, I guess they've succeeded. After the whole Voyage au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous deletion situation, a number of articles relating to the documentary, and critical of Landmark were targeted for deletion, by the same editors who voted to delete the article in the first place (see above) - Tgeairn, Drmies, and Randykitty, who essentially went around tag-teaming articles that either concerned Landmark, the documentary, or which more generally concerned the anti-cult movement. For two weeks, these editors have bypassed due process by teaming up and nominating these articles for deletion, and again to get me banned when I attempted to save them by researching new references. Whether there is a concerted effort to push a POV is questionable, but that these editors acted inappropriately, and actively worked to bypass the normal deletion process is plain to see. Forum shopping, bypassing the deletion process, and ensuring that editors who oppose their proposed deletions get banned - this is not behaviour becoming of productive editors of wikipedia - and as mentionned above, there is improper admin behaviour at play here as well. Zambelo; talk 07:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=629273972"