Revision as of 13:05, 11 October 2014

Requests for arbitration

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

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Discretionary sanctions at Historicity of Jesus

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

Involved parties

• Fearofreprisal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Wdford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bill the Cat 7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mmeijeri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jeppiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Smeat75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• John Carter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Paul Barlow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Evensteven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Diff user 1
• Diff user 2
• Diff user 3
• Diff user 4
• Diff user 5
• Diff user 6
• Diff user 7
• Diff user 8
• Diff user 9

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. . (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

Statement by Bill the Cat 7

Statement by Mmeijeri

Statement by Jeppiz

Statement by Smeat75

Statement by John Carter

Statement by Paul Barlow

Statement by Tgeorgescu

Statement by Evensteven

Statement by {Non-party}

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 <0/0/0/0>

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

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

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

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

Involved parties

• Arudoudebito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Arudoudebito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Oddexit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Eido.inoue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

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

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Debito_Arudou#.22getting_fired.22_vs_.22quitting.22*Link 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/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/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/search/?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/search/?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 the specific WP:NPOV objection is to adding 10 words”. Editor response: “My objection is what those 10 words say… what the source said.” http://en.wikipedia.org/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 Misplaced Pages or Not to Edit Misplaced Pages? That is the question. I guess that we should all make the effort to edit. and

Welcome!

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, Eido.inoue! Thank you for your contributions. I am Quenhitran and I have been editing Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

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)

Request for Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages: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—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

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

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)

@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 04:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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.

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)

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)

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)

How's this? Eido INOUE | 井上エイド 🇯🇵 08:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Another test Eido INOUE | 井上エイド 08:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

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 08:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

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)

Article Baye McNeil proposed for deletion (Misplaced Pages: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: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Baye McNeil. I created the Baye McNeil page, going through Misplaced Pages 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)

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this page. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. ] (] · ])

External links in the body of an article

Hello, I'm Polygnotus. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the main body of an article. Generally, any relevant external links should be listed in an "External links" section at the end of the article and meet the external links guidelines. Links within the body of an article should be internal wikilinks. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Polygnotus (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello Poly. Per Misplaced Pages's request for more sources, I added them as external links within the body of the "Personal life" section, but apparently you used a script to auto-remove them. Should I just move them all to "external links" and reference them with a footnote? Eido INOUE | 井上エイド 06:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Hiya! We try to keep the amount of external links down, and normally, only one official link is included (see WP:ELMIN). Perhaps you can use some of them as citations?

I notice that your username is the last name of the article subject, Adrian Havill, which could be problematic, see WP:USERNAME. Hope you don't mind I'll leave you another lovely template. Polygnotus (talk) 06:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It looks like doesn't mention Havill.

And says that the editor is Kimberly Holmes, not Adrian Havill.

A link to Amazon to buy a book is considered a bit too promotional.

WP:GOODREADS is considered to be WP:USERGENERATED. Polygnotus (talk) 07:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Re #1, I assumed the asking for sources wanted somebody to establish that the orphanage "Jeff's Home for Boys" existed. Re #2, indeed the editor is not Adrian Havill in 2024. Unfortunately, the back archives on digital does not go back to 1961, which the article claims he was editor at the time. Like #1, I added that link to merely show its existence as a publication (dating back over a half century) as it lacks a wikipedia entry. I added the Good Reads just to provide variety of reviews or references to his works; There's Kirkus Reviews and many other large scale independent 3rd party sources (including C-SPAN and many U.S. NBC/CBS/ABC spots, but YT links not allowed) that reference the books and movies. I agree that the Amazon link should be removed.  Eido INOUE | 井上エイド 07:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

If they want to know if such a orphanage exists then they can use Google, you don't have to facilitate their lazyness.

Adam Cohen, writing for Time, called The Mother, the Son, and the Socialite a "clunky but engrossing account".

You are Adrian Havill right? Or are you his son? You can use the procedure outlined here to disclose a conflict of interest. Polygnotus (talk) 07:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

No I am not. My wiki sig has my real name. Eido INOUE | 井上エイド 07:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, so you are his son. Anyway, it doesn't really matter, just follow the procedure to disclose your COI and it is fine. I have added some sources to the article. Polygnotus (talk) 07:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to confuse you. I assure you my legal (<-- keyword) name now (<-- keyword) is Eido Inoue, which is why I made that edit. Feel free to Google /me/ or search for me on YT if you want to know why. I would've used the handle "Inoue" if I could, but there are literally tens of millions of people with that name and all the short cool variants are already taken. ;) Eido INOUE | 井上エイド 07:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured it out, thanks. I found some new sources we might be able to use via the Misplaced Pages Library. Polygnotus (talk) 07:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

TIL. Thanks for all your (very quick) help. Eido INOUE | 井上エイド 08:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you know of any more interviews that we can add to the article? Polygnotus (talk) 07:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm... not an interview per se... how about this one?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biography-adrian-havill/ (looks like this Wiki was derived from that)

If you stick his name in the Washington Post's internal search engine you can get stuff going back to the early 90s. Eido INOUE | 井上エイド 07:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, thank you. He also appeared a bunch of times on Countdown with Keith Olbermann on NBC. Polygnotus (talk) 08:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you officially know more about him than I do now. I'm guessing you got that from the Wiki Library. I'm going to have to figure out how to get access to that. Thanks again. Eido INOUE | 井上エイド 08:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately the rules are rather strict: It can be accessed by any registered editor whose account is six months old and has 500 edits.. So far you have 162 edits. Your account was registered in 2007 (aka more than 6 months ago). Polygnotus (talk) 08:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

And I'm guessing edits to the (talk) pages don't count. lol Oh well. Much thanks, sir. Eido INOUE | 井上エイド 08:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Just a FYI and no need for further edits or effort if you wish, but I'm pretty sure he's never been interviewed by Keith Olbermann on NBC/MSNBC. Joe Scarborough has interviewed him on (MS)NBC though.  Eido INOUE | 井上エイド 03:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna8895001 & https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna11727183 and he is also mentioned over at https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna6928967 And edits on your talkpage do count towards those 500 required for the Misplaced Pages library. Polygnotus (talk) 04:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

New proposed entry for the page:

"On Oct. 20, 2024, Adrian Havill was admitted into the Alzheimer's and Dementia Resource Center of Central Florida and is reportedly making 'good progress'." j/k

Thanks again. I would've never found those sources on my own. Eido INOUE | 井上エイド 05:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I love being old. Polygnotus (talk) 07:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

COI

Hello, Havill. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Misplaced Pages, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Misplaced Pages:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Misplaced Pages's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Misplaced Pages:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Polygnotus (talk) 06:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC) , you should include the users with whom they were originally editing and talking together with.

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)

Clerk notes

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

• I removed two parties added by someone other than the initiator, an arb or a clerk--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Editor COI/NPOV problems with BLP Debito Arudou: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/4/0/0>

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

• Decline as not ripe for arbitration. If significant BLP concerns exist, it seems the next logical step would be the BLP noticeboard. The volunteers there routinely deal with difficult and complex questions regarding BLPs and I suspect their input could help a great deal toward resolution. Seraphimblade 16:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• Decline. ^ What he said. Salvio 10:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• Decline per Seraphimblade. T. Canens (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• Decline per above. Carcharoth (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Issues related to Landmark Worldwide

Initiated by • Astynax 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/Talk:List_of_new_religious_movements/Archive_2#RfC:_revert_or_retain_the_recent_deep_revert
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:List_of_new_religious_movements/Archive_2#Rfc_regarding_Landmark_Worldwide
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Landmark_Worldwide#RFC:_Has_the_neutrality_of_this_article_been_improved_or_degraded_by_recent_wholesale_changes.3F
• https://en.wikipedia.org/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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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
• involvment in deletion of articles related to Landmark
• canvasing

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 Misplaced Pages. Advocacy is in direct conflict with Misplaced Pages'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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages’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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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, edit warring, accusations of COI, disregard for RfC results, and repeated use of sources which had already been determined to be unreliable at RSN.

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, 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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 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)

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)

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 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 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 Misplaced Pages: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, this was the second major incident where administrator Drmies was caught edit warring, just a week after being reported at ANI and 3RR/N for edit warring on Maup Caransa. 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. 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. 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_{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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying (2008)
2. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement (2010)
3. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche (2004)
4. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Scientology (2008/9/12/13)
5. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement (2013/14)
6. Misplaced Pages: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)

Statement by Jayen466

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

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)

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 <2/2/0/2>

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 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 11:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Accept, I essentially agree with WTT. Seraphimblade 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 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(talk) 14:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
• Based on a quick glance at the statements and the evidence that other steps in DR have been tried I am leaning towards acceptance. Will try to find time to make a more thorough evaluation in the next 24-48 hours. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
• Not sure yet. Given the topic ban and RfC, is a case still needed? Would like to get an update from those who have commented above who are still following this. Carcharoth (talk) 02:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)