Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:05, 26 November 2014

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

PD update

Just to keep people in the loop, the ETA for the PD will probably be closer to the end of this weekend. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 03:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that - I had been assuming that you would not make a start on this one until the Gender Gap case reached a conclusion. I hope that this one will not be so troublesome! On a point of procedure, does the Committee have the discretion to sanction editors who are not named parties in the case, or are they explicitly restricted to ones that are? Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 11:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

When I wrote the above I hadn't noticed your datestamp David, and I assumed that 'end of the weekend' meant 23rd, but logically it would have referred to 16th? Presumably the on-going search for a close on GGTF is still holding things up?

Since this PD may be being prepared at the moment, may I ask if Lithistman may be formally added as a party at this stage? The evidence presented clearly establishes a prima facie case for him to answer, and it seems only fair that the Committee should have the opportunity to express an opinion on that one way or the other. Thank you. DaveApter (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The only prima facie case established against me is that I showed up as an uninvolved editor (having only just then learned of the existence of Landmark), placed a tag, and tried to work on moving the article towards NPOV. Your attempts to smear me as some kind of anti-Landmark POV pusher have not worked, nor should they be in any way rewarded. LHM 15:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

To update; yes, we're being a bit delayed by the other cases, a bit because I'm afraid real-life activities meant I didn't get to fully read all the evidence until later than I'd like, and also just because more complicated cases naturally take more time and require more arb attention. In regards to procedures: the Committee does not sanction editors who are not named parties in cases, and at this point it is too late to add new parties as the time for evidence has closed. We'll keep you updated when the PD is imminent. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. If this is not possible at this stage then so be it. This is my first experience of Arbitration and I wasn't clear what the deadlines are for adding parties, or the procedure for requesting it, or whose responsibility it is to make such a request. I couldn't find any reference to these on the Arbitration Policy and Guidelines pages (If I missed something, I'd be grateful for being pointed to it). I had assumed that Lithistman would be de facto considered to be a party to the case since there are clear allegations on the Evidence page (with plenty of supporting diffs and examples) that he has been edit warring, failing to assume good faith, making personal attacks and shown disrespect for the Dispute Resolution Procedures. Clearly from the proposed remedies on the workshop page, I wasn't alone in making this assumption. DaveApter (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

You really need to stop flinging around accusations, DaveApter. LHM 15:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I should add that I did ask for Lithistman to be included in my initial response to the request for Arbitration , but this seems to have been ignored or overlooked. DaveApter (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Or perhaps they saw your request and just (accurately) judged that I wasn't the locus of the problems at the article. LHM 13:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

David, can you clarify your statement that it was/is too late to add additional parties? I know that this thread started well after the Evidence phase closed; however: DaveApter did request that LHM be added to the case during the Request phase, LHM did in fact add evidence during that phase (as any editor is allowed to do), LHM is and has clearly been aware of this case since the beginning, and arbitrators may "add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case)" during the Proposed decision phase. --Tgeairn (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

What's to "clarify"? He was very clear in what he wrote. I know you want me sitebanned, but it's ludicrous the lengths to which you're willing to go to try to accomplish that end. LHM 02:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thinking of Tom Petty

The waiting is the hardest part.... John Carter (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It certainly is. The PD is largely complete at this point, but we do need to wrap up a few final details. Seraphimblade 17:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

re proposed "Contemporary social phenomena" classification

I'm responding here to John Carter's comments on the workshop page today , rather than there because the close date for that page was 13 days ago.

• Firstly, I agree that the phrase 'Contemporary social phenomemena' is 'extremely vague', and I had some misgivings about it myself, and I'd be delighted if anyone can suggest a better one. However, I think we all know what sort of articles I am referring to, and I'd suggest it will do as a placeholder for now.
• Secondly - even if a more satisfactory and more restrictive phrase cannot be found - I don't see that that makes my suggestion 'unworkable': even if the category (pedantically interpreted) covers, for example, episodes of The Simpsons TV cartoon, I think there would be no difficulty in determining where the purported guidelines are appropriate and where they are irrelevant. DaveApter (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

"Contemporary social movements" might be better, but probably still too broad, because not all are motivated by ideology or dogma.

By "social", it would seem that you mean "organized", and by "phenomena", the group activity defining the organization.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 17:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Possible late, admittedly circumstantial evidence

Would it be too late to provide some admittedly circumstantial evidence regarding possible POV or other problems regarding one of the parties involved in this case? John Carter (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

This includes, from his early history here as an editor, a comment from DaveApter which seems to indicate he may have been at least an unpaid worker for Landmark here, his remarkable knowledge about stock ownership of the company, interesting because the company is according to our article employee-owned here, and a remarkable degree of knowledge regarding statistics and registration information relating the company's financial affairs here, here, and here. It was partially on the basis of such information that I advised him on his user talk page some time ago that if he was currently an employee of LM, or anticipates getting some sort of retirement or other compensation from the company in the future, that he could be seen as having a COI as per WP:COI regarding the topic. Although I haven't searched his talk page archives, I remember he shortly thereafter indicated that he would be taking a break from the topic. John Carter (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

That's quite a preponderance of circumstantial evidence. I'd say it's enough to at least consider a topic ban for DaveApter in all Landmark and NRM-related articles, broadly construed. LHM 19:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that his proposed guidelines are at least in part intended to reduce harm people associated with the movements involved might suffer, which presumably could include financial harm of a person with a COI, and that WP:HONESTY is considered a form of civility as per WP:CIVILITY. John Carter (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

This is one of the most outrageous slanders that I have ever encountered anywhere on Misplaced Pages. John Carter is accusing me publicly of being a liar on the basis of nothing more than empty speculation. I insist politely request that he withdraws this accusation and apologises. I have already stated my position explicitly on the Workshop page:

I am not employed by Landmark, or engaged as a consultant, or rewarded for promoting them, or being offered a commission for finding customers for them. And I never have been any of these. I'm not even currently one of their customers. I haven't even taken any of their courses for years.

Perhaps I should also add that I don't own any shares in Landmark and I never have done!

None of the edits he cites above from nine years ago entails his conclusion that " may have been at least an unpaid worker for Landmark" or that " a remarkable degree of knowledge regarding statistics and registration information relating the company's financial affairs".

The edits in question are simply a mixture of figures readily available in the public domain and hypothetical "reality check" calculations made in the course of the discussions on the talk page at that time.

John's memory is also defective in relation to the exchange between us on my talk page (which is still there). He said nothing about employment or presumed retirement benefits and I said nothing about taking a break from the topic (the only time I recall ever offering to stand back from editing for a while is on the Landmark talk page a couple of months ago during the period of edit warring by Astynax and Lithistman).

Presumably it is also out of order for John to presenting this so-called "evidence" now, when that phase closed three weeks ago? DaveApter (talk) 07:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Your narrowly delimited disclaimer is perhaps what John Carter finds less than forthcoming, and I certainly see the point of his taking an opportunity to raise the question here. Like other NRMs, Landmark is well-known to employ unpaid "volunteers" to do work normally done by paid employees in most companies (as has been the subject of more than one gov't investigation, as no employment and other tax is paid for such work). You didn't directly answer the question as to whether you have been a volunteer with Landmark. Why not? You might have clearly denied holding any license or rights from Landmark (which also delivers its courses through franchise-type licensees), having led or assisted at Landmark courses, etc. In other words, you could have disclaimed that you, your employer, family, clients and/or friends hold no business, financial or other interest or relationship whatsoever with Landmark beyond having attended a few courses in the past, but you again have not directly done so. Landmark is a private, limited liability corporation, and although the company is "owned" by its employees, it is not disclosed how this is held, how control is exercised or by whom. Disclaiming holding any stock is itself a non sequitur, as "employee owned" companies of which I am aware do not actually issue stock to individual employees. Nor have I come across anything that indicates that Landmark is in the habit of paying commissions for "finding customers". Honestly, why raise irrelevant points that start to look like red herring to my aged eyes? Nor are figures from Landmark's books "readily available" (beyond the certificate of incorporation, these are not public records), so the claim of knowledge of this sort of closely held information does raise questions, including the appearance of CoI, whether or not such actually exists. Your putting forward the "Contemporary social phenomena classification" wherein articles cannot address unflattering/defamatory information regarding organizations on the basis that "living individuals who are publicly associated with organisations could be harmed" again starts to look like CoI censorship around the edges (not to mention being unworkable: let's not mention reports that Takata likely knew about problems with its air bags for months prior to issuing any warnings—because living people associated with Takata might be harmed). I doubt that any of this will bear greatly on the case at hand, but the broader point regarding persistent bias raising possible CoI issues is surely relevant to articles beyond Landmark Worldwide. • Astynax 09:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

First, I acknowledge my error thinking of another editor who was a seminar leader. And, well, honestly, not everyone is as single-mindedly obsessed with Landmark as Dave, and at least in the beginning I saw, and still see, the request here as being an attempt to railroad Astynax, which from the beginning I saw as being rather unlikely to succeed. Also, the frankly ridiculous request to have a new guideline to "protect" groups including for-profit businesses like Landmark on wikipedia here is the reason I made these comments later, because the likelihood in my eyes that such a proposal would only serve those who have some form of investment in one or more of the groups involved is the proximate reason for my having made the comment at all. However, I also notice the to me hysterical overreaction and refusal to directly address the matter of whether you are or are not in some way a compensated or non-compensated "employee" of Landmark, and I find that extremely interesting. And the apparent misstatement, based on Astynax's comments above, about what is and is not a matter of public record is also very interesting if true. I would be willing to offer an apology for raising the matter if I saw a direct and forthcoming statement from Dave regarding the true nature of his affiliation with Landmark, but I honestly have no reason to believe I will see one. And the demand that the statement be withdrawn very much looks like a legal threat, and making such comments is itself potentially a very problematic concern. John Carter (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Really John? DaveApter's statement "I insist that he withdraws this accusation and apologises" looks like a legal threat? If you really believe that, I recommend that you request administrative intervention immediately. You can find guidance at Don't overlook legal threats, but I think you know that. --Tgeairn (talk) 05:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

""Insist"ing is a clear demand implying that some sort of action be taken if it is not abided by. Given DaveApter's pattern of recent behavior, yes, it is to my eyes not unreasonable to assume that he might consider it as possible legal action, as his proposed guideline is itself seemingly trying to engage in a form of paralegal protection of people like himself. John Carter (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt

Here is my last attempt to make my position absolutely clear:

I get no benefits of any kind (financial, spiritual or psychological) for promoting or publicising Landmark, and I never have. The same goes for anyone with whom I am related or associated. The only "interest" I have in the topic is in seeing that the article is fair, honest, accurate and in accordance with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines.

There - will that do?

Also, I have no insider knowledge of Landmark's accounts, statistics, share ownership or anything else. Anyone who takes the trouble to follow the five links John has provided above will find - as I have already said - that there is nothing that is not either in the public domain or speculation on my part.

My editing of the Landmark article is a very small portion of my total activity on Misplaced Pages. I'm far more interested in the other subjects I write on, and I only step in when - as in the last few months - there's another bout of attempts to slant the article.

I'm also concerned about the misrepresentation of my suggestion for guidelines. When I talked about harm to individuals, I wasn't referring to shareholders. What I had in mind was that, for example, Landmark has been publicly endorsed by large numbers of prominent figures - including clerics, academics, business leaders, doctors, psychiatrists etc - and these stand to suffer if the Misplaced Pages piece carries unsubstantiated allegations about it being a cult or brainwashing its customers. The same applies to a lot of other topics - for instance the Neuro-linguistic programming article is a mess for similar reasons. DaveApter (talk) 10:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Unclear, at least to me. I note that you have again chosen not to address the scope of your activity with Landmark. A Landmark volunteer worker would hardly be expected to receive financial compensation, and your perception of no "spiritual" or "psychological" benefits are fully in keeping with Landmark's denials that it is related to religion or engages in psychotherapy. Raising such points does not demonstrate an absence of CoI. Personalizing claims of CoI not initially aimed specifically at you, and your curiously parsed and narrowly delimited denials of CoI that fall far short of the concerns encompassed at WP:COI simply raise more questions than they answer. The hypersensitivity to, personalization of and convoluted denial of CoI seem very odd, and even more so the proposal for a new guideline that would limit reporting of potentially negative things about an organization or product on the basis that someone who has endorsed it/them might be "harmed" by association. As I said, I hardly think that this will be the focus of the arbs reviewing this case, but putting forth evasive-sounding rationalizations is something that might better be avoided. • Astynax 19:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps a way to clear this particular issue up would be to clarify whether or not you have ever worked as a volunteer for Landmark. LHM 19:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed. This self-declared "last attempt" seems to rather pointedly refuse to address some of the issues raised, and on that basis could reasonably be seen as simply a continuation of stonewalling refusal to address some legitimate concerns others might have. Also, honestly, the fact that you have proposed a guideline whose specific purpose would be to "protect" individuals who have endorsed an organization seems on the face of it to be clearly and directly in violation of WP:COI, as it seems to be, basically, an attempt to create a guideline to correct you as an individual and little else, and I cannot see how anyone would think that we are obliged to protect editors from what might well be seen as others from those editor's own possible mistakes and perhaps demonstrations of poor judgment. John Carter (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

  Additionally, I find Tg's semi-wikistalking below, in an attempt to "discredit" me in some way, rather disturbing. LHM 05:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

If the Arbitrators have any Questions I'll be happy to answer them. In the meantime perhaps the three of you should re-read the rubric at the top of this page. If you have any evidence of policy violations please produce it. None has been provided here so far. DaveApter (talk) 03:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• I simply asked you to clarify whether you've ever worked as a volunteer for Landmark. Your refusal to answer that simple question seems to be an answer in itself. LHM 04:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Although this expedition has been entertaining, LHM's addition of first a POV tag and now a COI tag, claiming that DaveApter has a COI and is a major contributor (where DaveApter has 15 edits to the article this year and LHM has 34) is really getting to be over the top. LHM has been seeing POV, COI, and conspiracy everywhere they look: beginning with their very first few edits, continuing to the next user name, and the next, and the next, and the next, and of course up to today. It just might do some good to assume a little good faith occasionally. I recommend that at least one of the two tags be removed from the Landmark article (and really, I don't see how either of them should stay at this point). --Tgeairn (talk) 05:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I asked a simple, straightforward question, for which a refusal to answer is quite telling. Now you're slinging some mud about articles and topics wholly unrelated to this case. Please stay focused. LHM 05:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that addressing a 7+ year pattern of behaviour is exactly why we have Arbcom. If you want to discuss the content of the Landmark Worldwide article, and your placement of the COI tag, I have started a talk page section for that purpose. --Tgeairn (talk) 05:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, stop. I'm not even a named party in the case, and the cherry-picking you did to find places where I've identified problems with POV in various articles over the years is just ludicrous on its face. What do you suppose that proves? That I attempt to work articles that I edit towards a NPOV? Well, that's... interesting, I guess. LHM 05:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

No sanction for DaveApter in proposed decision?

I am, quite frankly, shocked at this. You're considering a topic ban for 3 editors, and one of them isn't the most tendentious editor on that page? Very odd, indeed. I'd be interested in hearing the rationale behind that, given his behavior at the talkpage, particularly, but also in editing the actual article. All three of the current proposed topic bans are levied on editors who have, at least, attempted to compromise and work together at various points. LHM 00:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)